The URL can be used to link to this page

CCPC Minutes 10/05/2006 R October 5, 2006 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, October 5, 2006 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:32 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed Caron Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Robert Murray Brad Schiffer Russell Tuff Robert Vigliotti ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Joseph Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Don Scott, Transportation Planning Kay Deselem, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2006, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHlC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF ] 0 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHlCH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROV AL OF MINUTES - Not Available at this time 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - SEPTEMBER ]2,2006, REGULAR MEETING 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Petition: CU-2005-AR-7942, Dr. Alan Meyers, of Alternative Treatment International, Inc., represented by Davidson Engineering, Inc., is requesting a conditional use in the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district with a Mobile Home Overlay, to allow a maximum of 34 care units pursuant to Section 2.04.03 of the Land Development Code. The subject property, consisting of 9.54 acres, is located on Catawba Street, approximately 4,800 feet south of Immokalee Road (CR 846) in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) B. Petition: RZ-2005-AR-8427, Polly Ave, LLC, represented by Tim Hancock, of Davidson Engineering, Inc., is requesting a rezone from the Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Residential Multi-Family 12 (RMF-12) zoning district with a density of 7 dwelling units per acre that would allow 61 multi-family dwelling units. The petitioner is requesting the higher density based on the residential infill provision of the Growth Management Plan, Future Land Use Element Density Rating System. The subject property consists of 8.68 acres for project known as Manu's Rezone. The subject property is located off of Rattlesnake- Hammock Road on Polly Avenue, Section 16, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone) 1 C. Petition PUDZ-2003-AR-4988, Waterways Joint Venture V, represented by Dwight H. Nadeau, of RW A, Inc., and Richard D. Yovanovich, of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A., requesting a rezone from Planned Unit Development (PUD) [which was originally approved as the Outdoor Resorts PUD] and Rural Agricultural (A), to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) for a project to be known as Summit Lakes RPUD, to allow development of a maximum of 968 dwelling single-family attached or detached units, and associated recreation areas that may include, but not be limited to, a clubhouse tennis courts and swimming pools. Access to the property will be from Immokalee Road (County Road 846). The property is located approximately Yz mile east of the intersection of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) and Immokalee Road (C.R. 846). The property is in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, and consists of] 38.3=,: acres. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) D. Petition: PUDZ-2005-AR-8147, Vornado Development, Inc., represented by D. Wayne Arnold, ofQ. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., of Goodlette, Coleman, and Johnson, P.A.., are requesting a rezone from the Golf Course (GC) zoning district to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district, to allow a residential development with a maximum of 3 dwelling units per acre, or 24 total dwelling units in a project known as the Vornado RPUD. The 8=,: acre subject property is located off Palm Drive in the Glades Subdivision, behind the Towne Center Shopping Center, in Sections 12 and 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) CONTINUED FROM 9/21/06 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN CONTINUATION OF LDC AMENDMENT CYCLE 2006-1 PUBLIC HEARING - To review and take public comments on the following proposed amendments - to create an administrative deviation process for the Bayshore and Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District (MUD) overlays; public law enforcement, fire and EMS facilities as permitted uses in all zoning districts, under specific conditions - TO BE HEARD BEFORE THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED CCPC LAND USE PETITIONS. ADJOURN 1 0-5-06/CCPC Agenda/RB/sp 2 October 5, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. We have two meetings that are going to go on here today, so I want to kind of get on the record how we're going to proceed. The first meeting that we're going to officially open up is going to be our regular meeting, but we're going to open it up only for two motions to continue items so that those people who are here for those items know that they haven't got to stay, because they aren't going to be heard today. And we'll let you know what those are when we get into that discussion. Then we're going to close that meeting and go into our continued meeting of the Land Development Code amendments. We have two Land Development Code amendments to discuss this morning. I hope it wouldn't take too long, but we have to get through those before we can go into the regular meeting for the hearings on the land uses that most of you are probably here for. So with that, I will open the meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance, if you'll all please rise. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, this will be the opening of the regular meeting for the Collier County Planning Commission. I'll ask for the secretary to do roll call. COMMISSIONER CARON: Commissioner Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. Page 2 October 5, 2006 COMMISSIONER CARON: Donna is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Here. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The item that we are going to discuss only at this time is the addenda to the agenda. And it involves a request for continuance, I believe, for two items that are on our agenda. The first one that is being sought to be continued is Petition PUDZ-2003-AR-4988, Waterways Joint Venture V, which is the Summit Lakes RPUD. And the second one is Petition PUDZ-2005-AR-8147, the Vornado Development, Inc. Is the petitioners' representative here for both of those? Mr. Y ovanovich. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich, on behalf of the petitioners, on Items C and D. Item C, we discovered that one of the -- the wrong version of the PUD document was in your packet. Some very important information regarding transportation stipulations were not included in what you were given to review. We didn't think it would be fair to Planning Page 3 October 5, 2006 Commission or the petitioner to hand something out at such a late time frame, so we're requesting that this be continued to your next meeting, which I believe is the 19th; is that correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Because information is not complete in your packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We definitely have in the past tried to accommodate continuances. It does help to do a more thorough job. Is there a motion from the Planning Commissioners? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer made the motion, Mr. Adelstein seconded it. Anydiscussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. That petition will be continued till the 19th of October. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. And the next one involves V ornado Development, Inc. We have been working closely with the Page 4 October 5, 2006 country club out there to accommodate their existing golf course, and we committed to the country club that we would not go forward into all the I's were dotted and the T's crossed on that. Unfortunately there was a death in the family on our side that delayed getting the agreement finalized. And with that, we're requesting also a two-week continuance so we can finalize that agreement. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I so move. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion -- there is a motion from the Planning Commission to continue that petition. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Vigliotti. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Y ovanovich, there were some missing documents in the -- both of these petitions that I've made you aware of. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you please make sure that Page 5 October 5, 2006 they're given to us timely so we can review them before the next meeting? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: We have one public speaker on Item D. I just don't know if that speaker wants to speak or if it's your pleasure to have that speaker speak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me discuss that. Item D, the V ornado Development. If there is a gentleman or lady here that wishes to speak on that, you can speak now. However, if you can come back on the 19th, your comments might be more relevant to the time when we're going to be discussing that petition. But because you're here today, we certainly would welcome your thoughts if you want to put them on record today instead of the 19th. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you, I appreciate your consideration, but I'll come back on the 19th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Was Item D continued to the 18th for certain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 19th for certain, yes, sir. Both of them were continued to the 19th, that's our next scheduled meeting -- well, no, it's our next scheduled regular meeting. Okay, at this time we are going to continue the regular meeting, and that -- I know there's a lot of public here for the two other remaining agenda items, but we did have the Land Development Code amendments scheduled first this morning, so we are going to have to discuss those, and then we'll go right back into the meeting that just started. Mr. Klatzkow, do we need a motion to continue to later this morning, or we just -- as said? Page 6 October 5, 2006 MR. KLATZKOW: I would do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to continue the regular meeting to later this morning? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So moved by Mr. Murray. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Mr. Adelstein. All those in favor? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion carries. ***** CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, we finally can reopen our regular agenda of the Collier County Planning Commission. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA (CONT.) Page 7 October 5, 2006 We left off on addenda to the agenda. For the public, just so you know, there are two that were continued; we'll not be discussing them in morning. One is the Summit Lakes RPUD and the other is the V ornado Development, Inc., which is over in the Glades. Those will not be discussed today. They were continued to the 19th. Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES With that, I'd like to go back on the regular agenda. Number four is the Planning Commission absences. We have a meeting scheduled for 8:30 on the 11 th and we have one scheduled for the 19th. I'm not sure if there's any in between. Is everybody -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I won't be here on the 11th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney will not be here on the 11 tho Anybody else? COMMISSIONER TUFF: I won't be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff will not be here on the 11th. That still leaves a quorum. How about the 19th? Everybody looks like they're here for 19th. And I think the 11 th and 19th are good. We had a carryover day on October 12th, the EAR. Is that -- if it does carry over, is there anybody that cannot make it on the 12th? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can be here in the afternoon, but not in the morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can be here? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I can be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray can't make it. Page 8 October 5, 2006 Mr. Midney, can you make it on the 12th, if need be? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Nods head affirmatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so we have a quorum for that day. That's -- between now and the 19th, that looks like all we've got to worry about. What would we do without computers. Approval of the minutes. We didn't have any available, so that's not necessary. Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS The BCC report recaps, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, the board approved a motion to have the conditional use for Keewaydin Island recreational facility to be withdrawn. The petitioner will resubmit and go through the process all over again with a scaled-down version of their request. The board also heard and approved the Brooks Village PUD, and that was approved by a vote of 5-0. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: What's the condition on the Keewaydin petition that's supposed to go to the Board of Commissioners? We had a vote on it. MR. BELLOWS: The Board of County Commissioners approved the petitioner's request to have the petition withdrawn. So that petition that you heard has been withdrawn. They are going to resubmit a new conditional use application showing a scaled-down and reduced impacts. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the chairman's report. We've had a long enough morning. We'll just continue into our advertised public Page 9 October 5, 2006 hearings. Item #8A PETITION: CU-2005-AR-7942 The first advertised public hearing is Petition CU-2005-AR-7942. Dr. Alan Meyers, of Alternative Treatment International, Inc. This is a conditional use on Catawba Street, approximately 4,800 feet south of Immokalee Road. All those wishing to speak or participate in this application, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. It is important that everybody that has -- wants to express an opinion on this does get on record today, so everybody will have time to speak today. And the applicant, Mr. Hancock. MR. HANCOCK: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Tim Hancock with Davidson Engineering. I am the project planner and representing the applicant, Dr. Alan Meyers for Alternative Treatment International. Also here as a part of our team this morning is, as I mentioned, Dr. Alan Meyers, with Alternative Treatment International. He is the property owner of the parcel, as well as the co-founder of A TI. Also with him is Ms. Julia Stewart, also with ATI. Laurie Uz, who's a project manager with Heilman Architects. Mike Hess, who is our leadership in energy and environmental design consultant, otherwise known as LEED, L-E-E-D. He's with GreenTime in Orlando. Ms. Karen Minelli with Wragg & Casas, a PR and marketing firm representing the proj ect. And Mr. Jason Mikes, counsel for the applicant. Page 10 October 5,2006 The application before you here today is a conditional use rezone for 9.54 acres for the purpose of developing a new site for Alternative Treatment International. A TI is a fully licensed residential treatment program that provides a non-12-step individualized clinical therapeutic approach that includes individual and group sessions, nutrition planning, fitness and alternative healing techniques. A TI offers a unique approach to addiction, depression, trauma and other emotional and spiritual disorders. Currently located in Clearwater, A TI caters to a clientele of professionals, physicians, attorneys, business executives and high profile sports and entertainment personalities. The property owner, Dr. Alan Meyers, is a co-founder of ATI and operates the program that exists in Clearwater and is planned to be relocated to this site. By way of introduction, Dr. Meyers holds a doctorate degree in psychology, a masters degree in clinical psychology, is a nationally Board Certified diplomate in clinical hypnotherapy by the National Board for Certified Clinical Hypnotherapists. He has been the principal investigator on an international research proj ect which has been published at the University of Arizona Medical School Library. Dr. Meyers has authored three books and 22 published articles in the health care field. He's developed a new psycho-therapeutic technique called perception therapy, and has appeared in national programs such as the Oprah Winfrey Show, Lifestyles with Regis Philbin, and Hour Magazine with Gary Collins, as well as having presented professional papers at multiple international conferences. Throughout his 30-year career in the field of mental health, Dr. Meyers has developed and directed numerous programs that have aided clients who suffer from psycho-emotional disorders. He's presently working on a book about the use of perception therapy and as a psycho-therapeutic technique to treat Page 11 October 5, 2006 psycho-emotional disorders and problems with health and wellness utilizing the mind, body, spirit, environment approach that was developed of Dr. Meyers. The proposed development is located on the 9.54 acres approximately one mile south of Immokalee Road and four miles east of951. Access is via Rock Road to the south of Immokalee, you then would turn right on Deer Run Lane, left on Catawba and you're there. The area surrounding the project consists of a combination of vacant land, single-family homes and a number of active sizeable landscape nurseries in the area. It is characterized as rural and designated as receiving lands on the future land use map of the Growth Management Plan. Immediately to the west of the project, Bonita Bay has proposed a community there which I believe has already come through the Planning Commission. I may -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it has. MR. HANCOCK: Okay, so you're familiar with that. As you're looking at the site, the top of your monitor is the west side of the property. And that's the side of the property that directly abuts the Bonita Bay project. You may recall an extensive wetland preserve area on that side of their proj ect. This particular site, being just under 10 acres, is dominated by about a four-acre wetland that is that entire -- as you look at it, the top portion of what's being proposed. The proposed project is not going to impact those wetlands. So we're pleased. And I think you'll see a lot of the environmental applications that are being brought to bear here are very, very strong. But we're pleased to see that happening. However, it will be required to go through the environmental resource permit with the South Florida Water Management District, due to the wetlands on the site. The structures that are being proposed are small in size and will result in minimal impacts to the site as much as possible. Page 12 October 5, 2006 On the issue of water management, as I mentioned, it will have to be permitted by the District, which is something that's a little different from, say, a single-family home that may be built in the area. While they have certain criteria for floodplain elevation, they're not required to get District permits for drainage. The proposed facility, as depicted on the conceptual site plan, has been designed to be in harmony with the natural environment in which the facility is located. This is a critical component of the overall proj ect. Impacts to the vegetation outside of the wetland area will be minimized where possible. A facility such as this is strengthened by a near seamless integration with its surroundings, and all reasonable attempts will be made to lower site-related impacts. As evidenced in the EIS and addressed at the Environmental Advisory Council, the site is host to the hand fern. Extensive effort has been expended to field-locate some 300 hand fern specimens on the site. And the project design has allowed an extremely high degree of preservation of this unique species. The efforts and commitments made by the applicant with regard to this resulted in unanimous approval from the EAC and probably one of the most enthusiastic statements of support I've been privy to from that body. Despite the applicant's best efforts through the neighborhood information meeting and direct mailings to residents in the area of the project, there remains some misinformation with regard to exactly what A TI is, what it does and how it operates. And quite candidly, I think that will be the center and the crux of the discussion here today. Because it is a conditional use, it means that basically the use is appropriate in some areas, maybe not in the others, but depending on site conditions and constraints may be appropriate in a large variety of areas. The following description I'm going to enter in the record was Page 13 October 5,2006 created in 2005 in the initial planning stages of this project as part of establishing the facility's physical and programmatic goals for this site. And I'd like to share that with you at this time. The purpose of the ATI treatment center is to provide a spa-like natural healing environment where therapy can be enhanced by the interior and exterior environment. Environmental awareness is part of A TI' s treatment philosophy, and as such is fundamental to the building's design approach. This facility will be a green facility, which means that energy, water, materials and indoor air quality will be primary considerations in the design and construction of the buildings. LEED, L-E-E-D, platinum certification, the highest LEED certification possible, is the design team's goal. This certification will demonstrate A TI's commitment to building a magnificent facility that is like no other in concept or execution. If they are successful in obtaining the LEED platinum certification, I believe it will be the first one in the State of Florida. In line with the natural healing approach, the facility will also incorporate the principles of feng shui in its large-scale planning and small-scale design elements. A TI is to be set in a heavily wooded site here in Naples. The landscaping varies in scale from large strands of trees to natural scrub palms and is the primary focus of the center's healing environment. The proj ect will preserve its natural state as much as possible by minimizing the development footprint -- Ms. Laurie Uz of Heilman Architecture will expand on that a little bit later -- and limiting disturbing the site during construction. Additionally, all site lighting will be full cut-off to preserve nocturnal habitat and allow night sky access for people both on the site and in the surrounding area. The goal of site water management is to preserve the site's existing infiltration rates, evapo-transpiration rates and surface runoff Page 14 October 5,2006 to the extent possible. This will avoid or minimize the excessive need for retention or detention areas. And I state excessive need. Obviously we are governed by the South Florida Water Management District and we'll have to meet their criteria. But this will be accomplished in a little different manner by the incorporation of rain gardens within dry retention areas and other LEED-certified approaches to trying to minimize stormwater runoff in addition to what the district requires us to do. Pervious paving materials are also planned. These materials will facilitate site drainage, infiltration and aquifer recharging by limiting the amount of impervious on the site. The buildings are set into the landscape and, again, are secondary to the land and the water. The administrative and therapeutic buildings are set back from the street behind a thick layer of trees and vegetation. The entry is really a side access drive, as you can see from the site plan. The access is not direct, but a meandering path that brings one into the site very slowly and unveils the administration and therapeutic buildings as one moves past them. Again, from Catawba this will not be visible, but as you drive onto the site and move toward the building, this is an elevation of what one will see as they enter the site. The project will implement the use of native sustainable plant materials to provide a nationally indigenous and relaxing sense of place. The design and placement of plant materials will carefully consider the site's natural characteristics and be designed to supplement and enhance the existing native landscape. The project will attempt to utilize composting toilets, low-flow lavatories and showers, grey water for irrigation, water efficient Energy Star clothes washers and dishwashers so that all linens can be handled on-site and handled in a manner consistent with the LEED principles in the use of detergents and chemicals. The proj ect will also seek to limit or possibly eliminate the need Page 15 October 5,2006 for septic systems. I think eliminate may be a little hopeful, but you can always dream. It is anticipated -- and basically the way it's going to be designed, and Mike Hess with GreenTime will expand on this a little bit later is -- composting toilets are the preferred method. However, we're sometimes dealing with strategies and concepts that the permitting bodies are not used to seeing. So we may have to have backup systems. In other words, the septic may be designed in essence as a backup system to the compo sting toilets. It is anticipated that this building can be 90 percent more water efficient than a standard project built to minimum code requirements. The project, again, is striving for the first LEED platinum building in the State of Florida. The certification will embody the facility's approach to low impact development, preservation of natural systems and resources, and the creation of healthy, healing interior spaces. It's hoped that this project will help to raise the standard of building and development in the area, and maybe beyond. At this point to further address the site design and building goals, I'd like to introduce the project manager for Heilman Architecture, Ms. Laurie Uz. MS. UZ: My name is Laurie Uz, and I'm with Heilman Architecture. Mr. Tim Hancock did such a wonderful job of presentation, he didn't leave much for me to add. But basically with regard to the architectural design of this project, we had two goals that we were striving for and guided us in our design decisions. One goal was to create a natural healing environment, and the other is a low impact environment as well. And they really go hand in hand, you know, you can't -- one doesn't have priority over the other. With regard to low impact, we're talking about buildings that are one-story in nature. We're talking about several buildings as opposed Page 16 October 5, 2006 to one building, so the scale is broken down and more in keeping with residential scale. Sloped roofs with larger overhangs. They're positioned in the site to take advantage of day lighting and views and again, really take the exterior natural foliage and take advantage of that, and as I said, create an environment that really is conducive to the principles that Dr. Meyers is promoting through his treatment. Again, as I said, Mr. Hancock did a great job presenting. I really don't have anything at this time to add. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, well, I want to see if the commission may have some questions of you, because I sure have got some of Mr. Hancock. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I have only one. With regard to the rendering that's on the screen right now, we have the building and we have the palm trees. What of the background of the meandering -- are those representatives of what? MS. UZ: The existing vegetation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that vegetation, if I perceive it correctly, is considerably high right now. MS. UZ: Well, you know, this is an artist rendering and-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought that. MS. UZ: -- it's probably -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, okay. Thank you, you've answered my question, I appreciate that. MS. UZ: But the design intent is to keep the natural vegetation to the greatest extent possible and to provide buildings that are consistent with that with regard to scale and materials and color palette. So it's a very unobtrusive architectural statement, let's put it that way. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Koltlat? Page 1 7 October 5, 2006 COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I had a question of Mr. Hancock. Do you want me to wait? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, let's get -- I thought while this lady's up, we could finish with -- Brad. Brad's an architect. He loves architectural questions. Do you have any architectural questions, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: These are beautiful looking buildings. MS. UZ: That's great. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What are you going to say? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, Brad's a tough nut to crack, too. But I have a question about the previous rendering you had here. Could you put that back up? Those buildings in the back, I can't read it, looks like bungalow? MS. UZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What does that mean? What is it? MS. UZ: Those are the buildings that would house the residents, the clients. They contain sleeping quarters, if you will, rooms, and bathrooms. That's it. It's just for sleeping accommodation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where do they eat? MS. UZ: They eat -- there's a building located on the site right there, if you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay, dining. It's a little hard to see. I'm sorry. MS. UZ: That's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So how many people would be housed in each bungalow? MS. UZ: In each bungalow there are six rooms. Six times four is 24 residents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the only architectural Page 18 October 5, 2006 question I have. I have plenty of Mr. Hancock, but -- well, I guess he's next. Mr. Murray, did you have any more questions of the architect -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, that provoked a question because I don't know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, did you have -- you had COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: For Mr. Hancock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You said that would house 24 residential, but they're seeking for 24 residential and 10 detox. MS. UZ: Yes, and that-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- so that would be 34. MS. UZ: Correct. Total. There's 10 -- let me back up. There's 24 accommodations for 24 residential clients, and -- in those bungalows. And then the building that's labeled detox, that accommodates 10 clients that come in for a seven-day program, if you will, that are going through that process. And then once they're through with that process, they either leave the facility or they go and become one of the residential clients. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it's their residents is what you're saying? MS. UZ: Yes. They put them in a different category. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any other questions from the architectural viewpoint? Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I want to talk to Hancock. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's just get done with the architecture first. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My question, just as we're doing the count, you're requesting 40, so where are the additional people? MS. UZ: It should only be 34 clients. Maybe staff? I don't know Page 19 October 5, 2006 which -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: There's a maximum of 40 patients is what's in our packet. Okay, thank you. MS. UZ: That wouldn't be correct. No. It's 34. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I believe that's all the architectural questions, ma'am. Thank you. Now, just so the audience knows and everybody, the court reporter has to sit here and try to type as fast as I talk, and I sometimes forget that, and as fast as everybody else talks. And she gets tired. And at 10:00 or close to 10:00, we try to take a IS-minute break. So I don't mean to interrupt the process, but we have to do that around 10:00. So that will happen in about 20 minutes. Mr. Hancock, I know we have questions, and Mr. Adelstein's patiently been waiting to ask you a question. MR. HANCOCK: Certainly. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: On Page 5 of 8, 4A, it says 34 maximum patients; 4B, 40 maximum patients. Now, the same thing is true on Page 7 of 8, maximum 34 patients, then maximum 40 at any time. Now, how do we explain that difference? MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem, Principal Planner, Zoning. Mr. Hancock didn't write the staff report, I was the coordinator of the staff report, and that is a typo. The maximum is 34. What it was, it was a transposition in the neighborhood information meeting notes, they had committed to no more than 40. And we incorporated that and didn't pay attention to the fact that they had since then limited it to 34. So it is 34, and I apologize for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Kolflat, did you have a question? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That was my whole question, 34 versus 40. Page 20 October 5,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because that is -- the staffwill have to make a presentation here sooner or later. Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yeah, I just had -- you had the neighborhood information -- unless it's too soon to do that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, anything of the applicant, if you want to ask now, go right ahead. And the staff report will be coming up following the applicant. COMMISSIONER TUFF: I'll slow down. One of the things at the neighborhood information meeting that you -- it was talking about the roads. And I don't know if you worked with them to make it so things will be good, otherwise I don't know if there would be this many people here, but you could help maybe pave the roads or things like that. But the one thing that I noticed said that they had requested a market research to see what it would do to the values of their home. And I don't know if that was -- did you do that for them, or -- MR. HANCOCK: No, we did not perform a market research on the impact of our facility on their homes. We have not done that. And the other issues, as I go through the final elements of my presentation, we will be addressing each of those issues that was raised at the neighborhood information meeting, including access and roadways. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff, is that all you have? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just a question. I'm not being facetious either. Would you know where the nearest fire protection station is, how far that is from this facility, being that there's so many people potentially there? MR. HANCOCK: Mileage-wise, no, sir, I don't know exactly. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Perhaps we can find that out. It Page 21 October 5, 2006 would be good to know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Hancock, is this is a crisis facility or a long-term facility? How long will they stay? MR. HANCOCK: The typical stay is approximately 30 days. And again, jumping a little bit ahead, when we talk about the operation of the facility, something that's very, very important to understand is this is a voluntary facility. This is not a commitment facility. This is not a Baker Act facility . You don't have police cars pulling up putting people here against their will. You have people that have made a voluntary choice to enter an improvement program to address problems in their lives. It's not inexpensive, it is not taken lightly, and they are pre-qualified and pre-screened. So we'll address that a little bit more, but that's the nature of the facility we're discussing here. There is a need in every community for a tremendous facility like the David Lawrence Center, and we are blessed to have such a great facility here. This is not that. This is very different and almost the opposite end of treating people on a voluntary basis solely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HANCOCK: With your permission, Mr. Chairman, if I could proceed and if there are questions -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you not finished your presentation? MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, then we need to let -- Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just had one more question. With regard to the staff, and I don't know how many there will be, I suspect about 10 to 12, will they be residing in any of these places, any of these buildings? MR. HANCOCK: No one will be residing as a permanent resident. However, staff is on 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and Page 22 October 5, 2006 that includes a minimum of one nurse overnight in a monitoring situation. And I do have some issues on staffing I'll be going over also. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I don't want to preclude your -- but I just want to be clear. So those individuals would be on duty and be awake during the entire time? MR. HANCOCK: Correct. Someone who enters this facility is monitored 24/7. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On duty and awake? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As opposed to some like the fire department who goes to sleep -- MR. HANCOCK: If they're not awake, they may not be on duty much longer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know some people who are on duty and not awake. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, so do I. Mr. Hancock, let's finish your presentation so we can have questions. MR. HANCOCK: And just to let you know, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to invite Mike Hess up to talk about the LEED certification. And then I am going to try and address the issues that have arisen from the neighborhood information meeting individually, including transportation, drainage and so forth. And we'll hit those items specifically. Not much longer, but that's the order for the board, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. HANCOCK: And with that, you've heard reference to the LEED certification throughout our presentation, and I'd like to ask Mike Hess of GreenTime to address a little more specifically the LEED concept. And some of the issues that we've seen in recent correspondence from neighbors who are here to object to the petition deal with septic and potable water use. And I think this LEED concept is so far above Page 23 October 5, 2006 that. And I won't do to Mike what I did to Laurie and took her notes and stole her thunder, so I'll let Mike address the LEED concept with you and how it applies to the project. MR. HESS: Thanks, Tim. My name is Mike Hess, and my background is in mechanical engineering. I'm a consultant for Dr. Meyers. And one of the things that we're trying to do with this project is to achieve LEED green building certification, and more specifically, the platinum level, which is the highest level. I don't really want to go through all the details of that system, but what that means in a nutshell is that this is going to be one of the most environmentally friendly buildings in the world. That's the design intent. That's the goal that Dr. Meyers has given us. It's not going to be easy, but we're certainly going to -- I think we're certainly going to get it done. One thing I wanted to say in regards to this staff report, Page 7 of 8, I just wanted to clarify something on Number 13 where it says prior to the issuance of any county site development plan approval the development must provide documentation to indicate complete compliance with this concept. And that's referring to LEED. And that's actually something that we wanted to just make clear, that LEED certification is something that we can't actually get until after construction. So we're going to design the building to be environmentally friendly, we're going to build the building that way, and then we actually get our certification documentation. So we can't quite do Number 13 as it's written right there. Just wanted to go through a few examples of what we're doing in terms of LEED and how we're trying to be environmentally friendly. We've just got three examples, I believe. The first example is just in terms of water usage. We know that Page 24 October 5, 2006 if we design this building per code, we'd probably use about a half a million gallons of water per year inside the building through our plumbing fixtures. And we've -- as part of the project, we've been analyzing what other kinds of plumbing fixtures can we use, how can we reuse grey water, how can we capture rainwater and use that. And when it's all said and done, we're hoping to reduce our usage to the point -- through plumbing fixtures down to about 200,000 gallons of water a year. Like I said, we want to harvest our rainwater and potentially use it for potable drinking water, if we can work that out with health department, environmental protection, and reuse grey water as much as possible to actually even eliminate irrigation altogether. So to sort of put that into perspective, the water usage of this facility that's going to come out of a well is most likely going to be less than a handful of single-family residences. That's our design goal. So very low water usage. Next thing we want to talk a little bit about was septic and sewage. Obviously we reduce our water usage, reducing the volume of sewage that's going to come out of the facility. And Tim mentioned it briefly a little bit about composting toilets. Florida Administrative Code actually does allow composting toilets and recognizes that they can decrease septic, and we're definitely going to take advantage of that, and are actually attempting to take it several steps further. I don't know if everyone knows a lot about septic, but septic is not a very environmentally friendly process. So we're really going to try to eliminate that as much as we can. There's a few areas where we know we can't, but the goal is to eliminate septic, especially for the bungalow buildings. And to be honest with you, if we can hit that goal, the sewage that comes out of this facility is actually going to be lower than a handful of single- family homes was well. That's our goal. Page 25 October 5,2006 And then the last thing I just wanted to touch on, and Tim also -- Tim stole everyone's thunder today, I guess -- the light pollution. And this is actually a specific credit that's written in that LEED green building standard, to reduce the amount of light that spills off of our space and to have full cut-off fixtures. See, that picture is actually the United States at night, showing that there is a lot of light pollution right now from typical buildings. And we don't want to be a typical building. We want to design appropriate lighting, full cut-off fixtures, have it uniform. Keep the light where we need it, at appropriate levels, don't scare away the nocturnal creatures, and certainly don't be a nuisance to our neighbors. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any questions of this gentleman? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, one other thing in that condition which I think you might not want is it says the site must be developed in compliance with platinum. Since nobody's achieved platinum in Florida, you've got five golds, a couple of silvers, no bronze. I mean, isn't that a dangerous commitment? MR. HESS: Yes, there's actually no one in the world could guarantee that. That's what my company does all day long is get LEED certifications. And you never know what a certification reviewer is going to do from project to project, because it could be a different person. So something might pass on one proj ect and not pass on another for a specific credit. So yeah, we cannot guarantee that. But I think I have confidence in our team that we will get there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And when you do this, will it be building by building? MR. HESS: No, actually we're going to go for it for the whole site. Page 26 October 5,2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And would it be under the new construction? MR. HESS: It would be under new construction, Version 2.2. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of this gentleman? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Mr. Hancock, what were you going to go into next? Would it be better to break now until 10 after 10:00? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, next are the specific issues of roadway drainage, et cetera. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll take a near IS-minute break. We'll be back here at 10 minutes after 10:00 to resume. (A break was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody please resume their seats. Mr. Schmitt, Ray, turn us back on, please. Thank you. This meeting will resume. Mr. Hancock, we left off with you. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Through recent correspondence from residents in the area, issues have been raised, and some of these issues were also raised at the neighborhood information meeting with regard to drinking water, septic needs and lighting issues. What is being planned here will provide substantially less impact in all of these areas than would the maximum residential density be permittable in this area. Now, this parcel is only 10 acres in size, and as you know, you have to be 40 acres in size in order to be a receiving property for TDR. So I'm not by any means saying that this is a receiving property. But comparatively, and I think Mike Hess did a good job of indicating that much of what we're proposing is similar to two, three, four, Page 27 October 5, 2006 single-family homes in external impact. To that end, ATI has agreed to participate in any MSTU that is formed for road maintenance purposes. The TIS in your packet shows approximately 90 trips per day, based on the nearest category to a residential facility, which is an ALF, or assisted living facility. One of the problems in doing trip generation reports with ITE is there are certain categories. And you have to fit yourself into a category, whether it's very similar to yours or whether it sometimes may be distant from your actual traffic impacts. And ALF was the closest thing. What I'd like to do is I'd like to review with you the actual staffing requirements and how that correlates into what the anticipated trip generation for this particular operation will be. And because we're dealing with a known quantity, a maximum of 34 residents, we can talk today about maximum traffic impacts. To serve a full 34-resident facility, first of all, these folks are -- they arrive here voluntarily, they are not permitted or allowed to drive to the site. They are met typically at the airport and are brought to the site by the staff. They are not permitted to have cars on-site. So they're not allowed to come and go as they please. It's the whole purpose for a residential treatment program. However, no one is kept there against their will. If they wish to leave, they are taken the very next morning to the airport and off they go, although staff tries to work with them with all capacities before that happens. But no one is kept here against their will. But assuming you have 34 people in residence, the staff required to support that during the peak period or what I'll call the period of more intensive therapy during the day is about 10 to 12 people. There's then a mid-shift that comes in late in the afternoon to early evening of four to six. And this consists of not just on-site staff and maintenance and housekeeping, but also speakers, Yoga instructors, Page 28 October 5, 2006 therapists from outside the area. But in total, you're looking at 10 to 12 during the greater portion of the day, four to six in what we call the mid-shift, then one to two people overnight, mainly for the purpose of monitoring. External trips beyond those that are required for the staff are fairly limited. For example, one of the key components of this facility is to teach people how to cook, eat and live a healthy lifestyle. That requires that the chef who prepares the meals prepares specific and exacting products for the folks that are in the facility. The chef -- and again, this is something that A TI currently does, it is not a new process -- the chef will go and hand pick his materials, his ingredients for that day's meals and bring them with him. When you have 34 people, you're not big enough to have Cisco rolling up with a truck every day. So the operation is tailored to the 34 residents. There will be at times some deliveries. And if we were to say one per day, we're probably over-shooting the mark. And again, this is based on the current situation in Clearwater, plus the fact that it is being more of an integrated residential facility here. So if we add those numbers up, up to 12 daytime staff, up to six on a mid-shift and two on the evening shift, we're dealing with 20 plus a delivery of one or let's say two a day. Twenty-two. That equates to 44 or 45 trips per day. That is the rough equivalent of four single- family homes. Again, trying to relate it back, there will be more in the four single-family homes built along Rock Road in the next year or so. There's nothing prohibiting that from happening. So I'm trying to draw that relationship for you because we really don't fit into an ALF category. That is more intensive than what we're discussing here. Regarding drainage, I mentioned to Dr. Meyers, unfortunately he has the position of experiencing what is probably a historic rainfall year in the Estates. I've spoken to some of the golf course Page 29 October 5, 2006 superintendents who do a very good job of monitoring the rainfall, and some of the courses in the area have experienced more than 60 inches in the last three months. Typically we get 55 inches a year. So the rainfall event is in fact historic, but it does bring to the surface the drainage issues in the area. This project, again, unlike any single-family homes that may be permitted, will be subject to the South Florida Water Management District. They'll be required to make sure that its post-development discharge does not exceed the current development discharge. And that's important. Whatever cubic feet per second we're historically discharging from the site, it will be required to mimic that in the post-development phase. We believe we can actually exceed that through the LEED concept and do a better job of minimizing that stormwater runoff. However, a key component of that is that -- and I've been corrected, I understand the Planning Commission has not actually seen the application that Bonita Bay has brought forward. They just recently had their neighborhood information meeting. And that's the property immediately to our west. But the one thing that is consistent is, as we came through the environmental staff, it was very important to them that we not segregate our preserve from theirs. And if you notice the aerial over here, you can see in the color changes there's a fairly significant wetland over here, just outside of some of the cleared areas along Rock Road, Cypress Drive and Deer Run Lane. And this portion of the project, Bonita Bay, has indicated will be a preserve which will connect to ours. So the goal will be for us to become a small part of trying to mimic the continued and historic flow that has occurred in this area. The operational characteristics of A TI, and I said this at the early outset of my presentation, will probably be one of the most critical components. Because I do believe that without information people Page 30 October 5,2006 tend to assume worst case scenario. If I were living in the neighborhood and someone said there's going to be a drug rehab center at the end of the street, would I be concerned? Absolutely. I do not wish to diminish or minimize anyone's concern, only to put forth the facts as they are and allow you to evaluate this based on facts, not on rhetoric or not on fear-mongering. The images that get conjured up I think are very different than what we've presented to you here today. We have talked a little bit about the typical type of client and the fact that this is a voluntary admission procedure. Clients seek out A TI due to its holistic approach to wellness, not simply to address a symptom such as eating disorders or substance abuse. Those that are in the mental health field know that those are in fact symptoms. There is a core issue that is driving that. A TI seeks, through a holistic way, to bring out those core issues and deal with them so that the symptoms are removed, are eliminated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, I might want to remind you we're a Planning Commission, and you might want to focus more on the planning issues involved in this project than the sales pitch that they use. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, I appreciate that. But I'm also aware from the neighborhood information meeting that the residents here are not Planning Commission members and these issues have been raised in letters to the staff objecting to the project. So I will tailor it in a little more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm allowing latitude today because this is a controversial proj ect and I want to make sure everybody has a record. You've had considerable time. You can still take more time, but I'm asking you to be considerate of the fact we're going to be here for quite some time going through public testimony as well. MR. HANCOCK: I certainly will respect your direction, Mr. Page 3 1 October 5, 2006 Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. HANCOCK: No violent felons will be admitted to this facility. There's no forced admission. Twenty-four/seven monitoring of everyone who is at this facility. It's a residential program, which means that it cannot occur in commercial or industrially zoned areas. It is a residential program and has to be developed in a residential area. In addition, a setting such as commercial/industrial would fail to meet the intended goals and targets and the treatment philosophies of AT!. Many of these types of facilities exist all over the U.S. in residential areas. There are some that are actually in houses on the beach next to other single-family homes. And it all comes down to the style, type of treatment and, from a planning standpoint, the restrictions and limitations through the conditional use procedure that can be placed on this project to ensure the compatibility. And I think staffhas done a very good job of doing that. The one area I would offer additional stipulations for consideration is in the area of access to the site. This year I think everyone read in the newspaper and is aware of the fact that Rock Road became impassable for the Golden Gate Fire District. They could only get a brush truck up and down Rock Road at the worst of the flooding this summer. While we have agreed to participate in any MSTU that is developed for that, I was directed to go meet with the Golden Gate Fire District and discuss the project with them and try and determine what needs they had. In doing so, the following is a list of items that the -- that Bill Silvester with the Golden Gate Fire District has indicated to me he wanted to see incorporated into the proj ect. All of these but item number seven were actually discussed back in May of this year. But item number seven has been revised to reflect Page 32 October 5, 2006 the more recent conditions and flooding on Rock Road. The first is that based on the current site plan, the district will require a minimum of 30- foot clearance around all buildings for fire protection. All buildings will have to be sprinkled. This will require a draft well, and in all likelihood a vertical pump, and flexible pipes or sprinkler heads to feed from the top of the supply line. Again, all buildings will be sprinkled. So fire protection is going to be required within each structure. The district will permit draft wells on the site until such time as central water is available. We don't know if the Bonita Bay project to the west is going to bring central water close enough that we'll have the opportunity to tap in. We have the problem of a wetland between us and that. It mayor may not be possible, but we certainly will keep an eye on that. Vertical fire pumps will be required and must have fire hydrant capabilities. Roads to the site must be a minimum of 20 feet in width and capable of supporting 32 tons. This is Rock Road, Deer Run Lane and Catawba. Specifically where Deer Run Lane and Catawba are concerned, they on their good days don't meet that requirement right now. So the fire district is asking that an all-weather driving surface be required to put a 20-foot wide lane, capable to support 32 tons for the portion of Deer Run Lane and Catawba to the project site. In addition, they're requesting something called a sand and tack coat. It basically is a surface coat that helps reduce the erosion of the roadway due to rainfall. This is a responsibility of A TI as a condition of this project. And we've accepted that responsibility. Per my conversation with Bill Silvester on Monday of this week -- and I e-mailed him and called him and had asked for confirmation on this language. As I stand here today, I don't have it in front of me. He was one of the few fire officials that wasn't here today. I did ask him to attend the meeting, if it was possible. Page 33 October 5, 2006 But what Mr. Silvester has required is that the petitioner, upon notice from the Golden Gate Fire District that Rock Road is impassable will be required to -- and he used the term blacktop or pave Rock Road, Deer Run Lane and Catawba Street from Immokalee to the project site. That in and of itself is a three to $500,000 line item. A TI is here today to agree to that stipulation. And the last item is to look to the south to the utility issues. I'll be providing a copy of this addenda as part of the record and have additional copies for you to review, and I'll pass those out to you as I conclude my remarks. I know there are public speakers on the item. I know there are concerns out there. And our goal today was to put as much additional information forward to the folks that are in attendance here today so that they can make their own evaluation based on fact. At this time of course our team is available to answer any questions you may have, as am I. We certainly request, Mr. Chairman, the opportunity to respond to any comments addressing the project that arise from the public. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's standard what we do. And I'd like to ask the commission that -- first of all, the staffs going to be making their presentation. Are there any questions of the applicant at this time from any of the commissioners? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, after the public, could we bring the applicant back? Because I have questions about what kind of therapy. But we may want to wait and see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He just asked for a rebuttal, which, that's what we normally -- we typically do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll wait until then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Tim, I have a slew of questions. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if nobody else has any, I'll start on Page 34 October 5,2006 mIne. I read the literature that was provided. I understand they're up in St. Pete or Clearwater or someplace like that. It said that you're going to be bringing most of your clientele, because -- the traffic impacts were minimized because most of the clientele was coming from out of the area, they're going to be flown in, you're going to have a car or something to go pick them up at the airport. And generally because they're flown in, they don't have many visitors. Is that true? MR. HANCOCK: That's true. In fact, visitor are discouraged in a residential treatment program like this for the duration of their stay. You certainly can't prohibit it, and sometimes it may be in the best interest. But visitors are discouraged in this type of facility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why are they -- if the clients aren't here, why are they moving the facility here and bringing the clients in? Why don't they put the facility in St. Petersburg? MR. HANCOCK: Well, the clients are from all over the nation, all over the world. So the location of the facility has as much to do with where it can be the most effective that it can be. Currently in Clearwater they have -- the treatment location and the residential location are not co-located. When Dr. Meyers began looking for a location, quite honestly, the clientele that A TI receives mirrors the demographics of Naples to a great degree. It was a natural fit. And so they sought out sites. This is where they felt was most appropriate. And beyond that I'll defer to Mr. Meyers to address locational issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know anything about their current facility in Clearwater? MR. HANCOCK: I know some about it. If you have direct operational questions, I'd love Dr. Meyers to address those with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know if it's a freestanding building, a dedicated building? Page 35 October 5,2006 MR. HANCOCK: The treatment facilities -- I'll tell you what, rather than giving you a general answer, let me ask Dr. Meyers to address that question for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. DR. MEYERS: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you state your name for the record, please. DR. MEYERS: Dr. Alan Meyers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I guess you're going to -- can you describe your current facility? DR. MEYERS: Yeah. The way we're doing it now is we do our therapy in our suite of offices, and that's where the therapy day takes place Monday through Friday. The living environment for the clients is apartment living. And we lease apartments from an upscale apartment complex. We have four apartments which are three-bedroom, two-bath apartments, nicely furnished, air conditioned, cable TV, et cetera at the complex, which is a gated complex. So it's an upper scale kind of a place. There's a swimming pool, tennis courts, jogging track, workout room, Jacuzzi for the clients' use. And also our clients go to a spa that's right near our place in Palm Harbor, and they go there three times a week and work out as well. So physical fitness is a part of the holistic treatment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your current operation for the residences are in a multi-family structure. DR. MEYERS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And your offices are in a commercial district? DR. MEYERS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know what you consider high class, but the multi-family structure, what's the rents that are being paid there? Page 36 October 5,2006 DR. MEYERS: They're around 1,600 a month. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know some residences in that structure pay $1,000 a month? DR. MEYERS: Maybe a one-bedroom. I'm not really sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A three-bedroom. I pulled some records from St. Petersburg and found some information out about -- DR. MEYERS: This is in -- it's in Dunedin, actually. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you have a gentleman that lives there, his name is Heinert, H-E-I-N-E-R-T. He says he was quite shocked to see what appears to be pictures of his building in your public relations brochure. He also found pictures of the complex's pool and gym advertised as the company's client living accommodations. There was no mentions that the accommodations were an apartment complex. Heinert said he pays 1,000 a month -- 1,050 a month for his three-bedroom apartment. DR. MEYERS: That was from a complex that we used a year ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This was from an article dated February 15, 2006 in the St. Petersburg Times. DR. MEYERS: Yeah, we've moved since that time. I'm aware of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you ever try to place your facility somewhere nearby in St. Petersburg? DR. MEYERS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know where the town of Oldsmar is? MR. MEYER: Yeah, right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you ever try to place your facility in Oldsmar? DR. MEYERS: We did. We had looked into a facility in Oldsmar at one time. This was maybe three or four years ago. And it wasn't the right fit for us for a lot of different reasons, but we decided Page 37 October 5, 2006 not to go in that direction. We felt that it was better for us, rather than obtaining a place that's already built, for our philosophy of the kind of building that we want in terms of a green facility that's health-oriented and a healthy facility for our clients, we felt that it was in our best interest as a company to build from scratch. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Didn't you have a contract to buy the land in Oldsmar? DR. MEYERS: We had a temporary contract to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Didn't you go before the Oldsmar mayor and city council and try to obtain the zoning because you were in an Estates district there? And the mayor says, and I quote, "I am not in disagreement with the facility," Oldsmar Mayor Jerry Breveland said, "put it where it is zoned. You put these facilities in residential areas, I am not going to support that." In fact, they did not. DR: MEYERS: At that time that's true. We felt that the facility would work in that area. We felt that it did. And we thought that it would. And we asked permission, and that's the way it went. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're in an Estates area now, you realize you -- you're in an agricultural area, which is Estates -- DR. MEYERS: Well, this in comparison to what we were looking at in Oldsmar is day and night. That was an existing facility already. The acreage wasn't near the size. It didn't give us the opportunity to put a buffer between the existing homes and neighbors and our facility. It didn't give us the privacy, the anonymity, the confidentiality that we need for our clients. It just wasn't the right fit there, so we didn't pursue it any further. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From what I read in the paper, it wouldn't have done you much good. You were denied. The staff that you have, are they all experienced in treating the patients that you have? DR. MEYERS: Yeah, our clinical staff, we don't hire anyone Page 38 October 5, 2006 without a Master's Degree and at least 10 years experience, as well as being licensed in the State of Florida. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are they coming with you to your facility? DR. MEYERS: Some may. Or we may hire probably from within here, from within Collier County and the Naples area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I have a lot of other questions of Mr. Hancock, more planning issues. But at least he had you up here to clarify these issues. Thank you, sir. DR. MEYERS: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, one of the issues is the roads. And I think it's interesting that the Golden Gate Fire Department, when they asked you to put the road in, you with your experience know that roads don't go in quite that simple. I wish they did, because then our transportation department would be caught up. I'm curious as to -- by blacktopping the roads, are you considering blacktopping the existing limerock and base, if it is limerock and base that's there? Are you doing it to any particular standards? What was your thought process on that? MR. HANCOCK: Based on the request from the District, I utilized the county's adopted standard in my response to them of six inches of limerock base compacted with two inches of asphalt on top of that, at a minimum width of 18 feet. And I have asked for the District to respond if that's acceptable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know you've got stabilized base to go underneath the limerock? And you know you've got drainage to adhere to for the impervious surface you're putting on the road for both sides? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. Those are all standard engineering practices when you construct a roadway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're including all of that into your cost of three to 500,000 for nearly a mile or more of roadway? Page 39 October 5, 2006 MR. HANCOCK: My cost estimate actually comes from Collier County, from an e-mail they sent to a resident in the area asking about the potential cost of the roadway. So their numbers came out to 300,000, and that seemed a little low to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That sure does. I put roads in all day long and that is considerably low. I wish that wasn't true. MR. HANCOCK: And to be honest, they had an estimate of six hundred and some odd thousand, but it was for the entirety of Rock Road and the entirety of Catawba. And I've limited it to from Immokalee Road basically to our facility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before the day's over, transportation will be commenting on it and things like that, so -- You talked about discharge of water on this. You're going to retain your on-site water flows and discharge them to historic flows, I would assume that's what you were getting at? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know that in Golden Gate Estates in the rural area we've had considerable flooding. Part of the problem with the flooding is that historically off-site flows have been sheet flowing across the lands out there. Every time you build a house -- and in fact Clarence Tears recently commented on it in the Brent Batton's column in today's paper, every time you put another point in there, that raises the elevation and pushes more of that water to another direction. You're not accepting any off-site flows across the areas that you're filling, or through the system? MR. HANCOCK: As you go through the District process, if there are off-site flows that have historically traveled across your land, the District requires you to accept them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was talking to our district-- head of our stormwater management area here, and he indicated that the District doesn't address those issues yet, and that's something that Page 40 October 5,2006 they need to look in as a result of the recent flooding in Golden Gate Estates. I wanted to see if you had addressed them from your engineering firm. But apparently that wasn't looked at. MR. HANCOCK: This is not a site development plan, it's a rezone. So the ERP process, which we have to go through with the District, is a standalone process. And all I can tell you is whatever regulations are in place, we will of course comply with them. If there are known quantities in the area and known issues beyond that criteria, then we certainly will do our best to incorporate them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can tell you, south Florida doesn't look at those yet, and you're right, it may not be part of the codes today. So that's the alternatives that we can take a look at. The maintenance of the road system that would be installed if it is to be installed, how did you propose to handle that? MR. HANCOCK: Well, for Deer Run Lane and Catawba, the improvement of that to a minimum width and load capacity, as requested by the fire district, is something we would do unilaterally. And we've checked with our legal counsel as to whether or not we have the right to make those improvements for that section, and it appears that we do. For Rock Road, if we are required to blacktop it, if we're to have the kind of conditions next year we experienced this year, it becomes upon us to get that permitted and get it constructed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know if that routing system for that roadway is owned by the public, or is it privately owned? MR. HANCOCK: It's a private road. It's not owned by Collier County . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, do you have permission from the property owners along that entire road section then to pave their road to convenience your facility? MR. HANCOCK: As I stand here today, no. I equally don't Page 41 October 5, 2006 think, based on the level of complaints, that if somebody were coming in and paving the road to county standards there would be a tremendous fight against that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you think that if someone was coming in to pave the road to county standards to put a facility in that may not be popular with the neighborhood that the adjoining property owners would go along with it? MR. HANCOCK: If they don't want the project there and by agreeing to the road it becomes there? No, they can adopt whatever reasons they wish to oppose anything they wish. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just trying to figure out how you're going to enact your commitments to the fire department if you run into roadblocks like that. On your plans -- let me see what questions I haven't asked, I have a lot of questions of staff. Give me a second here. In your staff pre-application conditional use, where you all set up your first original meeting with the staff, Dr. Alan Meyers apparently had been in touch with staff and wanted to talk about using the district that he bought the land in for residential treatment substance abuse program for approximately 12 people at a time. Is that still consistent with what you're telling us today? MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. At that time he had a contract to purchase one of the parcels, not both. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So at the pre-ap. they had anticipated 12. Your purchase of more parcels increased the 12 to 34? MR. HANCOCK: That's my understanding, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the questions I have right now, Tim. I'll have a few of staff when we get to that point. Thank you. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions while Mr. Hancock is up here? (No response.) Page 42 October 5,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, staffreport. MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, my name is Kay Deselem, and I'm a principal planner with the zoning and land development review department. And I'm here to present the staff report. I also have with me Summer Araque, who is an environmental review staff person. And of course transportation staff is also here. Before I start, I wanted to clarify a couple of issues, if I may, with Mr. Hancock's team's presentation. Condition Number 13 that Commissioner Schiffer had mentioned that they may not want to commit to, that was a commitment made by the petitioner that they would meet LEED standards. So I just wanted to make that point known. They said they had an issue with the timing. I talked with Tim during the break, and if in fact the petition goes forward with a recommendation of approval, perhaps we can come to some agreement on that timing. Because he says they might need time after the facility opens to work through some of the issues to meet the certification. So maybe a time frame of three months, six months, something like that might be more appropriate to provide certification to the county, stating that they've met the platinum standards of the LEED program. Because it says that they're supposed to meet it by the site development plan approval. And as they explained and as I understand, they cannot do that. And in the architect's presentation, I heard a commitment to only do one-story buildings. And the way the current site plan is shown limits the height to 35 feet, but it doesn't say stories. Of course it seems logical that 35 feet would be one-story, but one doesn't know. And in the presentation by Tim Hancock, he mentioned that the clients here would only be voluntary, there would be no Baker Act persons here. And that is not reflected in anything within the recommendations of staff. So if you wanted to include that limitation, Page 43 October 5,2006 you could do so. And utility connection, they said something about they were going to try to do that. They weren't sure what they could do. And I wanted to note that one of the conditions of staff from utility staff is that they must connect within a certain time frame. It's my understanding, in working with the project to the west, Immokalee Road rural south, that they are within the Orangetree utility area, and it is their plan to connect. So there may be availability to connect if in fact they're in the Orangetree franchise area. And the discussion about the fire and -- the fire conditions and the roadway, one of the things I wanted to mention, that yes, that they need to limit or to clarify that the road would be built to Lee County -- or Lee -- I'm sorry, LDC standards. Flashback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the old days, Kay, you're here now. MS. DESELEM: Flashback from many years ago, sorry. For LDC standards for a private road. And those were the ones that I wanted to mention. Mr. Hancock already corrected the fact that Immokalee Road rural south has not been to hearings yet. It's still in the process, it's going through. I did have a few corrections to make on the staff report, if I could before I start. In the surrounding land use discussion, it notes that the land to the north is undeveloped. That was based on the aerial photograph. I now understand that a single-family home is being constructed on that tract. And on Page 5 of the staff report on item three, it talks about the fact that the south is undeveloped and in fact, as referenced in the adjacent zoning, there is a house to the south. And as I mentioned earlier and tried to clarify, condition number three had information about the maximum of 40 patients, which obviously is not correct, it should be 34. Page 44 October 5,2006 I wanted to clarify in condition two where it says it's limited to a maximum of 24 residential clients, I think it would be appropriate to add after the 24 number to add care units, limited to residential clients. So that it would be more clear that these are in fact care units as defined in the LDC. Those are all the corrections I have. I will go over the staff report quickly, because I know you have questions anyway. But the staff report was submitted to you and you do have it. Before I go on, let me note that I did give you a packet of letters during the break. These letters were submitted to me either by fax or e-mail after your packets went out. So that's why you didn't have them before. And I understand some of you have access to e-mail, some don't. Some want to get them bye-mail, some don't. So the easiest thing for me to do to make sure everybody had them, unfortunately due to the time, is you have them now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, before we go further, the commission did receive these. They were handed out during the break. We would need a recommendation to accept them into evidence. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicates.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti makes such a recommendation. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Adelstein seconds it. Does anybody -- discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. Page 45 October 5, 2006 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Okay, the packet's going to be --- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, I'm going to vote no, because I would never have time to read that many letters, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm sorry, it was 8-1. One no. That means the motion carries, it is accepted into evidence. MS. DESELEM: And again, staff has no control over that. If they come in after the packets go out, we have to bring it to you at the hearing. The staff report was prepared for you and submitted to you along with the background information, copies of the application. And we have described the project, and the applicant went into detail about that as well. And you have the surrounding land use and zoning on Page 2. And then you have a depiction of that again in an aerial photograph on Page 3 in -- at the bottom of Page 3 you have the Growth Management Plan analysis. And as noted, this is in the rural fringe mixed use district receiving lands. And the receiving lands are designed to accommodate specific nonresidential uses such as this facility. So the use is consistent with the FLUE and FLUM, the maps that go with it. Environmental staff has reviewed it. This petition was heard by the EAC. And we have incorporated the conditions both from that staff and from the EAC. And Summer is here to discuss that or answer any questions, if you have them. The transportation element is included. And again, as I spoke before, we do have transportation staff here that can respond to any questions you have. Staff did draw the conclusion for our recommendation that this petition request is consistent with the GMP. Page 46 October 5, 2006 We did provide an analysis at the bottom of Page 4, beginning, and it notes that you need to make certain findings. It lists those three findings. And consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan is the first one. And staff is recommending, as I said, that it be found consistent. And the second item for consideration is ingress and egress to the property. And we have worked with the applicant and transportation staff, and believe that we have come up with a roadway condition that adequately addresses the ingress and egress to the property . And we've reviewed the effect the conditional use would have on the neighborhood, and notes that it is appropriate by the way that it is a conditional use, that allows it to be heard in a public hearing so that people can come and make their feelings known. But we do believe that it is appropriate, given the environmental sensitivity that they're going to have the buffer on one side. There will be buffering provided along the road. I don't know at this time how close the house is to the north, but I know the house to the south is a good distance away, it's probably nearly 500 feet away. So the closest thing would be the houses across the street. You have the compatibility with the adjacent properties, and we believe in combination with the commitments made by the applicant at the neighborhood information meeting shown on Page 5, along with the other staff conditions, that this particular proj ect would be compatible with the neighborhood. And we did provide a synopsis at the neighborhood information meeting. Staffs recommendation is for approval, subject to the conditions. There are 17 conditions. The first condition identifies the site plan. The second condition identifies the use and clarifies what use it IS. And number three states, as do several of the other conditions, Page 47 October 5, 2006 the commitment made by the petitioner for the staff on duty. And you have the staff-to-patient ratio. Number four talks about the clients and their age. Number five is the commitment carried forth by the petitioner stating that no one that is convicted of a felony would be utilizing this site. And number six talks about the wall that they talked about having -- wall or fence. And a locked gate access to address the neighbors' concerns about security. And number seven is the road improvements that would be required. Number eight is the commitment made by the petitioner at the NIM about visitation. Number nine is the floor area ratio that limits the size. Number lOis, again, a commitment made by the petitioner about transportation for clients that would limit the travel to and from the site. Number 11 also is a commitment from the petitioner about the security systems. Number 12 is a condition that was sent to us by utilities. This is for well easements that would be provided to the county for future use. And this is something that is often seen in petitions where they're trying to provide for future water needs of the county. Number 13 is the leadership in energy and environmental design, green building system standard condition that says it must be developed in compliance with that. Again, I mentioned the timing issue can be resolved. Number 14 is a condition that requires a connection to utility systems. Number 15 is a condition that was brought forward from the EAC to relocate the hand fern host trees. And number 16 and 1 7 are the conditions brought forward by the Page 48 October 5, 2006 EAC that were within the staff report from that meeting. Those are all the things I have. I'd be happy to answer any questions or provide the staff person that can more adequately answer them, if I can't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions of staff? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, to start with, where is the 35 feet? Is that a condition or is that just because it's in the agricultural zone? MS. DESELEM: It's on the site plan. On the site plan it has limitations as far as their setbacks and maximum height. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then you're suggesting we should add to that one story? MS. DESELEM: Yes. They committed to it and that was something that I was just bringing to your attention, that it was not included on the site plan, if you wanted to add that as a condition. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: While we're on the site plan, there is one condition, number nine. The maximum floor area shall not exceed .45. That's essentially almost half of the site. The way it's designed now it's like .05, essentially shy of one percent. So what is -- why do we have such a high FAR in that -- MS. DESELEM: This is common standard within the LDC for group care ALF facilities. And we use that same standard for this site because it is an adopted standard that's recognized in these types of uses. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we would encourage the essentially filling of half the site? MS. DESELEM: Not necessarily. They're also limited to the square footage that's shown on their site plan. They can't exceed that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MS. DESELEM: Which is something -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why put that condition in, Kay? Page 49 October 5, 2006 MS. DESELEM: It's one of the standards that appears in the LDC. Again, it might perhaps be redundant. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I suggest that would come out. They're subject to their conceptual site plan shown here, so that floor area ratio is not applicable. MS. DESELEM: What you may wish to do instead is to incorporate in either condition one or two the maximum square footage number that's shown on the site plan. And that would clarify the maximum square footage allowed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Plus or minus. Kay, why isn't this classified as a rehabilitative center? Why is it an ACLF? MS. DESELEM: It is not an ACLF, it is care units. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is a care unit defined as? MS. DESELEM: A care unit is a defined term within the LDC that stipulates that people can have this use here, and it's not limited in number. They can ask for what they want. But it is a defined term. It's not an ALF facility. Those are terms that are also used in the state Florida Statutes, and by our standards, these are care units. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's not a rehabilitative center? MS. DESELEM: It may be considered a rehabilitative center by some definition, but that isn't necessarily something that would best define it according to the LDC. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you're comfortable that it's allowed by the FLUE? MS. DESELEM: Yes. Staffhas looked at the use and gone over and over with the applicant's agent to try to define exactly what it is and that it was allowed. There's been considerable discussion about that item. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then question, in conditional use number two, you're limiting it up to four residential structures. But wouldn't the detox essentially be a residential Page 50 October 5, 2006 structure? They'll be overnight. So don't you think we should make that five, or would that cause -- MS. DESELEM: You lost me. Wait a minute, where are you again? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Number two on the conditions. MS. DESELEM: Okay, so you're talking about condition number two? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. In other words, the detox is aI~-bed unit. MS. DESELEM: Oh, I see what you're saying. Yes, we probably should clarify that, because the detox center is a separate building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. And residential. MS. DESELEM: Yes, yes, you're correct. I don't know exactly the best wording. I'd have to think about it. Yes, it's probably a good idea to clarify that, because that is confusing and misstated. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In number five, would you have a problem with no one convicted or charged of a felony? The concern I have is we wouldn't want this to be a place where somebody goes and hides after they get charged. MS. DESELEM: Well, I don't know. I will defer to the county attorney's office. But there's some hesitancy on my part to use the word charged, because you're considered innocent. MR. KLATZKOW: I don't think charged is a good idea. It's one thing to convict -- we're all innocent until proven guilty. I mean, it's one thing to be charged with something, another thing to be convicted of something. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But somebody charged of something is different than somebody not charged of something. MR. KLATZKOW: I don't know about that. There is a presumption of innocence. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I'll go with that. Page 51 October 5, 2006 Number 11, the monitoring. Could we add to that on-site monitoring? I don't want the -- if something goes wrong the phone to ring in Bangladesh or something. MS. DESELEM: I don't have a problem with that. I think that's a very good idea. I don't know exactly what the clients or the applicant had in mind, but I think that's a -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thirteen, which is the LEED designation, which I extremely support, but I don't want that to be the red herring here, is that -- don't you think we should just specify that it's designed in compliance with the platinum level? There's no way they can guarantee that. The fact that no building has obtained it in the state shows you that it's not easy to obtain. And I think that if we make the condition of a land use based upon obtaining that -- for example, they may not be able to obtain that. I know they have an excellent, you know, representative here. But the point is that, you know, there may be something that they can't obtain, just because of the use they are. MS. DESELEM: That's a judgment call on the board's part as far as what they do. Staff has reviewed the petition, based on the applicant's assertion that they would indeed meet the platinum standards. They chose the highest standard of LEED. They didn't -- I mean, they could have opted for a lower standard. When they stated it, they stated platinum standard. And I believe that was a commitment they made at the neighborhood information meeting, as well as the EAC. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what happens if they don't obtain it? What if they get a gold standard? They don't get the use? MS. DESELEM: They're in violation of their zoning if they don't meet standards. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That doesn't seem to be reasonable to me. MS. DESELEM: Like I said, they made the offer that they Page 52 October 5, 2006 would do it. So we're going on the assumption that they made it in good faith that they would be able to meet that standard. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Was there ever any mention of exterior public address systems, or at least prohibiting such? MS. DESELEM: I don't believe there was any discussion of that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's it. Wait a minute, before I go. That is it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah, following up on Brad's comment regarding a felony. It seemed to me I saw a distinction was referred to once in here as a felony, convicted of felony, but then also was convicted of a felony of a violent crime. Well, was there a distinction between those two and how did that resolve itself? MR. KLATZKOW: That would be me. It used to be you only had a handful of crimes that were considered felonies. These days there are hundreds of what I would consider to be minor crimes that are now considered to be felonies. I thought it inappropriate, for example, if somebody when they were 18 got involved in a bar fight, when they're 45, you know, couldn't take advantage of this program. Or -- not a bar fight so much as somebody was 18 and got involved in a -- got arrested for drunk driving or embezzlement or what have you. I mean, to me there was a distinction between somebody engaged in violent behavior, which you would not want around you, and somebody who just made a mistake in life, got charged with a felony, nonviolent in nature. And I was concerned from the legality standpoint that that could be subject to some later legal debate. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But did the petitioner offer the definition of a violent crime? MR. KLATZKOW: I think the petitioner was responding to Page 53 October 5, 2006 certain issues raised in the NIM, quite frankly. I think the petitioner, if I remember, Kay, correct me if I'm wrong, said all felonies. I wanted it limited to violent felonies. I didn't want there to be a later legal issue that the county was requiring this. If they want to voluntarily require that, I don't care. I just don't want the county requiring that. MS. DESELEM: That's correct. It was -- the petitioner at the NIM did say that all felonies. He didn't -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Did the petitioner originally qualify it as a violent crime, or just say a felony? MS. DESELEM: He just said felony. As the county attorney has mentioned, that was his clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, you said that you have researched the issue of ingress and egress because of the provisions for the improvements to the road system. Did you ask all the owners of Rock Road and those two other roads if they've agreed to have their roads paved to accommodate this facility? MS. DESELEM: No, sir, I did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we do not know if they got permission to be able to pave those roads; is that correct? MS. DESELEM: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we don't know if they have ingress and egress under the conditions proposed in this rezone. MS. DESELEM: No. That's why the condition is there, they would have to show that they have proper ingress and egress before they could get a site development plan. The whole idea is if they can't meet the conditions of the conditional use, they're done. They can't get approval of a site development plan -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that, Kay. What I'm trying Page 54 October 5, 2006 to get at is staff recommendation is telling us that you feel comfortable they have ingress and egress. Yet you've just testified that you don't know if they have ingress and egress. So how do you make a recommendation when you don't know the answer? MS. DESELEM: They have a reasonable expectation to have access to their site. And they do have frontage. It appears as though they would be allowed to use Catawba Road to get to their site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, in order to come to the conclusion that they had a reasonable expectation, did you poll or talk to any of the owners along Rock Road or the other two streets to find out their opinions on whether or not they would allow their street to be paved and improved to accommodate this facility? MS. DESELEM: No, I did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you still have a reasonable expectation, without knowing any of that information? MS. DESELEM: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Could I -- transportation available for a question? MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, transportation planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don, you normally introduce your new employees. I notice you have a new employee back there. MR. SCOTT: I don't have any new employees. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, last time you came in here, there was a lady with blonde hair back there. Today there's a lady with brown hair back there. MR. SCOTT: She says this is the fall collection. COMMISSIONER CARON: Very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Road system, Don. Getting down to this facility. Does the county own any of the right-of-way -- of the right-of-ways or the road system that is leading to this facility? MR. SCOTT: No, we don't. Page 55 October 5, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If a road's put in and it was to county standards, what will be the estimated cost, if you have any idea? To county standards. I'm not saying just blacktop over limerock. MR. SCOTT: Yeah, I know. See, I think when the question was asked, it was not necessarily to county standards. There is an estimate that was done for Rock Road, which is actually further past, 7,900 feet of Rock Road, 1,200 feet of Deer Run Lane and 3,283 ofCatawamba (sic), which I'm probably butchering. But since it's not a county road, I don't need to pronounce it right. All three of those were $659,823. But I will qualify that I do not believe that is to county standard, per se. It was put in here as 22 feet by 7,900 of lime rock, six-inch base; 18 feet by 7,900 prime and sand overlay; and two inches of asphalt. But obviously there's some drainage issues, some other things like that that aren't particularly addressed in here. And I did -- after Jeff had called me late yesterday afternoon, I called our maintenance director, who wasn't actually the person that did the estimate. He said, you know, there probably should be some cross drains, some other things in there that aren't included in this estimate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And wouldn't you, if it was county standards, require pedestrian access of some kind? MR. SCOTT: We sure would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about curbing? MR. SCOTT: Interesting. We were looking at the code. You know, we can accept a rural cross-section, but that's not our first -- you know, that's not what is our first -- if you look at the code even, it says consider urban. But we would consider rural. But urban is what you're trying to shoot for, urban cross-section. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would all that increase the price? MR. SCOTT: Yes, it would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The intersection oflmmokalee Road Page 56 October 5, 2006 and Rock Road, what about signalization at that intersection? Is that being signalized now, today? MR. SCOTT: No, it won't. It isn't and it wouldn't meet warrants, not with what I see for development down there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For safety? MR. SCOTT: The warrants -- the traffic warrants for putting a signal up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all the questions I had of transportation. Anybody else have any? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one quick. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer and then-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ladies first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I just had a question here, because this is not a property that I've been out to visit. And if you look on this zoning map in the front of the staff report, it shows that the site location is at the corner of Catawamba (sic) and Mingo. And if you go to Page 3 of 8, it shows the property at Deer Run. I guess Deer Run Lane and nothing, I guess, a future extension of Catawamba (sic)? I'm just not sure -- MR. SCOTT: I had the same problem when I looked at the maps. I think Kay has-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. MS. DESELEM: Apparently on that map there is a mistake. That Deer Run Lane, Deer Run is shown on the aerial photograph to the property appraiser as being two different roads. The southern Deer Run Road is actually Mingo. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So is this property at the corner ofCatawamba (sic) and Mingo? MS. DESELEM: Catawba and Mingo. COMMISSIONER CARON: Catawba, I'm sorry. Whatever it is. Page 57 October 5,2006 It's all so small you can't read it anyway. Catawba and Mingo, okay. So why would they have to be paving Deer Run? MR. SCOTT: They're paving the down and over and down again is what I'm assuming. Now, whatever the names are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rock Road. MR. SCOTT: Even though the estimate actually shows all the way down too for Rock Road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Don, is tar (sic) coat just waste oil and sand, or what is that? MR. SCOTT: You know, I'm not familiar with that. I mean, it's -- yeah, it could be like a combination, I would assume, with oil and stuff. But I think what we're shooting for is asphalt, from what we've seen in the estimate, too. Even though it was written that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of transportation? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Don. Any other questions of Kay? MS. DESELEM: I have an aerial photograph that kind of shows those two roads and the misnomer. If you want to see it, I can provide it on the visualizer. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, thanks. MS. DESELEM: Oh, gosh, it's pretty small. You can -- you can't hardly see it. I know it's there, but I was hoping it would be able to be more visual. But there's notations on the roadways. At the upper right-hand corner it says Deer Run Lane. COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, yeah. MS. DESELEM: Yeah. And then down south of that it says Mingo Drive. And then the misstatement of Deer Run appears over there. So it looks like Deer Run does some weird things there. Page 58 October 5, 2006 So the only thing -- it seems as though, and in talking with the neighbors in the area, that that is Mingo, not Deer Run along the south. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, so in order to enter this site, you have to come down Rock Road and cross at Mingo -- MS. DESELEM: You could cross-- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- and then come back up? Or do you cross at Deer Run and come down? MS. DESELEM: My understanding of the roadway condition, Catawba is not finished clear up to Immokalee Road, so they have to come down Rock Road from Immokalee. So then they have to cross over, so to speak, from Deer Run or Mingo. And it's been indicated that they would use Deer Run down to Catawba. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ray, do we -- I know the answer, but I've got to ask it. Do we have any public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we have 16 registered speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The way we work is, I'm assuming everybody was -- stood up and was sworn in. If you haven't been and your name is called, please let the court reporter know. We limit your discussion to five minutes. We ask that you not be redundant. And for a lot of you, it may be that you agree with the previous speaker. If you want to be on record to say that, you simply need to just come to the podium, state your name and say we agree with the previous speaker. And that will move us along. So if you all have new information, great. We ask that you try not to be redundant, though. So thank you. And will the speakers -- Ray, just start calling them. MR. BELLOWS: The first speaker is Barbara Ballard, to be Page 59 October 5, 2006 followed by William Brooks. MS. BALLARD: I'm sorry, I'm on the thing, on the next thing on the agenda. Sorry. MR. BELLOWS: William Brooks? MR. BROOKS: Good morning. I'm William Brooks. Really didn't plan on being the first one to speak, but that's okay. My property is also out there in this area. And while we've got this up here, I want to point out that we had lost the fact that I was on the south part of their property. My property backs up to theirs. I'm glad that they found that. I'm right in this area here. We have a lot of other people that's going to be speaking, and I'd like to just agree with a lot of the points that they're going to be bringing up. But I'd like to say also that I received a letter a couple weeks ago from AIT (sic), and in their letter they painted pretty much a picture that this was already approved and done deal. And it made mention of Collier County transportation services, Collier Environmental Advisory Council, South Florida Water Management. And I'm sure glad that they're giving you time to do your job. That's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, before you leave, could you tell us, are you in favor or against this proj ect? MR. BROOKS: Definitely against it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Dan Wing, to be followed by Nancy Wing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, for all you on that side of the room, if you want to use this podium, you're more than welcome to. MR. WING: I didn't know it was available. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I saw you walking across. MR. WING: Good morning, members of the Planning Commission, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Daniel Wing. I am Page 60 October 5, 2006 one of the few that was asked to represent our community in the request of a conditional use to allow the construction of a residential facility to treat addiction, depression, trauma and other emotional disorders by the Alternative International Incorporation. Rock Road is a rural agricultural and residential community that is well over 25 years old. So as you can tell, it is very well established. We have been thrown together in good times and bad, and have always managed to pull together, as any of the fine neighborhoods in the Naples area. This seems to be one of those times. We have had several meetings with our residents regarding this facility and its impact upon our lives. I can confidently state that we are unanimously opposed to this project being approved by the Planning Commission or the Board of County Commissioners. We feel there is a multitude of issues raised in the staff report of the Planning Commission in the eloquent letter submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Allemong and other neighbors that have not been addressed with specific answers. The first major condition is the condition of Rock Road and its side streets. According to the trip generation report, a total of 90 trips per day is expected. This does not include maintenance vehicles, food service suppliers, who usually deliver with tractor-trailers, pool service people and lawn maintenance. This activity will triple our traffic and road use night and day. We have just experienced a declared state of emergency for Rock Road. This increase will further degrade the already dismal condition of a road we residents count on and maintain for our own needs. The intersection of Rock Road and Immokalee Road is going to become more dangerous for ingress and egress as the construction ends and the speed of vehicles increases. Add to this mix more cars and trucks on our already fragile road system, and we will see nothing but trouble ahead. Page 61 October 5, 2006 Second, the flooding that recently stopped all commercial and most private vehicular traffic on Rock Road must be addressed by the county in a comprehensive way that has a sustainable effect for the future of our community before a medical facility such as this can even be considered. The last thing we need is an emergency on top of another emergency, i.e., trapped patients, mounds of uncollectible trash, effluent spilling from a green proj ect. We know this to be true, because many of our residents found themselves in this very predicament. Third, the name of this business, Alternative Treatment International, Incorporated seems to say it all. The clients that are coming to this facility have no relationship with our state, our county, our town, or our neighborhood, perhaps even our country. It must not be forgotten that this facility and its operations is really run by a commercial incorporation for profit. Their clients will fly in, receive treatment and then fly out again, giving nothing but money to a corporation. Why should we open our community to potential security, ecological and financial risk? Weare not trying to degrade the necessary work of an institution such as this, but it would serve its clientele more effectively and more efficiently were it located in a commercially zoned area on Immokalee Road like the David Lawrence Center on Golden Gate Parkway. Fourth, even though this area is classified rural agricultural, it is in essence a fine group of people connected by family, friendship, land, and most of all, a unique lifestyle we have found here. Most of us have invested everything to enjoy these qualities. You cannot in good conscience believe that we could just pick up and move somewhere else if our life's investment is diminished by a turn of events such as this. We know that this area is changing, but it is important also to know that we insist on being a big part of that process, and we will Page 62 October 5, 2006 challenge decisions that do not enhance the lives and investments of the people in our community. Thank you for your time and consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Sir, one question. MR. WING: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you live on any of the roads leading to this facility? MR. WING: I live on Mingo Drive. And it is Catawba. Catawba is a closed road filled with trees. Rock Road will be affected. Deer Run Lane and Mingo is here. I live over here, not on Deer Run, but on Mingo. That road, Mingo, will also be used if Deer Run for some reason -- Mingo is another option. So if it is going to be paved, it also ought to be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to use the mic, I'm sorry. This travels beyond here, so other people have to hear you talk. MR. WING: If it is used, if Deer Run Lane is used and for some reason is not available, they can come further down Rock Road to Mingo and still access their property. So if you are going to be make improvements, include those roads also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's kind of where I was trying -- I'm going to ask every speaker today if they live on one of the roads. And my second question would be, if they do, on one of those improved roads that would be needed for ingress and egress to this facility, are you -- would you provide -- are you providing permission to these people to use your road and pave it and improve it to get access to their facility? MR. WING: My approval is not necessary, because I do not -- I live on the other side of Rock Road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But that was the intention of my question I'll be asking everybody. Because based on ingress and egress, if they don't have ingress and egress, that's a critical concern for this particular proj ect -- Page 63 October 5, 2006 MR. WING: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if they do have it. And I want staff-- staff has already testified they didn't check with any of you, so I want to hear what you've got to say as you come up here today. So thank you. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Excuse me, sir? You just said you represent quite a few people in the area? MR. WING: Yes, I do. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Approximately how many people? MR. WING: I would say well over 100. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: A hundred people or 100 homes? MR. WING: A hundred people. There must be at least 75 to 80 homes out there. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And you represent almost all of the homeowners? MR. WING: At every meeting that we held, we had unanimous decisions to oppose this proj ect, for various reasons, as my neighbors will testify. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. BELLOWS: Nancy Wing? MS. WING: I would just like to step up and concur with what my husband has said and all the residents on this road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Erica Cotto. MS. COTTO: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Erica Cotto, and I'm with the Economic Development Council of Collier County. I'm the enterprise development manager. Page 64 October 5,2006 Alternative Treatment International is an EDC-supported fast track proj ect. And fast track is not designed to go around the regulatory process, but just to expedite the process. Alternative Treatment International will be relocating from Clearwater, Florida, and is a long-standing responsible corporate citizen. And they're looking to contribute to our community. ATI will be creating a total of25 new jobs at an average wage of $45,000. And that's well over 130 percent of the Collier County average wage. In economic development, we look for companies that generate revenue from outside of the county, because that brings new wealth into our community, and are not dependent upon our local economy. Eighty percent of A TI's revenue will be generated from outside of Florida. The total direct economic impact on the county from this proj ect alone is well over $11 million. We fully support this project and are here to ensure that all rules and regulations recommended by the county are met. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss, I have a question for you. MS. COTTO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They've provided information that they don't have 25 employees, so how did you come to the conclusion they're going to provide 25 new jobs? MS. COTTO: On the economics application, in which they applied for the fast track program, they stated they would have 25 new jobs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, that's interesting. I wonder whose application is the correct one. I guess we'll find out before this is over. Thank you for the information. MS. COTTO: You're welcome. MR. BELLOWS: Douglas Allemong, followed by Carol Allemong. MR. ALLEMONG: Hi, my name is Douglas Allemong, and I'm Page 65 October 5,2006 the property owner directly to the north of this property, which is right there. I'm the property owner whose property was also omitted from the staff report. And to clear up some conceptions, or misconceptions that I've heard so far, we were formerly part owners of the property that Dr. Meyers now owns. My wife and I, along with some other people, bought this property jointly for investment, and then we had the misfortune to sell it to Dr. Meyers. So I guess I'm part of the problem here, but I hope to be part of the solution as well. But Mr. Hancock said that the parcels were bought separately because they were going to change their plan from 12 patients to 24 or 30. That is incorrect. Both parcels were bought at the same time from us. So I know that was a misstatement. The next thing I've heard that is very confusing, I just heard 25 employees, I've heard 10 to 12, I've heard other numbers. If you look at the trip generation report that the applicant sent in, it says on there there are 22 full-time employees, 10 to 12 shift employees and 10 to 12 on the weekends. So there could be as many as 40,45 employees at this project. You realize this is seven days a week, 24 hours a day, 365 a year. So that there has to be somebody there at all times. At least 10 people are going to be on site. There are -- the trip generation report says this are 90 trips per day going up and down the front of my -- what's going to be my new residence. I don't want 90 cars going in front of my new residence every day. And I don't want them to pave Deer Run Lane, which is this road over here, and Catawba Road, which is the road in front of my house. I bought this property to live in the country in a rural, quiet setting, and now we want to have a business placed next door to me with 40 employees, 34 patients, 90 trips every day. It goes on and on. It's just -- our house will with be about 50 feet to 75 feet from the edge of this development. We -- half of this development is Page 66 October 5, 2006 wetlands. They want to put 34 residential units on it. Today you could have two residential units on it, not 34. And you hear the talk about the green system and the water and the sewer. They want to say well, maybe it's going to be a handful more than two single-family people on this property. Everything is very vague. It's all smoke and mirrors we're talking about here. Nothing is concrete in this whole project, and we are going to be adversely affected by this proj ect. And if you look at, for instance, staff condition number seven, which talks about the roads, all it says in there is that the petitioner must ensure that these roads are fixed. What does ensure mean? It doesn't mean anything to me. If we're going to do this and they're going to put this road in, it has to say the petitioner will get these roads up to county standards, not ensure that that will be done. There's nothing in this conditions that say anything about the septic systems. How are they going to provide septic systems for 34 people plus 40 employees? This is all just totally impossible and cannot be done. I'm not an attorney, I haven't researched what a care unit definition is, but I would like to have someone to check into this. You've heard other people who are going to speak, and there will be lots of people speaking about this, but we just do not want this project in our neighborhood, and I don't want it next door to me. And this is probably a flood zone. And that's where FEMA makes -- I don't know if it floods it or not, but I know it's a flood zone for real because it just flooded. And FEMA doesn't let you put a critical care facility in a flood zone, I don't think. So I think my time is about up, but I'd be happy to answer any questions. I'm against this project. I'm against the road paving. And thank you for your attention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Allemong, you know we're going to Page 67 October 5, 2006 be discussing -- we have discussed the road issue. You are now a property owner, the first one on a road that actually is part of the required roads to be improved by this facility. And you're saying as a property owner of that road you are not going to allow them to improve that road; is that correct? MR. ALLEMONG: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that kind of eliminates the staffs ensurability that there's ingress and egress to this facility, which I'm then curious going to be as to what that means in regards to recommendations for this conditional use after we get done. But I thank you for your testimony today. MR. ALLEMONG: Mr. Chairman, I have one more thing I wanted to say I forgot about. I wrote a letter to the Planning Commission. I sent it bye-mail on Sunday. It's five pages long. I didn't want to read that today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yeah, you wouldn't have time, unfortunately. MR. ALLEMONG: I wouldn't have time to read it. But I was curious as to about when the packets were distributed to the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Last week, Wednesday or Thursday, approximately. MR. ALLEMONG: Wednesday or Thursday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Usually a week in advance. MR. ALLEMONG: So I sent my e-mail on Sunday. They had it on Monday a week ago. I would like to know why it wasn't in your packet to read at this time. Because I spent a lot of time writing this letter and I made a lot of important points in this letter and it didn't get there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was a letter from you, sir? MR. ALLEMONG: Yes, it's five pages long. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was an e-mail but it was only -- it was Page 68 October 5, 2006 to Mr. -- MR. ALLEMONG: Ms. Deselem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, this one's to Mike Bosi. It's dated MR. ALLEMONG: There's another one in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, this was back in '05. It was only a page. MR. ALLEMONG: There should be another one in the packet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, can you respond as to why we haven't got that five-page letter? MS. DESELEM: Yes. It's in the letters that you received today from me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought those letters you told us were received after our packet went out? MS. DESELEM: They were received after I submitted it to our secretary to have them gather it and ready for you to receive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the packet was coming -- gets to us at the end of the week, this comes in on a Monday, and it still can't be included in our packet? I know that, for example, Summit Lakes, which didn't give you the information until two days after our packet was distributed by the applicant and the developer, but yet the developer managed to get everything from staff to us in time for this hearing today, which ended up getting continued. So why was the developer's information treated differently than the citizen's information? MS. DESELEM: There was no intention to treat anything differently. It's a matter of staff time and availability to put the packets together. And I apologize if it came in ahead of time. I'd have to go back and check to see when it came in. But I forwarded everything to you. I mean, if you wanted me to send them via e-mail, that would be great, you could have them almost Page 69 October 5,2006 instantly. But there's been some discussion on the Planning Commission in the past because some will open e-mails, some won't. So some do want to get it bye-mail, some don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just -- and I don't expect it now, but at some Planning Commission meeting in the future, I would like an answer from staff as to why a developer's package submitted late after our package goes out can get to us on time for the meeting, yet a citizen's letter submitted three days before the package goes out cannot get to us on time. MS. DESELEM: I will investigate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. ALLEMONG: I would like to object on the record to my letter not getting to the commission -- not being sent to the commission on time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I appreciate it, sir. And I can assure you by our next regular Planning Commission meeting we hope to have an answer as to why that didn't happen. Mr. Vigliotti, did you have a question? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, I had one question. When you sold the property, what were you told? Because you had sold it to these people. Were you led to believe anything or told what it was going to be used for? MR. ALLEMONG: No. We were told that it was a doctor who was buying the property; he may want to put some sort of a residence or a little clinic there, not a -- that's what I know. We talked to a realtor. We dealt through a realtor, so I'm not sure. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So you thought it would be a house or a small clinic? MR. ALLEMONG: Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. MR. ALLEMONG: Which I could live with a small clinic, four or five people, but not 34 and not the scope of this proj ect. Page 70 October 5, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Carol Allemong. MS. ALLEMONG: I concur with my husband, with what he had to say. We're very upset about having something next to our home that we've been planning for quite a while. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Jean Hofstetter. MS. HOFSTETTER: My name is Jean Hofstetter. I have a home on Deer Run Lane. I'm also a realtor in Collier County for the last 15 years. I too sent two letters to Kay early this week, Monday. And obviously you hopefully received them today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so you know -- was it this week or last week? Because that's where the difference lies. MS. HOFSTETTER: This week. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This week we wouldn't have got it in our packet. Last week we should have gotten it in our packet. Thank you. MS. HOFSTETTER: Interestingly enough, the letters that I e-mailed to her on Monday, you were not able to obtain, but ATI was able to obtain. And I received a call -- two calls from A TI, trying to corner me and several other residents into a telephone conversation with them, which I did not participate in and objected to. Because you do not have the information, but they obviously did have the information. I strongly object to the approval of the conditional use rezone application for the purpose of the in-patient drug rehab facility on agricultural residential lands. From the standpoint of a realtor, I think this will devalue my property and the neighbors' properties. I'm positive it will devalue the Page 71 October 5,2006 properties. Of course you must first and foremost consider the availability currently of infrastructure, which obviously from the obvious problems or objections which would include the road maintenance, the sewage disposal, access, water and well quality, storm management, vehicle and noise intrusion, environmental impact, economic impact, and the impact it will have on our quality of life. The less obvious objection is the introduction of a trend toward commercialization, commercial zoning of our area. I truly believe this would become the beginning of further expansion into the commercial zoning arena. And even though this endeavor will not be officially categorized as commercial, if it looks commercial, smells commercial, operates commercially, is a for-profit organization, it is commercial and it will be perceived that way. I purchased in the neighborhood on Deer Run with the hopes and visions of maintaining a rural residential setting with privacy, yet close to town. Very important. We have residential communities evolving now on all four sides of us. Land values will go down immediately in our little island should this become a commercial area. I've already talked to landowners in the Rock Road community that will attempt to sell immediately if this goes through. And then devaluation begins. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss, you need to start wrapping up, because you're running out of time. Thank you. MS. HOFSTETTER: Thank you. Right now from a realtor's standpoint, the most sought-after piece of real estate in Naples is a residential piece of land, two to five acres, not in an organized, mandatory, restricted subdivision. One in which there is room to build a large home, perhaps enjoy the benefits of rural living, wildlife, privacy, yet close to the city. Logan Boulevard, Oakes Boulevard, are prime examples of how successful and sought after this concept is. And they have maintained Page 72 October 5, 2006 their exclusivity as residential, not commercial, neighborhoods. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, we're past five minutes now, so I need to ask you to conclude. MS. HOFSTETTER: I'll quit right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I have one question for you. You know what that's going to be. Do you live on one of the roads that would have to be improved to gain access to this facility? MS. HOFSTETTER: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You are under oath here today. Would you grant these people permission to improve that road system to obtain access to their road facility? MS. HOFSTETTER: Today is the first day, and I think perhaps as a result of some of the letters that A TI received, and they were concerned about our concerns, this is the first day I've heard anything about paving of a road. That is hard for me to answer at this point in time, because I am on Deer Run. If they would really, really build a road up to county qualifications, I think value of land would increase along Mingo, Rock Road, Deer Run, and it should be included all the way down to the end of Rock Road. So that would increase our values. However, I do not think they are about to spend a million or more plus dollars to improve this to county standards. So therefore, I cannot answer that question at this time. The way the roads are right now, there's no possible way this would work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Richard Lewis. MR. LEWIS: Hello, my name is Richard M. Lewis. I am currently serving as president of the Rock Road land owners association. I also own property on Mingo Drive within 1,200 feet of this proposed facility. Page 73 October 5, 2006 It is clear to me that this facility does not meet the criteria outlined by Collier County Development Code for conditional use in any way. According to Collier County's own documents, this code defines a conditional use as a use that would not be appropriate generally or without restriction throughout a zoning district but which if controlled as to number, area, location, or relation to a neighborhood would promote the public health, safety, welfare, morals, order, comfort, convenience, appearance, prosperity or general welfare. Let me start with public health. The issue of sewage, added traffic and impact on our local aquifer have already been addressed by my concerned neighbors. They have made a strong argument that this facility would not be a benefit, but instead has the potential to be greatly detrimental to our public health. Will this facility promote our safety? It does not benefit the safety of our local community to transport criminals directly into our neighborhood. I have heard the arguments presented by the representatives of Alternative Treatment International -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN : You need to slow your pace down a little bit. She's trying to write as fast as you're talking. That's real hard to do. MR. LEWIS: Okay, I apologize. That all applicants would undergo criminal background checks CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're still doing it. Just talk slowly, you'll be fine. MR. LEWIS: I have heard the arguments presented by representatives of Alternative Treatment International that all applicants would undergo criminal background checks and that no one with a felony conviction would be admitted to this facility. In rebuttal, Florida Statute 893.13, Section six, Paragraph A, clearly states that any possession of cocaine, heroin, hallucinogens, or Page 74 October 5, 2006 the excess of 20 grams of marijuana is a felony. So while the potential residents may have never been caught, in the eyes of the State of Florida, they are indeed felons. Would this facility promote welfare? Welfare is defined as the state of doing well, especially in regard to good fortune, happiness, well-being or prosperity. It is made obvious by the public outcry of my neighbors and I that this facility will in no way promote our happiness or well-being. Will it promote morals? Quite the opposite. The patients at this facility will be the very people who have contributed to social disorder and moral decay. Will it promote comfort? Not in our community. Convenience? No. Appearance? Despite promises of walls and buffer zones, the addition of parking lots, excess traffic, lighting and the presence of a large, commercial complex will destroy the rural appearance of the community we all love. And finally, will it promote prosperity or general welfare? Again, I say no. I, as well as many of my neighbors, have invested everything we have into our properties, not only financially but through years of hard work, improving and maintaining them. This facility threatens to devalue our homes and nullify all of the efforts we have made to improve our way of life. In conclusion, the proposed facility fails to meet a single requirement for a conditional use in this county and therefore it is clear that this application should be denied. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Sir, you're going to know what I'm going to ask you. MR. LEWIS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whereabouts do you live? MR. LEWIS: I live on Mingo Drive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Page 75 October 5, 2006 Next speaker? Cherie', do you want to shake your fingers a little bit and loosen up? MR. BELLOWS: Judy Richardson. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: You didn't ask him whether he was for the road or against the road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, he's on Mingo Drive, so the road in question is not on the one he's on. MR. LEWIS: But it will be used. Whether they say it will or not, it will be used. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, first of all, unfortunately you can't carry a conversation from there, you've got to be at the podium. And the reason Mingo Drive is not part of my concern at this point is, is the road that's being asked to be improved is not Mingo Drive, it's the other three roads. That's what I'm trying to focus on. I'm sorry, ma'am, go ahead. MS. RICHARDSON: I'm Judy Richardson, a concerned resident, and have lived on Rock Road for 27 years. I've attended all of our meetings that we've held, numerous ones in the last few months over this. And we've met with Dr. Meyers about a year ago when he told us his first intentions and we were opposed. And I concur with everything my neighbors have said. I don't feel it would benefit us in any way to have them enter our community. And I do have a Rock Road address, and it is my road and I am opposed to them using it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're opposed, but would you deny their -- if they were to ask you to allow improvements on your road, would you deny that request? MS. RICHARDSON: I feel that the improvements they're talking about, if they are placed with the amount of limerock and Page 76 October 5, 2006 asphalt that they're talking right now, would not be an improvement because the road level would have to be brought up. If we had six inches of limerock, two inches of asphalt on top of what just flooded, we would have been still driving under 24 inches of water. So they're going to have to make considerable elevation changes, and it doesn't sound like they intend to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they intended to do it, would you go along with it? MS. RICHARDSON: I don't believe so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Herman Andrew Hahn. MR. HAHN: Hi, my name is Herman Andrew Hahn, and I live at 960 Mingo Drive. I just wanted to concur with my fellow Rock Road residents that I don't think this project should move forward. It's not wanted by the residents. So thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Roy Batty. MR. BATTY: Excuse the delay. My name is Roy Batty. I live on Mingo Drive, and to answer your question, but I'm not related to the roads that come into this property apart from Rock Road. I can't say I'm totally against the project as described. My caution is the vagueness and the various numbers which you're receiving, which make me feel that it hasn't been properly looked at, that we are not getting final facts and figures, and we don't quite know where we are. This is as it relates to the road. I have a nursery, so a nice county road up there would be fine with me to bring in the semis that come to my nursery. A couple of these are inquiries rather than statements. On the wetlands issue, we attended a meeting with Bonita Bay Page 77 October 5,2006 on their project to the west of this property, and they mentioned they were going to build a berm around their proj ect for containment of water, this sort of thing. This would not allow the wetlands in this project to move into the wetlands associated with the Bonita Bay proj ect. Now, there might have been changes in that, but this would prevent the flow and cause more water to come back into this rather vulnerable area. Another concern is that I believe the code is one unit for five acres. This is for five or six units on 10 acres. It seems to go outside the code and would need special approval. And the fourth, on the road itself, if I would -- two things. If this is approved, I feel it should be important that the road up to county standards be put in place prior to the construction of the facility because there would be massive usage for the construction items coming up there, which are very destructive of roads. And another question which occurs to me is that I believe if it is brought up to county standards, the -- will the county take over the road for future maintenance? Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. BELLOWS: Reginald Malone, to be followed by Adam Davis. MR. MALONE: Yes, I'm Reg Malone, short for Reginald. I live on Keri Island, which is one block away. I've been a resident in that area for eight years. I retired there after 34 years with the government. I've kind of scrapped my little thing I had there, and I'm just going on notes that transportation and other people commented on. Mr. Chairman, you brought up two issues that have been very important to us, and that was bringing this road up to county standards and to include Mingo Drive, which we feel should have been included as far as upgrading. Page 78 October 5,2006 If you've been through the recent fires that we've been through, I've been through two out there, there's no way that they're going to get that number of patients out of that road without using Mingo and Deer Run. We have used Mingo and Deer Run and that part of Catawba for evacuation and checking on properties when the fire jumped Rock Road. I feel they're creating a nightmare as far as safety, fire safety. If they produce, or put their buildings -- and we're talking about five, six, seven buildings on less than five acres, since five of them are already wetlands, you're going to have an end down here where nobody is going to be able to get in and out. And we're not talking about -- and none of the staff reports have recommended anything for Mingo, and I think that was a mistake. The second thing is the intersection of Immokalee Road and Rock Road. It's a nightmare even getting out now. We took over an hour this morning getting here. And I would say 20 minutes of it was sitting at the intersection this morning. If we're talking about adding an additional 100 people coming and going, we're going to double, triple our traffic out there. We're going to need some -- we feel that this staff report should have addressed at least upgrading that intersection to include a light and to get us out, even in emergency, should we have another fire. And this has been historically an area where unfortunately we have had several very, very bad and severe fires out there. I would like to address the good neighbor portion. And that always seems to be brought up. Everybody wants to come in and they always promise to be a good neighbor. The initial contact that we had with Dr. Meyers was on October the 17th of'05. We brought up several different items, and I believe, Mr. Chairman, you brought up one of them -- or the gentleman down here, the fact that during that meeting, you know, we requested certain types of things like the study, as far as, you know, is this going to Page 79 October 5, 2006 lower our property values, how is it going to affect us in the neighborhood? We asked for a study to be done. We've never heard a thing back. Not even an excuse. I asked at that meeting, I stood up at that meeting and I said I have e-mailed Davidson Engineering prior to it, and I said, what I had asked them was I would like some references. I would like to know the neighborhood that you're in in St. Petersburg or Clearwater, whatever. We would like to check up on the references. We would like to see what kind of a facility you're running and the comments that your current neighbors have. I never have received a comment, I've never received an e-mail back. Nothing. I brought it up at the meeting and the comment from the representative from Davidson was simply, well, I sent you the e-mail. And they've never, this has been a year, close to a year, I've never had a follow-up on it. None of our neighbors have. Davidson and Dr. Meyers have had a year, like I say, since our meeting, and until the 20th of September of this year there was absolutely no contact with our neighbors to address any of the additional issues. There has been no contact up until the 20th to even make promises or whatever. And I think, as the lady who was just before me stated, she got a call. Now they're calling, they're calling neighbors. Mr. Lewis, I believe, got a call. There's several people in here and there are several people that are not here that have received calls from them in the last few days wanting to set up a meeting or a talk. I think waiting a year, and the day before a meeting -- before their hearing before this commission is a little bit late to address problems and try to deal with the neighborhood. I have an additional, and I apologize for the untimeliness of this. But we had a lady in the neighborhood who has walked the neighborhood, so to speak. Here's an additional 50 signatures, most of which are not here, of people who could not come today that have Page 80 October 5,2006 stated that they do oppose this project. And I thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you want to submit that into evidence MR. MALONE: Yes, sir, I would like to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we have to vote on it. So do you have copies or is that the only one? MR. MALONE: This is the only one. It just was given to me this mornIng. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, can we accept one copy into evidence? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, I think that's appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would you mind bringing it up here, and we'll just pass it down as we hear others, and before the speaker is finished, we'll vote on whether to bring it into evidence or not. MR. MALONE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Do you have a copy for the Board of County Commissioners, if you were to go there? MR. MALONE: Like I say, it was just handed to us this morning. I apologize for the untimely -- that is the only copy we have. MR. KLATZKOW: We can make a copy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Make sure you get a copy of this back before you leave today. MR. MALONE: I would like to, and then give it to Commissioner Coletta's office or something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll take vote on that a little bit after everybody gets a chance to see it. Sir, I've got one question for you. What street do you live on? MR. MALONE: I live on Keri Island. Not in contact with the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Page 81 October 5,2006 Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Adam Davis, to be followed by Jim Swearingen. MR. DAVIS: Good morning -- afternoon almost. I would first like to take this opportunity and thank the members of the Collier County Commission, the residents and property owners of the Rock Road area and the A TI representatives for giving me the floor to voice my concerns. My name is Adam Davis and I am a resident of Rock Road. After reading the letters from Dr. Meyers dated September 20th, I was left with lingering concerns over the expected security plan. The letter addressed the concerns of residents by revising the plan to include security systems on each building and a fence around the site. I feel this one sentence explanation did not provide enough clarification of the total security plan. I feel the following points should be addressed before any approval can be considered: The stated improvements should be considered the most basic of security measures. To state the improvements as Dr. Meyers did clearly display -- excuse me, to state the improvements, as Dr. Meyers did, clearly displays his understanding of the largest problem at facilities like this, the flight risk. A simple security system will not be comprehensive enough if one of the patients should leave the property. This could put this patient in severe danger, seeing that we live in a flood prone fire area, with lots of natural predators, some even endangered. This individual would not be prepared for this situation if they were not from this area. If this facility was located in the middle of 100 acres with no neighbors, security plans would be minimal. This is a rural residential area with families and children that will demand a more comprehensive plan. The addition of these countermeasures should be welcomed by Page 82 October 5, 2006 A TI to ensure the safety of its patients and neighbors. Staying with their motto of being a green facility, they should try and leave the smallest footprint possible. A TI should strive to be progressive in all areas, including security. We feel that the facility should consider a Marlock system or comparable door lock reporting network. These systems would report to a central processing computer. The processing computer knows when the door has opened and closed and this individual has left their area or has reentered their area. This is important information for doing patient counts and unsupervised freedom. This system is easily implemented and included in the construction planning. We feel that the security system should also include a strong human presence. This human presence should be prepared to deal with emergency situations and have a standard operating procedure to outline security or locking down a facility, evacuation plan, and emergency response procedures. Most facilities like this use individuals known as techs that have minimal facility security experience. We feel that as a progressive company, A TI should want to include licensed security officers in their security plan. This human presence, coupled with a total coverage of video surveillance, can be a strong deterrent from someone trying to leave. With this system, A TI can have real time information from overlapping tiers of security coverage. These were a few of the strong suggestions we implemented -- we suggest for implementation. We feel that after viewing the plans and understanding the dynamics of a facility like this, we feel that A TI should put the safety of its patients, staff and neighborhood before any fiscal concerns. I would also like to address the environmental impact beyond the removal of 300 hand ferns. I feel that this area is by the wildlife tunnel that they put under Rock Road, which is almost directly north Page 83 October 5, 2006 of this. These animals are naturally moving through this area and hunting on these grounds. Just because on a Friday there aren't any panthers or bears putting their flag down doesn't mean that these animals still need to move through this area to look for food and look for areas to keep them safe. I think that we need to look at this, seeing as we have threatened avians, snakes and ground mammals living in this area that could possibly be heavily affected by such a large concentration of humans In an area. I live on Keri Island Road, so I'm not affected by their paving. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. DAVIS: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, you referred to we in your statements. And you made an issue over their security. Am I to assume from your discussion that if they were to put the security system in that you're talking about, that you have no problem with this facility? MR. DAVIS: No, these are just some ideas that we feel were not addressed in their security. But as a total plan, I do not agree with their total plan. I was just taxed to not be redundant and addressed security as my prImary concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Thank you very much. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Jim Swearingen, followed by Angela and Thomas Rogers. MS. DESELEM: If I may, while we're waiting on the speaker who's already got here, for the record, Kay Deselem. I did check on Mr. Allemong's e-mail, it was delivered to my e-mail inbox Sunday, 10/1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you didn't get it last week, you got it this week. MS. DESELEM: That's correct. Page 84 October 5, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it would have been impossible for you to get it to us by today's meeting. So we all stand corrected, and thank you for getting that information, Kay, appreciate it. You'll have to wait, sir, until we get to the speakers. Go ahead. MR. SWEARINGEN: Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Jim Swearingen and I live at 1260 Mingo Drive, which is actually one of the roads that does access this property. In order to get to it reasonably, if you have 40 to 90 people there, you would more than likely go down my street. I do, for the reasons already stated by my neighbors, oppose this project as well as I would oppose any development of Mingo Drive in front of my house. I enjoy my property and I don't want this built. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Before we go further with any speakers, the Planning Commission needs to make a decision, and I have a recommendation concerning a break in lunch. It's getting near noon. Cherie's fingers are going to need to have a break at 12:00, regardless of whether we take lunch or a 10-minute break. I suggest we take a 10-minute break around noon or after the next speaker, finish up this case, then take lunch and then come back and finish in the afternoon. Does that seem appropriate with everybody? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN : Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, that's what we'll do. So one more speaker, Ray, and then we're going to take a 10- minute break. MR. BELLOWS: Angela Rogers. MS. ROGERS: Good morning. I feel like everybody else on Rock Road, it's just going to bring everything, change everything, too much traffic. We won't have the woods like we have it. Page 85 October 5, 2006 And I have opposed paving Rock Road. It's been brought up quite a few times for the last 12 years. I bought out there out there because it was a dirt road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I bought at my place, but it didn't work for me. MS. ROGERS: And I live on Rock Road and I don't want the road paved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whereabouts on Rock Road do you live? Do you live north or south of Deer Run? MS. ROGERS: Corner of Keri Island and Rock. So I'm one block up from Mingo. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, ma'am. MS. ROGERS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll take a 10-minute break -- or 12 minutes, actually. Be back here at 12:10. Thank you. (A break was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If everybody will please take their seats. Thank you. Ray, speakers back on? And we left off with public speakers. Just out of curiosity, how many public speakers do we still have? MR. BELLOWS: Three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three? Okay. Let's start with the next speaker. MR. BELLOWS: Angela Rogers. MS. ROGERS: I just spoke. MR. BELLOWS: Or Thomas Rogers. MS. ROGERS: He's not here. MR. BELLOWS: Brian Galligan? MR. GALLIGAN: I live on Keri Island. I'd just like to say, I concur with my neighbors, and I would not be affected. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know -- whether or not you would be affected, what road do you live on? Page 86 October 5, 2006 MR. GALLIGAN: Keri Island. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: The last speaker is Eric Wilson. MR. WILSON: Hi, my name is Eric Wilson. I concur with the rest of my neighbors. I do -- I'll show you where my house is. Right here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. WILSON: I live off of Catawba and Mingo Drive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're far enough south that the repaving of the access may not affect you. At least -- MR. WILSON: No. But as you can see, my property adjoins this whole part of the facility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. WILSON: I moved here 18 years ago to this county. And when I started to raise a family, I chose living down -- a mile down a dirt road to raise my family. I have a few concerns, especially with like security. I have a five-year-old and a seven-year-old child. They say that at nighttime that they're going to have one person, maybe two people. They can leave at any time that they want. They mentioned that they would leave the next morning but in actuality they can leave any time they want. And I'm right next door to them. I'm also concerned about the well water. I've had one well collapse. I don't need another well. I don't know how much water they're going to draw to accommodate this many people. And I would not give permission with Catawba or -- and I am concerned about the most direct route to this actual facility is going past Deer Run and going down Mingo. That would be the most direct route to this facility. I'm concerned about the traffic that might come down my road, too. But I'm also on Catawba. Basically, yeah, the security. And I'm concerned about my Page 87 October 5, 2006 property value. That's all I have to say, basically. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we will-- well, first of all, there was one error on my part at the beginning of this meeting. I failed to ask the Planning Commission for disclosures, so I'd like to clear that up right now. Anybody have any disclosures? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then I didn't miss anything except for myself. I spoke to a gentleman on the telephone, I believe his first name was Jerry. I don't have any other description of that. We talked about this issue, and he lives in that neighborhood and he was not in favor of it. And I have one other comment from the packet that was distributed to us. There was a letter in there. There were several. The letter, one of them in particular, asked that this particular one be read into the record. It was from Tim Vaccaro on behalf of his mother, Helen B. Vaccaro. And at his request -- at the letter's request, I'd like to read it into the record. Dear Commissioners, I am writing on behalf of my mother, Helen B. Vaccaro, who owns property located within 500 feet of the proposed treatment facility referenced in Dr. Meyers' petition. Mrs. Vaccaro requests that I inform you of her obj ection to the proposed petition. Ms. Vaccaro believes that the presence of the proposed treatment facility will have a negative impact on the fair market value of her property and upon her ability to sell such property in the event she chooses to do so. Ms. Vaccaro will be unable to attend the November 17th hearing Page 88 October 5,2006 on this matter. Of course, that's quite a ways. As such, she requests that this letter be read into the record at that time. And that's signed by Tim Vaccaro, cc Helen Vaccaro. With that, anything else from staff? MS. DESELEM: I just want to make a clarification. We had someone here from the EDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. DESELEM: And this particular project, that is, the conditional use, has not been designated as a fast track project. I believe they're in to make that designation for the -- what they perceive to be the upcoming SDP application or something. But I just became aware last week that this particular project was involved in the fast track process. But the conditional use has not been so designated. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know what their criteria is to be part of that process? MS. DESELEM: Specifically, no, sir. I believe the EDC person can respond to that better than I. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe Tammie could shed some light on that for us. MS. NEMECEK: Yes, sir, Commissioner. Tammie Nemecek, President of the Economic Development Council. In order to participate in the fast track program, the company must meet certain criteria. One is within a targeted industry, which helps services as part of the targeted industries. They also need new job creation requirements. Because this is located in Eastern Collier County, they would need to create a minimum of 10 jobs, which this company is creating 25, according to their application. In addition to that, they would need to meet a minimum average wage requirement, which would be 115 percent. And the company is a little over 130 percent of the average wage. Page 89 October 5, 2006 And as that criterion has been met, they can be designated as a fast track. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that also provide for them opportunities to have impact fees be taken out of property taxes and things like that? MS. NEMECEK: Those same criteria does apply to the economic -- the full economic stimulus program, which provides for a fee payment assistance program or a property tax stimulus program. There is also a job creation program, as well as a broad band incentive program. I believe the only program that they've applied for, though, is a fee payment assistance program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Meaning the impact-- MS. NEMECEK: Which would help offset -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Offsetting impact? MS. NEMECEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Kay, was there anything else you had to say? MS. DESELEM: No, sir, unless you have other questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything from the commission? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, Kay, the staffreport indicated as far as employees, there would be one for each five patients, and that coming, if you take the 34, 24 plus the lOin the detox, shows there will be seven employees. But the trip generation report indicates three would be 22 employees. Now that's quite a disparity between -- to make a judgment as to what the effect might be on transportation and other related factors. Can you explain to me, which is the right number and why we have such a disparity? MS. DESELEM: The disparity in part is caused by the fact that they did have to compare it to a use, the ALF use in the TIS, because a Page 90 October 5, 2006 care unit per se isn't defined. So they had to come to the closest similar use. And they're also required to do worst case scenario. I don't know exactly why they chose 22. Apparently there's several numbers floating around as far as what it is. Like I said, I have not seen that EDC application that supposedly said 25 employees. What we went on was what was in the application itself of 10/14, and then the TIS is a worst case scenario evaluating a similar use. In any case, like the parking, for example, would have to accommodate whatever use is ultimately designed on-site. And they'll have to provide that information in a detail as part of the site development plan, not necessarily at zoning. So it would be whatever the specific uses and information is at SDP. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: What number of employees do you feel is appropriate for this petition? MS. DESELEM: I don't really have the expertise to respond to that. I'm not a professional person that's in charge of health care that knows what staffing would need to be. The one-to- five was what the petitioner agreed to provide, and offered that that would be what would happen at this site when he was at the NIM. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That was a minimum then, one-to-five? Minimum number would be five or seven? MS. DESELEM: Yes. I believe it was a minimum. I'd have to go back and check the exact wording, but I think it was a minimum. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: We're concerned more on the maximum I think than the minimum. MS. DESELEM: I can understand that, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anything else of Kay? Kay, I have one comment as a follow-up to my break discussion Page 91 October 5, 2006 with you. Mr. Allemong's e-mail did go to you on Sunday. I know you received it. I know A TI received his five-page letter on Monday of this week bye-mail. And I know that not all of us can get e-mail, but probably eight of us can. So from now on, if an applicant is ever sent a document that was contributed by a citizen, I would respectfully request that every single member of the Planning Commission be sent that as well bye-mail, if that's the way it goes out. And if one or two members can't receive it, well then so be it. But at least the rest of us would have it. MS. DESELEM: I would be more than happy. We had had this discussion at a previous commission meeting and it was determined that you didn't want me to send things by e-mail. So if you now want me to, I will do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The discussion I thought at the time was leading to more intense items than just a letter occasionally as a back-up after the packet's gone out. By all means, after the packet goes out, we should be able to receive it by whatever means you can send it. And I think that would help us in those instances. But I wouldn't want to receive the packet by e-mail. Not unless you want to give me your printer and a computer too. MS. DESELEM: I was going to say, I think that exceeds the memory that we're allowed to send out anyway. But, no, I would be very happy to send anything bye-mail that I get to you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, on that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And ifit comes through Kay, we don't have to disclose that then, do we? If it comes from staff? MR. KLATZKOW: No, it's public record. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But if they send it directly to us, which sometimes happens, those we do? Page 92 October 5, 2006 MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Kay. MS. DESELEM: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, I think the applicant wanted a rebuttal. Mr. Hancock? MR. HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With regard to issues raised during the public comment portion, I think probably one that you, Mr. Strain, drove during the discussion, and there was even some questions about the way they were phrased, may have been about access to the site, so -- and isn't access and maintenance both opportunities? I would like to ask legal counsel for the property owner, Jason Mikes, to address that issue at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You realize this is a rebuttal, so I ask you to keep it brief. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. MR. MIKES: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Jason Mikes. I'm with Quarles and Brady here in Naples, Florida. Addressing the access issue. We did a spot check of deeds and public records affecting properties along Rock Road, Deer Run and Catawba to check on the access issue, to determine are these platted roads, does the county own them, are they privately owned. And from our spot check of the public records, we determined that each property owner obtained title to their property with a right-of-way reserved, you know, depending on where the roadway is, for access to the other property . So while there is no plat or there is no easement, a single document easement that specifically says you have access, each deed does reserve a right-of-way for other homeowners and property owners to drive across property to access their property. Page 93 October 5, 2006 It further does not expressly state that with that right of access is a right to maintain or repair but, you know, by law that is assumed if you have the right to access, you also have the right to maintain and repair in order to, you know, keep that access. Similar to how the neighbors already agree to contribute sums for the continued maintenance of Rock Road now, the applicant is simply suggesting they would contribute sums, just like they would, but to maintain the property at a higher standard of maintenance, meaning, you know, additionallimerock, paving, asphalt and so forth. So that is where we're gaining, we believe our access rights comes from, is each individual deed that conveyed property to the homeowners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your argument is that the right to maintain and repair -- right now you have access. MR. MIKES: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you have a right to maintain and repair that access. MR. MIKES: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you believe that that language also includes the right to build an entire new road up to county standards? MR. MIKES: It gives us the right to maintain and repair the road. I'm not saying it expressly says we can pave a dirt road. I'm just saying that, you know, that is what we are moving forward on, the legal assumption, the legal opinion, which of course can be rebutted. But it's our opinion that we are simply maintaining the road to a higher standard than it has been in the past by paving it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you know what width that easement you saw is? MR. MIKES: If I'm not mistaken, most of the properties we saw, all the properties I looked at, which is not all of the properties, had at least a 15- foot right-of-way reserved on the edge of their property. So if you have two abutting properties, 15 feet on one side, 15 feet on the Page 94 October 5, 2006 other, so a 30-foot wide right-of-way, if you will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. That poses a question for Mr. Scott, ifhe would come up. Thank you, sir. Mr. Scott? MR. SCOTT: I anticipate your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many county standard roads can you fit in a 30-foot easement? MR. SCOTT: I don't believe we have any. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Are there any other questions? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Hancock, you can go forward with your presentation. MR. HANCOCK: Thank you. On the issue of access, we've been caught between a request by the fire district, and that is that if they can't get down Rock Road next year like they couldn't this year, they want somebody to pave it. And the property owners tried to step up and fulfill that need. And hopefully, to be honest with you, if this project were approved, regardless of the road issue, I would think that having -- it never occurred to me that improving the road with an asphalt surface to make it more drivable would not be desired. So the fact that we mayor may not be able to put asphalt down is getting us caught between what the fire district is asking us to do and what we mayor may not have a legal right to do. And I'm not sure how to address that, standing here today. But let me suggest this: With or without this project there is no plan to bring Rock Road to county standards. There's no vehicle to do it, there's no MSTU. Whether this item is heard and approved or not, as a property owner, if an MSTU is formed, they will be a participant in whatever improvements the community determines to be necessary. And if it were the community's desire to structure that in such a Page 95 October 5, 2006 way that there were front-end funding, we're open to those concepts. Nonetheless, we're trying to respond to a fire district comment, and we're getting caught in the how to. And I understand how that's going to raise concern here today, and I honestly tell you, I don't have a firm answer for you on how we can do that. All I can say is that the goal would be to make sure that the conditions that occurred this year due to washouts would not occur in future years, and they would have the ability through limerock and grading to make those types of improvements to the roadway. The second item that I want to address is the issue of security that was brought up. There is in fact a designed centralized security system. And the security system is a two-way focus. It's not just trying to keep people from escaping, as is the picture being painted here, but to also keep outside influences from coming into the building. And those would be monitored 24/7. I guess the last item I want to raise, and this is an item I raised with staff at the SDP preap. I asked them if single-family building permits were being held up in this area because of the poor access, the poor road conditions, the fact that safety equipment could not get down Rock Road, and the answer was no. So we're going to continue to put single-family homes out there, and we're going to continue to put people at risk knowingly. But through this application, someone who is offering to try and improve that situation, albeit to achieve a goal, is being told no, thank you. And so again, the purpose of our approach today was to respond to the fire district comments. And if there's a way we can help make Rock Road a better road, we are open to that discussion. Beyond that, I think there's a lot of things said that don't necessarily warrant a response, and I will leave it to your discretion at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Page 96 October 5, 2006 Are there any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Tim. Ray, there are no more public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Is there a motion from the Planning Commission? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would like to move that we move CU-2005-AR-7942 to the Board of County Commissions with a recommendation for approval, subject to staff recommendations, or staff conditions. And there were quite a few changes. Instead of the addition of care clients in number two. Maximum square footage on the site plan. Five residential structures. Elimination of condition nine. On 11, the on-site monitoring of the same. On number 13, the site must be designed in compliance, rather than developed. And that the buildings be one story. That there be no Baker Acted patients. And that the access road conform to LDC standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second to the motion for approval? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second it, just to move it along. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Schiffer. Is there a discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And add one stipulation that there's no exterior public address systems. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll accept that stipulation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have some discussion, if you all don't mind. You want to go first? Go ahead, Mr. Murray. Page 97 October 5, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY : Well, only because I'm struggling -- I'm trying to understand here. You've made a point, Mr. Chairman, about the road, and the audience members who have testified have indicated that they would not participate in it. But I'm not sure that this isn't moot because of that. If they can stop the process simply by not allowing it to go forward, that's -- so I'd like a little -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, that's item 2-B, and basically that is an issue of a condition -- that's why I stressed the point during the meeting. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My discussion --let me get through my discussion, maybe it might answer some of your questions. We have four conditional criteria for a conditional use. I do not believe this application meets any four of the conditional criteria. The first one, 2A, consistency with the Land Development Code. First off, this particular facility is described in our SIC, which is standard industrial classification code, as a residential care facility, and it comes under 8361. If you look into the zoning code, you'll see that 8361 is a social service that falls and is a conditional use in a C-3 or a permitted use in a C-4 or C-5. It does not reference this particular type of zoning district as a use of any nature whatsoever. So it is inconsistent with our Land Development Code. And it is inconsistent with our Growth Management Plan for any number of reasons, including, least of which, is the density that they intend to use here and the road system that's going to support it. As far as 2B, Mr. Murray's question about the ingress and egress, we have heard from direct testimony today, both by staff, that they could not verify that the egress was secured. We heard their attorney say that the easement and the right-of-way was 15 feet maybe on both sides, which will only be 30 feet. We heard staff further testify a road to county standards could not be placed in that 30 feet. So Page 98 October 5, 2006 there's no way that adequate ingress and egress, in my opinion, can be reached on that. Item 2C, affects neighborhood properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects. We know that the economic effects could be impacted. One realtor under oath today testified that she felt positive that was the case. Common sense would tell us that would probably be the case. Item 2D, compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district. Compatible use within the district. I think that by the mere fact this is a designated zoning district in this county it is not compatible with residential districts. So I don't see how this facility qualifies under any of the conditions of the conditional use for this zoning district, and I certainly would not vote an approval of the motion made on the table. And Mr. Murray, I hope that resolves your question. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You've made it much clearer for me in the manner in which you've addressed it. I felt it was moot. I felt it was moot because of the fact that it looked to me like they couldn't go forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other comments from the Planning Commissioners? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Just in support of my motion, I'd like to say that I feel that there is a tremendous stigma against people with mental illness, but it's something that can happen to anybody. And I don't think we should automatically be prejudiced against something just because it treats people who may have problems with depression or addiction. It's not going to be street people or criminals who will be going to this place, it will be people like, just to give a couple examples, Betty Ford or Rush Limbaugh, who are not criminals but who just have a problem and who are trying to better themselves. It's not something I don't think that's going to make the Page 99 October 5, 2006 neighborhood dangerous or that's going to hurt anybody's lifestyle the way that they've designed the building. It seems like the people in the neighborhood will have no contact ever with any of the people who are going to be there. That's not wanted from the side of the -- the therapist's side either. So I really don't think it's going to be a negative for the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Midney. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't have a problem with the type of business. I have a problem with the type of business in this location. I think you have real compatibility issues, and they regard both intensity and density. We obviously have heard a lot about the ingress and egress issue. And they just don't have it together here. And they're not going to be able to get it, according to the testimony that we've heard here today. I think this is just one more case where the EDC is on the wrong side of trying to force industry into residential areas. They are trying to do it on Immokalee Road up against residential. They want an industrial use up against residential on Immokalee and now they want to stick into this neighborhood essentially a commercial use. I understand the strict definition of commercial; however, it's a commercial use on roads that cannot handle it. And I'll let it go at that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments on this motion? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah, I don't agree with the presumption that our decision has any bearing as far as what the use of this facility is going to be. In my view, there are three criteria that call for to be met for this to be accepted as a conditional use (sic). Our chairman has completely articulated all three of those as they are specified in the Land Development Code, and I do not think we should recommend this for approval. Page 100 October 5, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Kolflat. With that, this is a motion to recommend approval, subject to the conditions as stated. All those in favor of recommending approval, please signify by raising your hands. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicates.) COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicates.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two. Two for approval. All those against, please raise your hands. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: (Indicates.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicates.) COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicates.) COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Indicates.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicates.) COMMISSIONER TUFF: (Indicates.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (Indicates.) Seven to two, motion is denied. Is there another motion? Well, we still have to make another motion. So that motion lost. Is there another motion possibly to recommend denial from anybody? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? Is there a second to recommend denial? COMMISSIONER TUFF: (Indicates.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff. Mr. Tuff and Mr. Kolflat. Are there any discussion on the recommendation for denial? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only thing I'm going to say is my previous statement read as my reasons stand with this particular motion as well. And I would support this motion wholeheartedly. All those in -- if that's the end of discussion, all those in favor of the recommendation of denial, please signify by raising your hand. Page 101 October 5, 2006 COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: (Indicates.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicates.) COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicates.) COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicates.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two, three, four. Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Agree. COMMISSIONER TUFF: (Indicates.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (Indicates.) Five, six, seven. Seven in favor. All those against? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicates.) COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicates.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion for denial carries 7-2. Thank you all. Please commissioners, fill out the conditional use finding of fact. It's part of your package. And with the commission's consensus, I will assume now we'll take a one-hour break for lunch. Does that sound good to everybody? In fact, could we make it 1 :30 for round numbers? Is that acceptable? Okay, we will resume this meeting at 1 :30. So our lunchtime will end in about 55 minutes or so. Thank you all. (A recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If everybody will take their seats, we'll resume our meeting. We've worn out one court reporter. We're on the second. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We wear them out. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Actually, we took her away with the bobbysocks. Item #8B Page 102 October 5, 2006 PETITION: RZ-2005-AR-8427 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll ask everybody in the audience to take their seats and dispel with the conversation. Melissa Zone? This meeting will resume with petition RZ-2005-AR-8427, Polly Avenue, LLC, a 61 multi-family unit dwelling project. Are there any disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, I'll ask the -- those wishing to speak on this particular issue, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter, everybody wishing to speak -- thank you. (The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. With that, Mr. Hancock, we're seeing you again. This is twice in one day. MR. HANCOCK: Well, I can assure you, if nothing else, this will be more brief. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hope so. MR. HANCOCK: And I notice most of you were enjoying Subway this morning, or this afternoon, so hopefully at least we're all filled to a degree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Enjoyed is an ambiguous term. I think it's a trapped party here we have. MR. HANCOCK: I have to admit the temptation to get Dunkin Donuts instead of Subway was rather strong. F or the record, Tim Hancock with Davidson Engineering, the project planner, and representing the applicant on this project. By way of description, the subject property before you today and what we're calling Manus Rezone is 8.68 acres in size total. It's located at the northwest corner of Polly Avenue and Sunset Boulevard. The surrounding land uses are one of the more varied set of land uses on a parcel I've seen in some time. All residential but ranging in Page 103 October 5,2006 densities, intensities and type to a great degree. To the north is an undeveloped PUD called Waterford Estates. The Santa Barbara Boulevard extension, currently the plans are to use the portion of that adjacent to subject property for water retention for that roadway widening. So for all practical purposes, there will be a residential component of a moderate density to the north, but it will be across a water retention area based on the current Santa Barbara plans to the north. To the east, we have agricultural zoning across Polly Avenue, and it's developed predominantly with residential uses on, to a great degree, nonconforming lots ranging from less than an acre to up to five acres in the area. They are zoned ago but they were in this configuration prior to the designation, and, therefore, are legal nonconforming lots of record and are developed for single-family use or vacant. To the west is the future Santa Barbara Boulevard extension. This will be a multi-lane -- multi-lane collector link in the county transportation system and will provide a north/south corridor connection that will ultimately reach from Rattlesnake Hammock to Vanderbilt Beach Road and beyond. It does go beyond Vanderbilt Beach Road currently, and I'm confident the plans do go to Immokalee -- are there, if not, in the works. And across the proposed right-of-way is Royal Woods Golf and Country Club, a residential golf course community with a gross density of a little more than three units per acre. The general land use in the area can best be described as ranging from low to moderate density in an area that's been in transition to a more urban style of development for the past 10 years. And by transition, if you go just about 600 to 1,000 feet south of this property, you begin seeing planned unit developments ranging between three plus units an acre to, one is zoned RSF-5. Page 104 October 5, 2006 So this is one of those holes in the doughnut, an area that is designated urban on the future land use map, it has a historical low-density residential land use that's attached to it, but it has been, over time, transitioning. And as some of the residents will tell you, it feels like they're kind of getting eaten in from the outside, and we are -- we are certainly one of those properties that are looking for the urban classification. Because it's designated urban on the future land use map, as you are all aware, it permits a base density up to four units per acre with a potential for density bonuses in excess of that amount. The application before you does seek a bonus density through the residential infill provision of up to three units per acre, for a total of seven units per acre on the property. The project meets the established criteria for the infill designation as outlined in your staff report pending the purchase of nine TD Rs or transfers of development rights. I'll address more specifically the issue of density and TDR acquisition a little bit later in my presentation. But the applicant, as per the application, is requesting a straight rezone to RMF -12 with density cap of seven units per acre, which would permit multi-family development. On the visualizer now is a copy of the conceptual site plan. Again, this is a rezone, so we're required to provide a conceptual site plan to indicate the general pattern of development. And as indicated in your staff report, the property is fairly uniform and has a vegetative cover. As a matter of fact, with the exception of a thin sliver on the west side, the rest of it is all classified as 411, or really an upland pine area. Unlike a lot of areas and a lot of parcels in this area, it really hasn't become more wet over time, and that's a discussion I think we'll probably have when we address the issue of drainage in the area. But it's fairly uniform, and as such, the Land Development Code Page 105 October 5, 2006 requirement of 15 percent of native vegetation retention in the form of a preserve is achieved along the western property line of an area that runs the entire length of the property and is about 93 feet wide. The area you see here that -- the preserve area, as you can see, runs north and south on the western side of the property. The area you see here even west of that is a part of the project. This is a 70-foot reservation for right-of-way for future Santa Barbara Boulevard extension. The applicant has further agreed and -- to address the issue of the potentially public benefit to donate this land at no cost to Collier County for the purpose of expansion of Santa Barbara Boulevard. That donation then will have a 93-foot buffer next to it, and as we go to the east, the residential development will occur in this area. The originally submitted traffic impact statement indicated 64 units but was amended in February to reflect the correct number of 61 units. The projected build-out for the project is no sooner than 2008, and is more likely to occur in 2009 or thereafter, while the extension as Santa Barbara Boulevard Extension is scheduled to commence in 2007. The anticipated project completion date and the schedule of Santa Barbara are very similar. Once completed, Santa Barbara Boulevard will be the primary source of ingress and egress via Polly Avenue for this proj ect. At the neighborhood information meeting, residents expressed concern and frustration toward Collier County with regard to the use and lack of maintenance of Sunset Boulevard. Polly Avenue is paved along the entire frontage here and is paved along the frontage of the parcel to about this point. When you get north of that point, Polly Avenue is a dirt road. It's a limerock graded road. Stop me if you've heard this one before. MS. RHODES: Sunset. MR. HANCOCK: I'm sorry, Sunset. I said Polly, didn't I? Thank Page 106 October 5, 2006 you. Sunset, as you go north, it is a privately maintained road and it is unpaved. When the proj ect is coming out of the ground, Santa Barbara over here will have a connection here at Polly. So for anyone coming out of this project at that time to go north on Sunset and use an unpaved road to get up to Whitaker and go over to County Barn when they can come out at a median opening here and move north on Santa Barbara, we don't think, is a strong likelihood at all. So while the project, as it's proposed, based on the time line for the widening of Santa Barbara, we don't believe will have impact going north on Sunset Boulevard. I did want to bring to the Planning Commission's attention that at the neighborhood information there were a lot of comments, a lot of frustration, a lot of concern about a lack of control of Sunset Boulevard. There seemed to be frustration that they were not getting responses from the county with regard to how to make improvements to that road and who should make them. And I'm not telling you that everyone stood up and said we love your project, but there was a level of frustration dealing with Sunset with the existing situation and the concern that this proj ect mayor may not exacerbate that condition. Without the construction of Santa Barbara Boulevard our trip distribution contained in the TIS shows a maximum peak hour of eight trips going north on Sunset Boulevard. So even in the non-Santa Barbara built environment, the level of impact to Sunset would be fairly small. But, again, the timing of this project with Santa Barbara seemed to be fairly similar and that should not be an issue. So after the construction of Santa Barbara, these trips will be virtually eliminated using the existing Santa Barbara. I mentioned before, the applicant has agreed to donate, at no cost to the county, up to 75 feet -- or 70 feet along future Santa Barbara for right-of-way. I'd like to point out that that's 12 percent of the total land Page 107 October 5, 2006 mass that we're talking about here. That makes that donation significant. It helps Santa Barbara move forward by not requiring it to go through any type of evaluation or eminent domain proceeding. And I certainly feel that the applicant has made great strides in working with the county transportation department in basically creating a public benefit from the project that will benefit far more than the developer. As far as utilities, water and sewer are available in near proximity to the site. The project is located within the Collier County water and sewer service boundary. The project will be subject to application for water and sewer adequacy from Collier County utilities at the time of either plat or SDP. We had approximately 18 people attend the neighborhood information meeting. There were a couple that were supportive of the project, but most people had concerns in one of three areas; traffic, drainage or density. One issue on density that came out loud and clear is that there was unanimous support in that room that they want no affordable housing on this property. As a matter of fact, apparently Habitat for Humanity had tried to put housing on this property in the past, and the community rallied against it and it didn't happen. The concern, again, for them is devaluation. Weare not projecting any affordable housing. We will-- are not projecting workforce housing, but what we are willing to do is, at the time of CO of each unit, make a donation to the Collier County Affordable Housing Trust Fund of $1,000 per unit in an effort for those funds to be utilized as the county sees fit to address workforce housing in the future. The proj ect lies along the western boundary of an area that has historically drained south and west. As you look at an aerial of the area, the subject property is located right here. And this is Polly Page 108 October 5, 2006 Avenue and this is Sunset as it goes north. Santa Barbara extension will be right here. So the property is in a transitional position between a future major collector and a lower density residential; therefore, we're reviewing the project as being transitional in nature for purposes of compatibility when we look at project density. On the issue of drainage, we had this conversation with the EAC on Wednesday of this week. And one of the problems we have in Southwest Florida with drainage is that the last person in is the person who gets stuck. Roads are built without adequate pipes underneath them. Overall large-scale drainage approaches and plans are really not in place. And for the folks -- and as I mentioned, our property is fairly high during the heaviest rains out there in the past couple of months, I did drive out by the site and not experience sheet flow over the road, and definitely not sheet flow over our property. Weare naturally a foot-and-a-half higher than if you look at the other side of Sunset. So as best we can tell, based on topography and actual conditions and a very heavy, heavy rainfall summer, there's not a lot of water traveling across our property. But I will tell you that Sunset does act as a barrier or dam for those properties to the east. And I think you're going to hear from the residents that drainage is one of their primary concerns. And at the neighborhood information meeting, time and time again we heard, the county has promised this. They've said they're working on this plan. And I know there's -- there are a lot of drainage plans in place for what's being proposed in this area, but I think there's a lack of confidence on the part of the residents that the larger drainage issue isn't actually being addressed. As far as our project, you know, Mr. Strain, we just had this conversation on the last proj ect. Yes, we are regulated on discharge rates. The fact that the county is improving Santa Barbara and that Page 109 October 5, 2006 there are county retention ponds that are going to be to the north of us, I don't foresee, based on the conditions out there, how this project in any way, shape or form will impede the existing flow. If the improvements -- or if improvements to Sunset are proposed by the county and we have the ability to accept some of that water into our system, we are -- we're happy to do that, but no such plan to my knowledge exists. And I think that's one of the major concerns from the residents is, as everyone builds up around them, what's going to happen to them? How is their water going to be handled? And I don't think they feel they're getting adequate answers to that. As someone who represents a nine-acre parcel, I can't tell them how the county is going to address this. Hopefully somebody from the county can speak of the downstream improvements that are proposed and planned. And I do know that Santa Barbara will help to some degree. As I mentioned earlier, the project as proposed is at seven units an acre, which would require multi-family buildings in a two- to three-story configuration. The reason for that primarily is because once approximately one acre is set aside for roadway improvements then another 1.2 acres is set aside as a preserve, it begins to narrow your development pocket. And in order to reach a density of seven units per acre, there's only one way to go, and that is up. That was a concern for the residents as far as height of buildings in the RMF -12 zoning district. It does allow a height of up to 50 feet. This is a conceptual plan that was prepared based on multi-family buildings that are within a half mile of this site that exist today that are adjacent to single-family. What we wanted to do was take those buildings and drop them in and see what kind of density was achievable; in other words, can you even get seven units an acre on it in a condominium-type project. Page 110 October 5, 2006 And the answer is yes, but barely. I do have good news for the residents, and that is that based on changing market conditions, this plan is really no longer financially feasible. As you know, there's been a glut in the market of condominiums out there, investor units for sale. And the idea of coming on the market in the foreseeable future with a condominium multi-family project like this is questionable at best. As a result, the applicant is willing to reduce the density on the project and alter the zoning, if it's the recommendation of this board, to RMF -6 with a density cap of four units per acre. That would take the maximum density from 61 units down to 35. The reason for this, and beyond the market conditions is that the RMF-12 zoning district requires a minimum parcel size of one acre. So if you felt that you needed to do more single-family in RMF -12, that opportunity doesn't exist. In RMF-6 it allows both single-family and multi-family. And based on the preliminary information we're looking at right now, the likelihood of a development pattern here would be a combination of some single-family with townhome development. But I want to stress that regardless of the density and zoning, this will be an owner-occupied community, not a rental community and will not be affordable or workforce housing in response to the concerns of the residents nearby. So we are more than willing to accept a reduction in density to four units per acre. And if it is the desire and you agree that an RMF-6 zoning category is more compatible than that RMF -12, we certainly would find no fault in that. We believe, as does your staff, that while the proj ect as originally proposed goes a long way towards meeting the required compatibility elements in the Land Development Code, a reduction of four units an acre when our surrounding densities are between three and four to the west and to the south and roughly one unit an acre right next to us does, in fact, do an even better job oftransitioning the residential Page 111 October 5, 2006 component from the very busy Santa Barbara roadway to a lesser intensitive residential community. The second thing it does is it does reduce the height. RMF-6 zoning district only allows 35 feet in lieu of 50 in the RMF-12. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, before you go too far there, there might be a legal consideration that I would like to see possibly cleared up so if we know even what you're saying is a possibility at today's meeting because you were advertised, and I'm sure you were reviewed by staff, under the basis of an RMF-12. And I want to really pose to the county attorney, if you suggesting RMF -6 would work for you, which certainly is a lot better than RMF -12, for us to even consider it though, are we even in the right realm at this meeting to be able to do that. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLA TZKOW: It took me by surprise because I just went through the application. I'm trying to figure it out. If the commission feels that they're based on what's been given to you to hear this, then feel free to move forward, or you can continue this to give yourself an opportunity to, perhaps, get additional information on this. MR. HANCOCK: If I may, Mr. Klatzkow. I did have a conversation with Ms. Student prior to the hearing because that was my question also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And by the way, all fairness to Mr. Klatzkow, this was Ms. Student's project and she wasn't able to be here today, so he's trying to pinch-hit. So I certainly appreciate your effort, sir. MR. HANCOCK: And, again, I apologize. If I had known you were sitting in, I would have tried to fill you in on this, but I fully expected to see Marjorie here. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I understand. MR. HANCOCK: But I discussed it with Marjorie, and the analysis we walked through was that there have been times that this Page 112 October 5,2006 board, when an applicant requests a zoning category of X, has recommended a lesser zoning category and a lesser density. What we are suggesting to you is that our application is for RMF -12 with a density cap of seven, that we are comfortable with and willing to accept a lesser zoning category of RMF -6 with a density cap to four if it is the direction of this commission to do so. So that being said, if the result today is a recommendation of approval at that zoning -- at the RMF -6 with a density cap of four, we are comfortable with that. If, however, you feel strongly that RMF-12 is more appropriate or a better zoning district, then we'll move forward under that recommendation also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're noted for wanting more density in this county. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Of course we are. MR. HANCOCK: I wasn't envisioning a very tough sell on this particular issue, but -- and by leaving it in that manner, Ms. Student expressed to me that she felt that you as a commission did have the discretion to make a determination to a lesser intensive zoning district, but if it were to go to a more intensive, that that probably would be the trigger for the item to go back and be reheard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And a lot of our discussion's probably going to be reaction from staff to this new issue too, so -- okay. Sorry to interrupt you. MR. HANCOCK: And that's okay, sir. You'll be happy to know I only have one more item. One of the requirements of the project is to provide a payment in lieu for sidewalks and bike paths for Santa Barbara Boulevard, and this language comes directly out of the Land Development Code, and there's no lack of clarity on my part there; however -- and this is a decision that ultimately, I think, is a policy decision for the Board of Commissioners, but I wanted to bring it to your attention, make you aware of it, and certainly take any input you might have as we proceed Page 113 October 5, 2006 to the board. But after this latest round of impact fee increases, I went back and looked at the Tindale, Oliver report that was the basis for the impact fee increase. In that report they used as the basis for impact fees the cost of roadways that were under construction and those that have been bid. The plans for each of those roads included sidewalks, bike paths or a combination of the two. My point is this: It is that if the county in its impact fee ordinance has factored into the impact fee that we charge to each and every residence that is built on this property, the cost of sidewalks and bike paths -- they were not excluded from the Tindale, Oliver report. They were not taken out. They're in there. To then ask a property owner to make a payment to build a sidewalk and bike path on Santa Barbara Boulevard is double dipping. It amounts to approximately $60,000 for this project. And so while I don't expect the Planning Commission to necessarily tell the board what their policy should be, it's an issue I plan to raise at the board, and I wanted to include it in deliberations today and then get your input, and obviously so -- you know, we're not trying -- staff is aware that I was bringing this issue today. So if someone can tell me that sidewalks and bike paths were excluded from impact fees and show me where, I'll go away and we'll agree to the payment in lieu, and we have no problem with that. But to charge us $60,000 for something that was factored into impact fees, to me, is double dipping and is unfair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think before the meeting's over, we will have input on that from transportation staff. MR. HANCOCK: I agree that that's a strong likelihood. And with that, I am concluding my presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody -- Mr. Vigliotti, then Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Hancock, who are the Page 114 October 5, 2006 owners of Polly Avenue, LLC? MR. HANCOCK: The owner of Polly Avenue, LLC, is Mr. Jorge Savloff, who is here in attendance today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That brings up a good point. I hope staff will tell us why that wasn't included in our packet. Maybe it wasn't -- I mean, if -- it is a rezone, so I assumed it would have been necessary. MR. HANCOCK: The best I can tell, what happened is, Polly Avenue, LLC, the property was transferred by deed from W.F. Investments to Polly Avenue, LLC. And so we listed Polly Avenue as the owner, and W.F. Investments is still reflected on the property appraiser's website, so the potential for confusion is there. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Then you have a contract purchaser. Who is the present owner? Who is the contract purchaser? What was the -- MR. HANCOCK: Polly Avenue has closed on the property. They are the owner, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It's closed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we leave that issue though, does staff have any issue as to why it wasn't addressed in our package? MS. ZONE: Commissioner Strain, it was part of the back-up material, along with the TIS. And I just came over here to Mr. Bellows to see if it was in his packet, and it is missing, which has some concern to me because we have all the owner affidavits as well. And why, you know, when the packet was sent out it didn't have final verification -- and so -- but I know for a fact that it is and was part of the back-up for this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Melissa, my entire packet on this is 13 pages. How many pages should we have received; do you know? MS. ZONE: Well, I don't know the count, but the TIS should have been in there, the -- your rezone findings, in addition to the owner affidavits should have also been in there. There's quite a bit that Page 115 October 5,2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have the rezone findings and we have the staff report. At least I have. Those are the two documents that are in my package. MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, you do not have the application for public hearing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MS. ZONE: Right. That was all part of the back-up material for this, and it was all provided. Why it's not in there, I have great concern myself. MR. HANCOCK: The staff report that was mailed to me includes the application for public hearing, it includes our responses to the application for public hearing, it includes a 1994 letter from the South Florida Water Management District, and that's -- I guess that's why I was kind of off guard as-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Hancock, it might be to your advantage to have us better informed. I know it's through no fault of yours that this is not in our possession. I, for one, rather -- always want to get more paperwork rather than less, and this is not a good situation for us to be in, especially without some of the reports that we normally reveal. MR. HANCOCK: For the record, if you would like, I will clearly state that the name of the applicant and the owner of the property is Polly Avenue, LLC. As evidenced in the application of record, that was updated. As you know, we have to provide the staff with any updates and changes in ownership. Polly Avenue, LLC, on page 3 of our application, indicates Jorge Savloff as the 100 percent owner of the limited partnership. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: You mentioned another corporation or another LLC. Did it transfer? MR. HANCOCK: Previously W.F. Investments was the owner of record, and the Polly Avenue, LLC, took over that ownership. It was not an arm's length transaction. It was -- Page 116 October 5, 2006 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: W.F. Investments is who? MR. HANCOCK: Is actually Mr. Willy Feinsinger (phonetic), who is next to Mr. Savloff in the back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow, the fact we don't have this paperwork, is that going to have any bearing on the ability of this to move forward? MR. KLATZKOW: You don't have full information. I mean-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I'm going. We don't have the public record documents we were supposed to have. MR. KLATZKOW: I think it might be a good idea to continue this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I asked. Mr. Hancock, I know this isn't your fault. It certainly seems to lie with someone else. I'm sorry that that has occurred, but I'm not sure we can do anything about it here today. You might want to -- MR. HANCOCK: Is there the opportunity -- I know there are folks that have been here all day -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to ask the --let the public speak. We normally do during a continuance, but I would highly suggest that after that occurs, we may want to -- you may want to ask for a continuance so we can take this into the next meeting and finish it up there while we have all the paperwork present. MR. HANCOCK: Certainly if our choice is continuance or no action, I don't think there is a choice there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. HANCOCK: Let me ask -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It might be a good time also to address the RMF-6 versus the 12. Maybe you could incorporate that when you come back, or will that cause too much -- MR. HANCOCK: Well, if it's a continuance, hopefully it will just be a continuance to your next regularly scheduled meeting. Page 11 7 October 5, 2006 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be to the 19th is what we'd ask for. And between now and then, staff would have time to also at least verbally advise us of the change, how the impact of that change will be in relationship to every other thing that we received. MR. HANCOCK: Okay. And then I'm open to ideas as to how to verify information is getting to you. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: There is none. MR. HANCOCK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think you -- once a mistake's made once, it usually doesn't get made twice. MR. HANCOCK: No. And Ms. Zone has been nothing but thorough, so I'm at a loss myself. Let me ask this, if I may. A continuance here today, will that affect our schedule of the Board of County Commissioner's day? MS. ZONE: Since this is an error on staff, I would -- I would suggest that it shouldn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you've got to have 10 days, I believe, between the two meetings. MR. KLATZKOW: It's a timing issue. When is it scheduled to go before the board? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What date is your board meeting, Tim; do you know? Because you're on the 19th of October -- MS. ZONE: I know. It's the first week-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you're in November with the board you're okay. MR. HANCOCK: We are in November. MS. ZONE: We are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the 19th they get the advertising in, they meet the 10-day deadline and be in in November . You'll be fine. MR. HANCOCK: As long as staff can work with us to try and help keep that on schedule, that -- you know, that will calm some of Page 118 October 5, 2006 the fears of the property owners for sure. That -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, would you be able to make that commitment? MS. ZONE: I absolutely can make that commitment and still am in shock as to why that wasn't part of your packet because all that material is -- was provided and I have it and -- MR. KLATZKOW: I have that material, so -- MS. ZONE: You do? MR. KLATZKOW: -- it's apparently a photocopy error. MS. ZONE: Right. And I notice like the ordinance is also now missing as well. I mean, there's a whole -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All of it. MS. ZONE: All of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ZONE: I'm very sorry. MR. HANCOCK: I would like to point out that one of the things that has flabbergasted me a little bit is that Collier County sends all this out to a private provider to do copying, and because of that, it adds at least one week to the time frame between when staff reports have to be ready so they can be produced. And it would seem to me that in Collier County we can copy things. And so instead of having five weeks in between hearings, maybe we could have four because we know how to operate a copy machine. But it was just terribly frustrating to me to find out that that was part of the reason why hearings were being scheduled so far apart was because we have a private provider doing copying. So maybe we could reduce some of the mistakes this way too. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Recommend a conversation with Mr. Mudd. MR. HANCOCK: I have a feeling that will happen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What I'd like to do with the Planning Commission's consensus, I'd rather bypass any questions of Page 119 October 5,2006 staff and the applicant and go right into public testimony and wrap this up into a continuance. Does that seem okay with everyone? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, makes sense. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I'll ask my questions at a later time. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: The same kind of continuance we did this morning? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, when we get to that. We've got to hear the public testimony first. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Hancock. Ray, how many public speakers do we have? MR. BELLOWS: Four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'd like to advise the public speakers, we will accommodate you today because you're here today, although we are going to hear this again on the 19th as a continuance. It would be more relevant to us if you spoke on the 19th, but we won't forget everything you say today. So if you want to speak both times, you're welcome to. But if you're going to be here on the 19th and you can defer your discussion till then, I think that might be a better time, especially when we get -- the more reports we have, we could respond to you better. So with that in mind, as the speakers are called, you can either say you want to speak today or you can decline for today and we'll hear you on the 19th. Want to call them off, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Barbara Ballard? MS. BALLARD: Decline till the 19th. MR. BELLOWS: Liz Rhodes. MS. RHODES: Decline till the 19th. MR. BELLOWS: Maureen Schoch. Page 120 October 5,2006 MS. SCHOCH: I'll speak. I don't know if I can be here on the 19th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's why we're doing it. Thank you. MS. SCHOCH: It's kind of hard -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to state your name for the record. MS. SCHOCH: Maureen Schoch, and -- 6167 Adkins Avenue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. SCHOCH: It's kind of hard to comment on it now when we don't know what it is that would be built. I mean, I just see the map and I see a driveway coming in. But I would like to say a couple things. One, to characterize the surrounding area as being one residence per acre is completely filaceous. It's between two acres and 10 acres in the entire area of Polly, Sunset, and so forth, which extends for quite a ways, and they're all dirt roads with the exception of one block of Atkins, which was paid for by the residents of Adkins, and half of Sunset, which was paid for by the residents of Sunset. Conveniently, just off the map is where the dirt roads start, immediately past -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, you'll have to stay near the speaker or use that movable speaker that we have. MS. SCHOCH: Okay. About maybe 200 feet north of Adkins on Sunset it turns into a dirt road. Whitaker is a dirt road for probably the last 1,500 feet immediately west of Sunset; Whitaker, which will be the main road to get between County Barn and the new Santa Barbara. To say that people would not be using Sunset, I think, is erroneous, especially when I have been told that when people exit out Polly onto Santa Barbara they cannot go left. Due to medians, they will be forced to go left and come back down and make a U-turn at Whitaker if they wanted to go south to Rattlesnake Hammock. Page 121 October 5, 2006 Our area is rural. It is agricultural. It is small -- mostly small older homes. Most of them have been there for like 30 years. And everybody has a -- there's a few one-acre parcels, but it's mostly two and a half to five to 10 acres, and this would be a real change for our neighborhood. It would be very drastic. I mean, it's -- I see where they're going to have a lovely preserve along Santa Barbara so that it will look nice for the cars going down Santa Barbara, but how will it look to all of us who live on Sunset and Adkins and Polly? Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, ma'am. MR. BELLOWS: Lee Glat (sic). MR. SCHOCH: Schoch? MR. BELLOWS: Oh, Schoch. MR. SCHOCH: That would be me. Hi. I can't offer you a $1,000 a unit, but I make a really good hamburger. Lee Schoch, live on Adkins Avenue. This is the first I have heard of any of this project going on. I was in Tennessee. Thank God I bought 30 acres of land up there because I feel like I'm getting squeezed out. I drove down Adkins the other day, and here's a sign that says they want to put in 61 multi-family units. I don't know what multi-family means, that's why I'm here. But three-story building -- these are all single-story houses. If you leave Adkins Avenue or Polly and you go back this way, you have nothing but single-family agricultural farms. And now I'm going to come out Adkins and see three-stories buildings. I just -- I don't see this. When the other gentleman was up here and he was talking about Polly Avenue -- right now when I leave Adkins, I can turn left on Polly, which is asphalted. It makes a very sharp turn in the road and it connects to Rattlesnake Hammock, which Collier County is redoing into four lanes and big hospitals down on 951 and Rattlesnake. Page 122 October 5, 2006 If I leave Adkins and I cannot turn left on Polly, I now have to turn right and go up Sunset, which, as my wife stated, the residents of that street have paid out of their pocket to have it asphalted. Then it becomes a dirt road. Collier County maintains this dirt road about two times to three times a year. It's full of potholes. It's a terrible road. And you're going to go up to Whitaker, and now I have to go down Whitaker to County Barn to do a U-turn to go all the way back down to Rattlesnake Hammock. So I have concerns for that. I really don't have a lot of knowledge about any of this. Like I said, I just heard about this when I got back from Tennessee. I was not notified about anything because I live further than 500 feet away from the proposed unit. But when you have two-and-a-half-acre parcels of land, you're only talking three or four people that are 500 feet away. So I'm here to find out what's going on, and I just want to learn and know more about what's going on in my area, and that's really all I have to say till the 19th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think now that you've seen a little bit about what's going on and staff is here today, I would suggest that you all get together with Ms. Zone -- MR. SCHOCH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and ask for copies of this before the next meeting so that you can thoroughly digest it, and also consider that the applicant has -- we have no idea where this is going to go because we don't have enough information, like you. But the applicant has reduced, offered to reduce the zoning to a -- about half the number that you were discussing. If that has an impact on your thinking, you might -- it will help us if you can come prepared to discuss that with us on the 19th and then we would know more what the neighborhood's thinking as well. MR. SCHOCH: Yeah, because my main question is, if there is a -- if a multi-family project is going to exist on that piece of land, I Page 123 October 5, 2006 want to know where the entrance and the exit to this project's going to be, if it's going to impound on Polly, or is there going to be an exit or entrance off Santa Barbara. I mean, none of this was really addressed, and hopefully it will be on the 19th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would strongly urge that you all try to communicate with Mr. Hancock before the next meeting, because many, many times these issues can get straightened out before the public hearing, and that is a much better way to resolve the issue than trying to detail it out here, because it's harder to do in a public hearing. That would really be helpful. MR. SCHOCH: All right. Thanks for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Ray, any other speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't know if there's a need to hear from anybody else on this issue until the 19th. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a motion, if I can, to have this continued to the 19th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Raised hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by-- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Commissioner Schiffer. He had his hand up first. I'm sorry. Motion made by Commissioner Vigliotti. Discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. -- Jeff, are we -- anything-- MR. KLATZKOW: Best you can do given the circumstances. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No discussion, all those in favor of the motion to continue PU -- RZ-2005-AR-8427, signify by saying aye. Page 124 October 5, 2006 COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you very much. We appreciate it. And sorry for the inconvenience of having to come back on the 19th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We still have a couple items on the-- well, we don't have a couple items. We have a couple issues. Old business. There's none on the agenda. Item #10 NEW BUSINESS New business, Mr. Vigliotti said he had a comment to make, so Mr. Vigliotti, it's yours. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. I'd like to take the time to bring something back up that I brought up about a year and a half, maybe two years ago. At one time I brought up the possibility of opening up with prayer as the commission does and the Congress, and a lot of other government organizations. But at that point, I didn't get enough sponsoring behind me. Everybody seemed like it wasn't going to go ahead. Page 125 October 5, 2006 So I'd like to, at this point, discuss the possibility of starting up, after the Pledge of Allegiance, with at least a moment of silence. I'd like to bring that up for discussion at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, I appreciate your religion and your feelings about your religion, but I certainly don't think government should be participating in any kind of religion or forced times of silence on people who may not want it. I, for one, would not be comfortable with that, and I certainly am not in favor of such a motion. And the reason it failed before, I think, Ken Abernathy very eloquently stated a very similar concern. And he's no longer with us, but at least -- I don't think this is the appropriate place for mixing religion and government. So anybody else? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I wouldn't have any objection to a moment of silence. To me that doesn't necessarily imply religion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: We did this discussion once before. It had exactly the same answer. This is not a place for religion or for waging (sic). This is a business place, and I think that's the way it should stay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: From my point of view, I agree with the chairman. My silence is not necessary for me to get my thoughts together, and so I'm ready to work when we get here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: My opinion? I'm comfortable with it. And every time we start, it seems like we should be doing that just because I'm so used to at all the other meetings I have. I'm okay with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I need to get a consensus from this panel. Mr. Schiffer? Page 126 October 5, 2006 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I'm not in favor of the religious thing, but a moment of silence, I wouldn't want to deny somebody their ability to a religious moment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I kind of wish sometimes some people would be silent. But anyway. I understand, Mr. Schiffer. Mr. Kolflat, do you have any feelings on the matter? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I'm kind of very neutral on it, either way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Donna? COMMISSIONER CARON: I had cast my vote with Mr. Abernathy the last time around, and it remains the same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So why don't we just do it accurately then? All those in favor of leaving things as they are, please signify by raising your hand. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two, three, four. All those in favor of having -- let's start with a moment of silence at the beginning of our meetings, please raise your hand. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: (No response.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two, three, four. It's tied. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tor, how did you vote? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I abstained. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion doesn't carry. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aren't there nine of us? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: He abstained. Page 127 October 5, 2006 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. -- yeah, this isn't a quasijudicial thing, so it's 4-4. If I recall, a tie means it doesn't change. MR. KLATZKOW: Status quo. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Thank you all, and we'll go on to the balance of the meeting. Ladies and gentlemen, the court reporter is getting hard -- it's hard to hear, so you're going to have to take your conversation out in the hall. And the next item is rather important. There's no public comment, and we need a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'd so move. MR. BELLOWS: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: I've just been handed a note from Randy Cohen with Comprehensive Planning that the EAR-based amendment notebooks will be in this building within the next five to 10 minutes, so after the meeting if you guys want to wait around to pick up your notebooks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll wait around for mine to save the county the trouble of having to wheel it all the way out to me. Thank you. And with that, there's a motion to adjourn by Mr. Midney, seconded by -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. All in favor? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. Page 128 October 5, 2006 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion accepted. Meeting's adjourned. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2: 15 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, CHAIRPERSON TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE NOTTINGHAM AND TERRI L. LEWIS, NOTARY PUBLIC. Page 129