CCPC Minutes 11/02/2006 R
November 2, 2006
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida
November 2,2006
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 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION
at Collier County Development Service Center, 2800 North Horseshoe
Drive, Room 610, 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 (Absent)
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
Jeffrey Klatzkow, Assistant County Attorney
Page 1
AGENDA
Revised
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 2,2006, AT
THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION (CDES),
CONFERENCE ROOM 609/610, LOCATED AT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE, 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 GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED
IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM
OF 10 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, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 2 1,2006, REGULAR MEETING
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - OCTOBER 10,2006, REGULAR MEETING
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Petition: RZ-2006-AR-10150, Buckstone Estates, LLC, represented by William L. Hoover, AICP of Hoover
Planning and Development, Inc. and Richard Yovanovich, of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A., request a
rezone from the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Residential Multi-Family-6 zoning district
(RMF-6[ with a limit of 4 homes! per acre]) for a 4.61::!: acre project known as Scenic Woods. The property is
located on the south side of Wolfe Road approximately Y2 mile west of Collier Boulevard in Section 34,
Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) CONTINUED TO
12/7/06
1
__._____...__'_~.,.__u~_~___,.,_.__.._.
B. Petition: PUDZ-A-2006-AR-902l, Collier County Transportation Division, represented by Fred Reischl,
AICP, of Agnoli Barber & Brundage, requesting a PUD to PUD Rezone to amend 99.3 acres from The Club
Estates PUD to LASIP Conservation Area Community Facilities Planned Unit Development (CFPUD).
The site is currently covered by a conservation easement and is proposed to be amended for preserve, water
management and passive recreational uses. The subject property is located on the west side of Collier
Boulevard, south of Club Estates Drive and north of Naples Lakes Country Club, in Section 9,
Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone) COMPANION
TO PUDA-2006-AR-9576
C. Petition: PUDA-2006-AR-9576, The Club Estates n, LLC, represented by Michael Fernandez, A1CP, of
Planning Development Incorporated, requesting a PUD Amendment to change the Club Estates Planned
Unit Development (PUD) to Homes of Islandia Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). The
proposed amendment seeks to remove 99 acres from the original PUD, reduce the number of allowable
dwelling units from 49 to 28, change the name and remove a recreation tract and a common trash collection
area as requirements. The subject property is 155.3::1: acres, with a proposed density of 0.18 units per acre, and
is located on the west side of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), approximately 1 mile north of Rattlesnake-
Hammock Road, in Section 10, Tovmship 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator:
Melissa Zone) COMPANION TO PUDZ-A-2006-AR-902l
D. TIS (Transportation Impact Statement) Guidelines and Procedures (Coordinators: Nick Casalanguida and
Phil Tindal, Transportation Planning)
E. CONTINUATION OF EAR-BASED GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ELEMENT AMENDMENTS,
AS FOLLOWS:
CAPIT AL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT:
SANIT ARY SEWER SUB-ELEMENT
POT ABLE WATER SUB-ELEMENT
DRAINAGE SUB-ELEMENT
SOLID WASTE SUB-ELEMENT
NATURAL GROUNDWATER AQUIFER RECHARGE SUB-ELEMENT
HOUSING ELEMENT
RECREATION & OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
CONSERV ATION & COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN
IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER PLAN
MARCO ISLAND MASTER PLAN
ECONOMIC ELEMENT
9. OLD BUSINESS
10. NEW BUSINESS
11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
13. ADJOURN
11-2--06 eepe Agenda/RB/mk/sp
2
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 2,2006, AT
THE COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION (CDES),
CONFERENCE ROOM 609/610, LOCATED AT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE, 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 GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED
IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM
OF 10 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 A V AILABLE 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, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY CLERK
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 21, 2006, REGULAR MEETING
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - OCTOBER 10,2006, REGULAR MEETING
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Petition: RZ-2006-AR-I0l50, Buckstone Estates, LLC, represented by William L. Hoover, AICP of Hoover
Planning and Development, Inc. and Richard Yovanovich, of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A., request a
rezone from the Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Residential Multi-Family-6 zoning district
(RMF-6[with a limit of 4 homes! per acre]) for a 4.6H acre project known as Scenic Woods. The property is
located on the south side of Wolfe Road approximately Y2 mile west of Collier Boulevard in Section 34,
Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem) CONTINUED TO
12/7/06
1
--.".,._-- _._..,_._--"-~-- _'''.,.."''''....v"...""'_.."'''.__..."'''...'..M.~_.~"__,,.._._ ,--.---..---_..
B. Petition: PUDZ-A-2006-AR-902l , Collier County Transportation Division, represented by Fred Reischl,
AICP, of Agnoli Barber & Brundage, requesting a PUD to PUD Rezone to amend 99.3 acres from The Club
Estates PUD to LA SIP Conservation Area Community Facilities Planned Unit Development (CFPUD).
The site is currently covered by a conservation easement and is proposed to be amended for preserve, water
management and passive recreational uses. The subject property is located on the west side of Collier
Boulevard, south of Club Estates Drive and north of Naples Lakes Country Club, in Section 9,
Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone) COMPANION
TO PUDA-2006-AR-9576
C. Petition: PUDA-2006-AR-9576. The Club Estates n, LLC, represented by Michael Fernandez, AICP, of
Planning Development Incorporated, requesting a PUD Amendment to change the Club Estates Planned
Unit Development (PUD) to Homes of Islandia Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). The
proposed amendment seeks to remove 99 acres from the original PUD, reduce the number of allowable
dwelling units from 49 to 28, change the name and remove a recreation tract and a common trash collection
area as requirements. The subject property is 155.3::1: acres, with a proposed density of 0.18 units per acre, and
is located on the west side of Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951), approximately 1 mile north of Rattlesnake-
Hammock Road, in Section 10, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator:
Melissa Zone) COMPANION TO PUDZ-A-2006-AR-902l
D. CONTINUATION OF EAR-BASED GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ELEMENT AMENDMENTS,
AS FOLLOWS:
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT:
SANITARY SEWER SUB-ELEMENT
POT ABLE WATER SUB-ELEMENT
DRAINAGE SUB-ELEMENT
SOLID WASTE SUB-ELEMENT
NATURAL GROUNDWATER AQUIFER RECHARGE SUB-ELEMENT
HOUSING ELEMENT
RECREATION & OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
CONSERVATION & COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
INTER GOVERNMENT AL COORDINATION ELEMENT
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN
IMMOKALEEAREA MASTER PLAN
MARCO ISLAND MASTER PLAN
ECONOMIC ELEMENT
9. OLD BUSINESS
10. NEW BUSINESS
11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
13. ADJOURN
2
CONTINUATION OF LDC AMENDMENT CYCLE 2006-1 PUBLIC HEARING - To review and take public comments
on the following proposed amendments - An amendment to Ordinance 04-41, the Collier County Land Development
Code, to allow the storage of treated stonnwater in required preserves, under certain conditions, as a permitted use. - TO
BE HEARD BEFORE THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED CCPC LAND USE PETITIONS.
ADJOURN
10-19-06 eepe AgendalRB/mklsp
3
"-_.._---~- ---> -~..- < ~_._,._.,,'-_.--_..,... ~,,_..,_.,_._--- ._-~--
November 2, 2006
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kady, can you turn us on, please?
Okay. Good morning. Would you all please rise for the Pledge
of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. And thank you all for
attending today.
Item #2
ROLL CALL
We'll have the roll call by our secretary.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Caron 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 is absent.
Item #3
ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
Page 2
.._.,_.~-~
November 2, 2006
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we are going to first discuss the
agenda. And there's a few housekeeping matters we may want to
clarify.
Margie, I know that Petition A has been continued, and that's
the Buckstone Estates, LLC, and it's continued to 12/7/06.
But we have two other petitions involving the same proj ect, B
and C. B is the Collier County transportation division's request to
utilize Tract C of the existing PUD. And Item C is the modification
of that existing PUD to allow that to happen.
Wouldn't we want to be -- as far as procedurally in voting and
maybe even hearing, because of the nature, wouldn't we want to go
through C first and then B?
I mean, if the PUD can't be amended or isn't amended, is B an
issue?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, I think that that would be
fine to do it that way. Or in the alternative, because of what
happened at the county commission meeting with a similar one, the
Naples Daily News and Creekside, we've looked at that a little bit
and it may be well to take a motion on -- you know, having part A
and part B to the motion and take it in one motion with two parts.
Because we ran into an oddball situation with the Creekside
where that was passed by the board but the Naples Daily News
wasn't. And if we had taken them together in part A and part B as
part of one motion, we wouldn't have had that situation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But for discussion and
presentation purposes, we will proceed with C first, which is the
actual modification to the PUD. And then we'll go into B, which
actually utilizes the aspects of that modification, if it succeeds
through the C portion.
And after that we have the TIS document that was provided to
us sometime back and refined as recently as this past weekend, sent
to us by transportation.
Page 3
November 2, 2006
The TIS is a courtesy for our review. Transportation wanted
comments on it. And I certainly think we could have plenty of
comments to provide.
After that we may go into the EAR-based growth amendments.
And we need to talk with staff about the untimeliness of a document
that was received at 6:00 last night that was rather intense and it
should never have been received at 6:00 last night.
So with that, I think a motion to recommend the change to the
agenda to allow C to go before B would be in order.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner
Adelstein, seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
Item #4
PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
Planning commission absences. Right now I know that two
weeks from today we have a regular scheduled planning commission
Page 4
...~_.,--
November 2, 2006
meeting. There is only one item on that agenda, so it will be a light
morning. There may be things added to that agenda as a result of
possibly today's meeting, but assuming that we have our regular
meeting, and we will have it, are all of you going to be able to
attend?
And Ray, there are some specially-scheduled meetings, I believe
this month, concerning the AUIR. Can you tell us the dates on those?
MR. SCHMITT: The AUIR -- special meeting AUIR, what I
have is CCPC and productivity committee, I show 7, 12 and 15
December.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Say again?
MR. SCHMITT: Seven, 12 and 15 December -- I'm sorry, those
are the if needed. November 20, 29 and 30 are your regularly
scheduled meeting dates.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's for the AUIR?
MR. SCHMITT: That's the AUIR planning commission,
productivity committee special meeting.
And I show backup dates of 7, 12 and 15 December, if we have
to continue beyond this regularly scheduled three days.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, can you -- I know that you have
been working hard to get the AUIR in a format to present to us.
Because the last thing even a larger committee would need is to have
a lot of changes prior, close to the meeting.
Do you have an idea when we can expect the final draft to be
received?
MR. SCHMITT: I expect that will be out -- you will probably
see it delivered to you Tuesday. They're going to work over the
weekend making the changes and finalizing it on Monday. We
should be delivering that sometime Tuesday -- sometime Tuesday,
you'll get that. If not Tuesday, it will be Wednesday morning.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It would be nice to have it a couple of
weeks, like you're indicating. The only thing, Joe, I would hope that
Page 5
November 2, 2006
you and staff are not going to modify it after we receive it.
MR. SCHMITT: My guidance yesterday was that what's
delivered is what you get -- what you got. If there's any modifications
for whatever reason, we'll have to do that to make sure we give you
enough -- we'll do that probably at the meeting and say there's going
to be changes and give you time to read it before we ever discuss it,
if we have to carry it over in December.
But as far as I'm concerned, when you see it, that's done, as of
Tuesday. That's our plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the 20th, have you found a meeting
location, or do you know where the meeting's going to be held?
MR. SCHMITT: I have all the meetings, at least my indication
are that they're in the boardrooms. But wait a minute, the 20th --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, that gives seating for us.
Where is the productivity committee going to sit?
MR. SCHMITT: They tell us they can put -- we'll all be in the
boardroom.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to use a round table, then,
or some other seating? I mean, if we're all supposed to be equally
utilizing that process, I think that we all ought to be sitting around in
the same area, not separate.
MR. SCHMITT: I don't think it's going to be very comfortable
with the size of the group in there, but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It's going to be hard to be
productive that way too, but we'll do the best we can.
Okay. And our next meeting two weeks from today, if anybody
knows they're not going to be making these first three dates, the 20th,
the 29th and 30th, please at least let us know in that next meeting so
we can make sure we know how many are going to be there.
Item #5
Page 6
November 2, 2006
APPROV AL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 21, 2006, REGULAR
MEETING
Approval of the minutes for September 21 st, 2006 regular
meeting. They were distributed in our packet. Does anybody have
any comments on them?
If not, is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner
Adelstein. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Murray seconded.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
Ray, recaps?
Item #6
BCC REPORT - RECAPS - OCTOBER 10,2006 REGULAR
MEETING
MR. BELLOWS: On October 24th, the Board of County
Page 7
~.._."-~...--..,~
November 2, 2006
Commissioners reheard the Naples Daily News and the companion
Creekside PUD amendment. The Board of County Commissioners
approved the Naples Daily News rezone by a vote of 4-1 and the
Creekside amendment was also passed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Item #7
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
For the Chairman's report, I don't have a report other than a
comment. And I'm very disturbed that last night when I got home at
6:30 or so I found another package delivered by DHL containing a
lot of tables provided for today's review of the EAR. The tables that
were provided changed drastically from the tables that were provided
even two weeks earlier.
In order to understand the tables, it's not a simple matter,
because they are the capital improvements for Collier County. And
they're one of the very most important documents that set the basis
for the upcoming budgets. I tried to do the best I can to review that,
but I don't feel that there was adequate time to do so. When we get
to this item on today's agenda, this panel needs to discuss how we
want to proceed at that point. Receiving such important documents at
such late date is not a good thing for us to review and expect to be
accurate for the citizens of this county.
Item #8A
RZ-2006-AR-I0150, BUCKSTONE ESTATES, LLC-
CONTINUED
With that, we'll move into the advertised public hearings.
Page 8
November 2, 2006
As I mentioned during the addenda to the agenda petition,
RZ-2006-AR-I0150, Buckstone Estates, LLC has been continued to
12/7/06.
Item #8C
PUDA-2006-AR-9576. THE CLUB ESTATES II. LLC
And we modified the agenda. We're moving item C first, and
that was Petition PUDA-2006-AR-9576, The Club Estates II, LLC,
represented by Michael Fernandez.
Will all those wishing to speak on this matter please rise and be
sworn in by the court reporter.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Are there disclosures on the part of the planning commission?
I had a meeting with Mr. Fernandez in which we went over a lot
of the issues involving this, including the consent of ownership in the
various properties that were involved. And I also had an e-mail from
Mr. Fernandez. I believe that by that e-mail they're going to be
bringing in some more information regarding consents. I hope so, at
least.
And with that, if there's no other disclosures, we'll proceed with
the item.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. Michael
Fernandez, with Planning Development, Incorporated, representing
Homes of Islandia PUD.
The applicant is a joint application between the homeowners
association representative and the developers that's remaining on-site,
which apparently at this time controls 20 of the 28 lots. The purpose
of the amendment was relatively brief -- is relatively brief. There's
the removal of 99 acres, of which the county purchased a number of
Page 9
November 2, 2006
years ago that they're proposing to use for conservation, mitigation
and a park.
When -- if you look at your master plan, the existing master
plan, the bottom portion that's being removed also contains several
tracts, lakes and a commitment for right-of-way.
Those elements are being deleted off the master plan. And with
that, there's a reduction of units from 49 units down to 28 units. So
this is an extremely low intensity development.
The tract that remains essentially has been approved and platted
-- replatted. The 28 lots have been all laid out. All the infrastructure
for the site is in place for water management, roads, sewer, water,
irrigation. All the environmental work has been done, including
bypass bridges for habitat to go from one preserve to the next.
It has all its permits in place except for the individual building
permits that are in progress.
Currently right now I believe that there are a number of homes
that have been built and a few that are proceeding in the
development. Again it's a total of 10.
Currently there's five homes in some fashion that they're -- on
there. Actually, there's only one house that's currently occupied, and
that one's for sale right now. So it's still in its early stages of
development. There are two tracts that are proposed to be displaced
in addition to the removal of the 99 acres to the south. Those two
tracts, T -1 and T. T -1 is a tract that was dedicated for a centralized
location for refuse collection. That service is no longer needed. It
was anticipated at the time of approval of the original PUD that
Waste Management would not serve the development by individual
lot, but instead would have a centralized collection facility.
Instead, as it turned out Waste Management did agree to serve
the individual lots and that's how it's being served today. So that
tract is no longer required. The other tract is dedicated for a tennis
center. And it's a fairly well delineated parcel that comes off the
Page 10
November 2, 2006
loop road and protrudes into a conservation area. That tennis tract,
there's also a commitment in the PUD that states that before 50
percent of the units are constructed, that those tennis courts would be
in place. In that case, presently that means that at unit 25, that those
tennis courts would exist.
On March 31st, 2005, the developer amended the declaration of
covenants, which is different than the PUD, different governing. But
it was amended. And that amendment removed the obligation that
they had in their own documents to create tennis courts and a
clubhouse. With this amendment, that removal of that provision will
be now consistent with the declaration from the developer and owner.
With that, if you have any questions, there's -- I'd be happy to
answer them.
There were two stipulations from staff in their review. Those
stipulations: One, is that we provide a 50-foot easement, basically at
the southwestern corner of the site. That's to connect two parcels that
they have under common ownership that they need to integrate for
purposes of water management, preservation and maintenance.
We have no problem with that stipulation. Weare working out the
legal text that will allow for that, and that still has to be finalized.
And we're hoping to have that done prior to the board meeting.
The second item is one that we cannot agree to, and that is that
the county staff directors for LASIP proj ect have requested that we
change our control elevation from 9.0 to 9.4, which is approximately
five inches.
As I said, our site is completely built. All the infrastructure is in
place.
Now, the control elevation would not impact issues relative to
flooding, and it's not of critical nature relative to flooding for the
LASIP proj ect.
And in fact we understand from staff that the reason the request
is being made for 9.4 is that the conceptual plans that were approved
Page 11
November 2, 2006
a couple of years ago targeted 9.4 for the purposes of meeting
environmental wetland line indicators north of Rattlesnake
Hammock, adjacent to the small airport.
The final permitting for LASIP is still a couple of years away,
and the county staff and South Florida don't anticipate that being
completed for another four, five years. This is the last phase in that
proj ect.
Again, the change from 9.4 to 9.0 really has nothing to do really
with the flooding issue. Strictly an environmental one.
The impacts to our site would be significant. Relative to our
considerations, it's our understanding that South Florida still has the
ability to request and force us to change it in the future, should they
determine that that's absolutely necessary. But at such time they
would have to give compensation for any impacts. And we would
anticipate those impacts to be significant in terms of creating
additional wet periods on-site within the landscape and water
management system, not necessarily within the preserves. The
landscaped areas which the developer is so proud of and sets his
projects apart would be significantly impacted.
And discussing with county staff representatives, they agreed
that this sort of a change could easily result in having to remove all
the sod along the roadway, planting it with environmental species
that are more accustomed to wet periods.
So there would be some significant changes there. It's not
something that the developer or the owners want to get involved in.
We would also suggest to you, and we discussed this with the
county attorney's office, that the scope of the amendment that's being
proposed is not such that that issue should be reviewed. And it's our
understanding that the Board of County Commissioners, when they
reviewed the Cocohatchee proj ect, came back and said this was an --
that was an amendment and that requests that were not pertinent to
that amendment were not to be considered. I don't want to put words
Page 12
November 2, 2006
in the county attorney's office.
But we're suggesting to you that it's not appropriate to consider
such a request. Our amendment has nothing to do with the need to
change water management structures.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Fernandez, before you go too far, I
was under the assumption this isn't an amendment, it's a complete
repeal and reinstatement rather than a whole new ordinance.
Am I not mistaken, or is that correct, Ms. Student, since you
wrote it?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I believe it is a PUD to PUD
rezone. But I think our issue with the water management was
whether there was the rough proportionality that's needed between
the impacts of the development and the request by the staff for the
water management facility.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can we get back to my question? Is
this an amendment or isn't it a repeal and a new ordinance?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It is a repeal and a new ordinance.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. So it's not an amendment.
And your relationship to Cocohatchee may not then apply.
That's what I was trying to point out.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, I think we would have to visit that a
little bit more. Obviously, if you look at the document that's being
proposed, it's an amendment of that document itself, underlined
struck -out version, as opposed to a repeal and a redrafting of a new --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then we need to have a -- if you
think you're amending a document here today, you're not. It's being
repealed by the language in the ordinances and before us today to be
approved and a new ordinance is in place.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's what -- I have the
ordinance right here and it states in Section Two, The Club Estates
PUD adopted on such and such a date is hereby repealed in its
entirety.
Page 13
--,._.
November 2, 2006
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Fernandez, are you under the
assumption that you were doing an amendment? There is a
difference.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I'll look at that subsequent to the meeting.
I don't think it has a significant impact on what we're proposing to
do.
Again, our scope of the changes that are being proposed to this
rezone are fairly limited in scope. It's definitely a reduction in
intensity from the standpoint of units, transportation impacts, all the
infrastructure's in place. The two parcels that are currently, the T-l
and T parcels that will not be used will be turned into a conservation
area, so it's an enhancement of the environment. So we don't believe
that there's really any outstanding issues.
The one outstanding issue, like I said, that staff had is one we
would suggest to you is not relevant to this rezone, that there's not a
natural nexus on, and if this rezone was not coming forward, then
what you would actually have is a condition where staff would have
to work around the nine elevation.
And the truth of the matter is, they haven't gotten far enough
with their finalized permitting to know if that's actually going to be
the actual elevation.
With that, I'm happy to answer your questions. Again, it's our
position that we cannot accept that stipulation. I'd be happy to
answer any of your questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Start with Mr. Schiffer, Mr. Murray,
then Mr. Kolflat.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mike, my question is on
the development standards.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe just to understand. Has
this thing been subdivided yet?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, it has. There's homes on it. There's a
Page 14
November 2,2006
plat in place. And it has been replatted. So the 28 lots that -- the 28
units that would be permitted by the revised PUD document are ones
that have already been platted, are in place.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So is there buffers between all
of them?
MR. FERNANDEZ: None of the lots are contiguous. And I
believe the closest lot to lot is 80 feet. They're sort of islands, if you
will, with small extensions for driveways to a perimeter roadway.
I do have a copy of the plat with me that I'd be happy to share with
you, if you'd like.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That was my last question.
But I wouldn't mind seeing that.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Kolflat.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: In your development standards,
I noted that you have your 80 feet. We'll go into that in a moment.
But the principal structure, is it really intended to be 50 feet high,
three stories, that was going to be built?
MR. FERNANDEZ: It does allow for that. And that's what
homeowners are buying into. If you've had the opportunity to see the
site, a couple of homes that have been built are fairly large in height.
And I believe the one is actually three stories.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On Roman VI-2, is there going
to be a decellane? We're up to transportation now. Are you going to
be required to have a decel? It says here turn lanes in accordance
with --
MR. FERNANDEZ: There are -- turn lanes already exist.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And finally, under Roman VI-4
-- let's see. Well, maybe not finally. But, oh yeah, I have a concern
under item two where it says stubs for future interconnection with
adjacent property shall be provided to the property line for the
proj ect or the limit of a jurisdictional wetland.
Page 15
November 2, 2006
The concern I had was that 80 feet of space between each lot.
Any kind of -- I'm just trying to understand what the implications
were of that.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Commissioner, what it was is that
originally this rezone only covered the 153 acres we're talking about
today. It was subsequently amended to add the 99 acres that the
county purchased. But at that time that acreage was proposed for
development, so that was the extent of infrastructure that was
anticipated.
Since then, of course, the county purchased the property. So
there is no extension of infrastructure that's proposed to go south.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Finally, I noticed in the
Homes of Islandia anticipated water demand, you're assuming 26
units, 4,800 gallons a day water coming in, and sewage of 9,700
gallons a day. I was just wondering how that was even plausible.
That's on Page 1 of Planning Development Incorporated, the Homes
of Islandia.
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's not a document that I prepared, but
it's one that utilizes the standard input requirements for the -- for that
process. It's a planning document from the standpoint that it's used to
anticipate water demand and usage.
Like I said, the project is completely permitted, all infrastructure
is in place at this time.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, on that Tract T and T -1,
could you identify the location of that on your chart there, please?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Commissioner, if you want to look on
your existing PUD master plan, you'll see that there's a tract that goes
to the left of that circular driveway, and that's labeled Tract T.
T -1 is, again, if you look at that circular loop, it's in the bottom right
corner. It's a small tract close in proximity to County Road 951.
Page 16
~,~~"---_..' . -.."---
November 2, 2006
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That's T-l or T?
MR. FERNANDEZ: T and T-l. T-l is the one that's in the
close proximity to 951.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And how many acres is that?
MR. FERNANDEZ: They're very small, Commissioner. That
entry drive to it, it's only like 20 feet wide. They're a fraction of an
acre.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Then on one of the pages here,
you indicate the base density of four, and then you have a traffic
congestion area of zero. Shouldn't that be minus one?
MR. FERNANDEZ: I don't believe that we're in the traffic
congestion boundary, Commissioner. I believe that's south of 41.
And again, we're talking about the eligible density being four.
The proposed density with the revisions is 0.18, so we're not even a
quarter of a unit per acre.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: In your write-up here you
describe passive activities; passive activities, recreation. Give me a
definition of what that includes.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I think actually that the county has looked
at their own definition in recent times, and maybe they can address
that. But essentially what you're talking about, passive recreation is
you're talking about walking, jogging, those types of more -- ones
that don't require infrastructure development.
At this time essentially our client, the developer's intent is
simply to develop the lots. There won't be any common recreational
amenities that are associated with the proj ect unless the homeowner
itself -- the lots are fairly large for the home -- they can put their own
amenity as far as a pool or any other type of facilities that they wish
within their lot, but there's not any proposed common area that would
be utilized for recreational facilities.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: In your write-up, you say that
the lots and lakes will be located on both sides of the perimeter
Page 1 7
'_M'_
November 2, 2006
access road. Now, when I look at that chart, there's only one side of
the perimeter road that has lots.
MR. FERNANDEZ: That needs to be corrected, Commissioner.
That's a remnant from the old text. The lakes that are being -- that are
shown on the old master plan are being eliminated and those on the
south side of the existing perimeter.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So there still would be lots on
both sides of the --
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Just on the outside?
MR. FERNANDEZ: There's only lots on the inside of the
perimeter. There's only lakes on the inside. The perimeter -- if you
look at a new master plan, you'll see that the perimeter road runs
almost adjacent to the property line, both on the north and along the
south sides, so there's no room for lots or lakes. So all the lots, all
the lakes in the proj ect will be internal to that loop road. And again,
all that infrastructure is already in place and existing.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So that's been revised, then,
from what I have, the information I have.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: It says each lot will have a
permanent concrete block which forms a retaining wall surrounding
the lot and driveway.
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: What's the purpose of that?
That seems a little unusual to isolate every home in the development.
MR. FERNANDEZ: It was very unusual. And it had to do with
the permitting that was required as permitted through the South
Florida and the Army Corps. It's a very unique project in that the
water from the north that flows through the Naples National Golf
Course flows through the site through pipes and other infrastructure,
culverts, into the preserve area that surrounds every lot except for
Page 18
~_._~~~..,.. ,
November 2, 2006
that driveway connection.
So each lot essentially is raised up out of the conservation
common areas vertically, and that essentially limits your construction
area as far as your pad, your accessory structures, to just that area.
It has to be raised because the area around it frequently has
water. Again, those are all areas that are maintained with native
vegetation that can accept water. And in fact, it accepts water from
the north and passes it through to the parcel to the south, generally
speaking.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Will those retaining walls have
any adverse impact from the drainage in the area?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, sir. Again, it's a totally segregated
system. It essentially allows the water to pass through those culverts
and other pipes underneath this perimeter driveway into the interior
area.
And again, it's been fully permitted and all that infrastructure is
in place. The permits from South Florida, Army Corps, Collier
County, all those have been put in place. A number of the lots
already are built, they have the perimeter wall up now, and they've
been very successful in that regard.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Also in your write-up you
mention that there will be an observation deck a maximum of 400
square feet in area and there will be a picnic pavilion a maximum of
400 square feet in area.
Are these both the same thing or is it just coincidence that
they're both 400 square feet?
MR. FERNANDEZ: You're talking about now the LASIP
project. That's not part of our site. The county will be happy to
address that issue for you shortly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the next item on the agenda.
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's the next item on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. That's all I have,
Page 19
".~-
November 2, 2006
Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, then Mr. Vigliotti.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I have two questions. What
is the capital proj ect we're talking about?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Originally the proposal was to create
recreational amenities. As part of those recreational amenities, there
was supposed to be an investment into a capital fund to support
those. Those recreational amenities, of course, are not proposed to be
developed.
And in fact, as I stated, and we gave a copy of the second
revision to the declaration documents to Marjorie Student, that
provision was removed from that. And I have a copy with me, if
someone would like to see it.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Whether you can answer it
or we have to get transportation, what is the present capacity on 951 ?
MR. FERNANDEZ: I don't have that information.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Well, I would like to get that
information from the transportation department after you finish.
MR. FERNANDEZ: They may very well have it since they're
doing the proj ect next door.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I surely hope they do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If I'm not mistaken, this project had 49
units that are already approved for 49 units and are already in the
traffic counts for 951. So this project actually cuts that almost in
half.
So they would have already had 49 units in there. They
probably have the 28 that they're asking now.
Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have a question about
recommendation number two, the elevation change.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: How many inches is it right
Page 20
"'._~~
November 2, 2006
now they're requesting?
MR. FERNANDEZ: It's approximately five inches. Point four
is approximately five inches.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. Now, ifit was done
now, you would have to pay for the cost to do that, correct?
MR. FERNANDEZ: If it was done now, there would be the
cost. And the cost of actually making that change to the structure is
not very significant. The real cost would be in the anticipated impacts
to the entirety of the site, its landscaping, et cetera.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: You had said there's a point
down the road where you still might have to comply with that?
MR. FERNANDEZ: South Florida has a provision in existing
permits that was suggested to us by staff. I did review the permits.
South Florida has the ability to require entities that they issue permits
to revise those if there's an absolute need. They rarely do so because
of those impacts that could be caused. In other words, it's their
obligation to analyze and see what those impacts are and how
onerous they would be, and potentially to have to pay for
compensation for those impacts.
So it's been our experience that that is extremely unlikely that
would occur. We would anticipate that before that's done that --
well, in the final permitting for the LASIP project that elevation
that's currently proposed at 9.4 could easily change.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: My real question is, if it was
done now, it would be at your expense. If it was done later, it would
be at their expense.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Potentially, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: One little question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What is the date of your
information meeting?
Page 21
'_'__,,'M~'"
November 2,2006
MR. FERNANDEZ: September 25th. It was a joint meeting
that we held with the county. So LASIP and our proj ect was heard
concurrently.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: September 25th?
MR. FERNANDEZ: September 25th, this year.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Of this year?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I have a couple of questions.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The ownership of this property in the
PUD says the development is currently under the ownership and
unified control of the Club Estates II, LLC and the Club Estates LLC.
Is that still correct?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The applicant in this case was only
Club Estates II, LLC.
And Ms. Student, wouldn't the applicant have to be both
entities?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, information that was given
to me by Mr. Fernandez yesterday, and I want to put on the record, it
came in very late yesterday afternoon, and there are parts of the
articles of incorporation that didn't reproduce and I can't --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student, before you go too far--
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: But there is a homeowner--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student, before you go too far, the
application for the public hearing that was submitted to county staff
is what I'm getting at. I know where you're going. It's another
question I asked earlier.
But the applicant information on the paper that we received in
your document, it says the applicant Club Estates II, LLC.
My question is, we just heard testimony and we have a
Page 22
,. -~ ._~..-
November 2, 2006
document in front of us, the PUD, that said the owners are Club
Estates II and Club Estates, LLC.
Does the applicant have to reflect -- the application have to
reflect both ownerships is all I'd like to know.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I would think so. And I have
something else to say.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: The articles of incorporation that I
was given reflects the name of also a homeowners association. And
it's been my experience in these things that the homeowners
association is also an applicant. And I could not read all of the
document because it didn't reproduce, and it came into my office
very late yesterday afternoon.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Based on that, we'll just go one
issue at a time, because there's going to be several like this, if we
even get that far.
Does this application need to be reapplied for? Will it have to
come back to us? Or do we have -- because we don't have any
information on anything but Club Estates II.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Commissioner--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, let me ask legal.
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I don't think that it needs to be
reapplied for and go through the process again. I think adequate
documentation could be presented for the record that would clear it
up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have that documentation?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Commissioner, actually, it should be in
your packet. Under letter of the authorization with legal descriptions,
there should be two letters. One that's signed by Ike Morris as
representative of Club Estates, LLC, and the other one is signed by
Stan Richards of the -- that -- of the Club Estates II. So there
actually should be two documents there with a signature of each.
Page 23
-""'''~''''''~'-'-'''''''''---P'~.'-;"" ,. .'__~ '-~..._-<..._--
November 2,2006
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one document--
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I have one document.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that says Club Estates II, LLC, with
your -- authorizing you to speak on their behalf today, Mike. So I --
you have another document authorizing you to speak on the behalf of
Club Estates, LLC?
MR. FERNANDEZ: This should be in your packets,
Commissioners. It's identical to the other one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I don't see this one.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Do you have it?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, right here.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I do not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have two of the same. I have two
letters of authorization, but they're both for Club Estates II, LLC. So
what probably happened is we didn't get a copy of this one. So if
some --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, as long as you've got it.
Now, well, we'll have to bring that into evidence in a minute.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Those are the two controlling entities.
And the developer controls the homeowners association through
those entities.
And we have documentation. And if we need better copies for
the county attorney's office, we can certainly get those. But in that
documentation it provides for that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student, if I owned property in a
subdivision and someone wanted to rezone my property, would they
have that right to do that without my consent?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No, ifit affected your property.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you have zoning and your
zoning is repealed completely and entirely and you get new zoning,
does that affect your property?
Page 24
,.".---.-
November 2, 2006
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, it so happens that this
amendment -- and I looked at the performance standards that would
affect the lots, and those performance standards have not changed
that would affect the individual platted lots.
What did change were two things: That is, the number of units
were reduced because part of the land that comprised the LPUD is
going into another PUD that's a county facility. And then some
recreational amenities were removed and the central waste collection
facility were removed, for reasons stated by Mr. Fernandez on the
record.
So this isn't a situation where we're affecting any of the
performance standards that would affect a given lot.
But however, in situations like this I've seen the homeowners
association also be, you know, a party to this. And there is a
homeowners association, because I have the articles of incorporation
here.
Now, I understand that the developer controls it, but it's still a
separate entity. And I would assume that the individuals that already
own lots in the development are members of that homeowners
association as well as the developer, who even controls it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So for the record, you're saying that if
someone owns a lot in a subdivision and that subdivision zoning gets
repealed, new zoning can be put in place without their consent, and
that's, as far as you're concerned, legally acceptable.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, you're not changing
anything that affects those lots.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All I'm asking, Ms. Student--
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: So because there's nothing
changed that affects the lots and the performance standards, they're
not rendering them legally nonconforming.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that.
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Because it becomes a form over
Page 25
November 2, 2006
substance argument then.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But a rezone without the
consent of the people involved, in your opinion, is legal?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, I think it would be a bit
more comfortable if there was a joinder by the association as well,
because that is a separate legal entity. And I don't know if Mr.
Fernandez can provide anything that says that the property owners
association also joins in the rezone.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And I certainly can. Right now the
developer controls 220 of the votes of the 230 votes. I believe that's
the right number.
So they have overwhelming controlled interest. They're also --
the developer is the sole representative at this time of the
homeowners association.
In addition to that, the only issue I think of significance that
may be causing your concern has to do with the removal of the
recreational facilities. We did provide Ms. Student, and I do have a
copy here, of the declaration that was amended back on March 31 st
of 2005, that those elements relative to the tennis center, the
associated maintenance facility, were removed from the documents,
the declarations documents.
In addition to that, an additional level of comfort should be
given in that we made sure when we did this project that not only
were the people outside the project within 500 feet were notified, but
also letters were also sent to all the internal landowners within the
project as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That document you have, can we have
a copy it for the record?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What we'll do, we'll admit all this stuff
with one motion when we finish our discussion.
MR. FERNANDEZ: That document, as you can see, is
Page 26
.._...'~~
November 2, 2006
recorded in public records.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And we're happy to provide Mark, Ms.
Student with additional documentation relative to the HOA that --
from the developer relative to the joinder that she's requesting. It's
not a problem.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, because if I might, what
would happen if the homeowner's association were also part of this,
as Mr. Fernandez says they are, then you have the members being the
owners of the individual lots of what, eight or nine of them. And so
therefore even -- you know, they would have an opportunity that
would make them a part of this.
And even if they didn't agree because the developer controlled
it, it would still mean that they were -- they're part of the association,
the association agreed, and then, you know, if there were dissident
members, they would be free to come to this meeting and express
their concerns.
And we've seen that happen when you have a regularly situated
homeowner's association that could be controlled by the members,
then we've seen circumstances where the association might obj ect to
a rezone that's coming forward -- or excuse me, might approve, but
you have some dissident members that feel that they want to make
their voices heard, even though their association did, by the majority
rule, agree to support.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Mr. Fernandez, under your PUD, Item 3.3(B)(3), you have
accessory uses, detached guesthouses. And I guess maybe this is
more of a question of staff than you. Do you know of what size --
the sizing of the guesthouses is regulated in the LDC to a certain
percentage of the main home. I notice you're not indicating a change
to that. So I'm assuming you're going to be consistent with the LDC
in regards to the size of those guest homes?
Page 27
-<,_.._--- __'C_'_'_
November 2,2006
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. If they do in fact get built.
Based on what I've seen, there's not enough room for an additional
guesthouse there, although you may see what is more typically done.
And I know a couple of them that are in construction do have that,
and that is like a guest suite or something that's actually part of the
residence.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your original PUD, I believe it was
'99 or something like that, you had under 6.4(A), this goes back to
the original PUD, which is five or six or seven years old. A,
infrastructure. It is the developer's intent to construct the first phase
of the infrastructure for single-family lots within two years from the
date of approval of the PUD ordinance.
You actually have that same language in your new PUD. Isn't
that all completed?
MR. FERNANDEZ: It is all completed, Commissioner. This is
one of those projects that it would probably benefit from the new
formatting that you're going to have in the future where you can
come back and when you redo a PUD, eliminate some of these items
that really have no -- really no significance like that.
But yes, all the infrastructure, 100 percent of it, is in place.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was my thought that the developers
usually format the PUD language and send it electronically to staff.
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you formatted this language,
why would you have left that in then?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Again, we were changing minimally what
we thought needed to be changed and what staff was looking at. We
received no comments from that. I would suggest to you, based on
our experience, there is a significant amount of text in these types of
documents that have little bearing on the future development of the
parcel because it's already been constructed when you're doing an
amendment, or -- I guess you're saying it's not an amendment but a
Page 28
~.,----_._., "',---''''.-.' ~._.,.,-
November 2,2006
revision to the document.
So a lot of that information is superfluous or just historical in
nature, but yes, could be reduced. And it's redundant, I guess, and
not applicable any longer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree with you. And we've been
bringing this issue up so many, many times for years now and it's
hasn't changed.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And my understanding, in fact, I talked to
Ray about it, the opportunity in some of these to come back and
remove those, we have a couple in progress right now that are going
to be revisions that are going to be of some significance and we're
going to be removing all this superfluous language and reducing it to
the new standards that are being proposed, assuming it gets approved
by the board here shortly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, does this document need to be
cleaned up before it goes to the BCC?
MR. BELLOWS: I would recommend it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does that mean if we stipulate
something to that effect today, that will happen?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, I think the planner and the applicant can
get together and eliminate a lot of that redundant --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is a lot of language in here about
--
MR. BELLOWS: We're in that transition period. We have the
LDC amendment to eliminate the PUD document. And it's already
had its first hearing before the board.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And we're more than happy to do so.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I'm just about done.
The common area maintenance originally would have been for the
entire proj ect, including the removal of exotics in perpetuity from the
conservation areas; is that correct?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir.
Page 29
._,_"....,~'.m__'" -..,,~-
November 2, 2006
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's going to factor into questions of
staff.
MR. FERNANDEZ: We just received another bid -- our annual
bid for an additional $25,000 for removal of exotics that are mostly
originating from the parcel to the south that the county owns.
Basically, their seeds come over.
So we're very supportive of what they're doing next door and are
going to be eliminating that. And we are working with the county
right now on means to take care of that in efficient and cost effective
measures so that it will help both of us.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the plat that you have in front of you
that Mr. Schiffer borrowed, you were supposed to dedicate all your
conservation areas. Was the area that county has purchased dedicated
on that plat?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, it is not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Again, this -- originally this PUD did not
include that 99 acres. It was subsequently amended to add the 99
acres. And now those 99 acres are being removed. The original plat
did not include those the 99 acres. The plat only includes the 153.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The PUD language that references that
area to be designated as conservation area was in the document that
was the predecessor to the document we're reviewing today. It's a
moot point, I guess, if you haven't recorded it. I was more curious as
to how the county would undo the recordation. But it if hasn't been
recorded, it doesn't need to be.
MR. FERNANDEZ: It's my understanding that the county has,
I believe, a Growth Management Plan amendment to label this land
use as conservation has been completed and that they have the
numerous permits already in place for that site, including one, I
believe, that requires, if it hasn't been put in conservation, it would be
now in conservation. And I believe they'll be happy to speak to that
Page 30
,. ~--,-~
November 2, 2006
here shortly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The warranty deed that we have, and I
think I only have one --
MR. FERNANDEZ: That second document that I gave you that
you were missing, it should be as an attachment to that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If that corrects it, then I don't have a
question on it. It's not here, the warranty deed that was in the
package. And if there's another one, I missed it, and someone needs
to tell me that. It was only for a certain number of lots and parcel
identifications. I'm just wondering how -- I believe I have a -- looks
like there's seven lots. The Club Estates replat involved in this
warranty deed.
Now, since you're involved in the whole parcel, I was just
wondering where the lots are.
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's -- they're under the ownership of
the clearance bill.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: That's T and T-l.
MR. FERNANDEZ: But I believe I do have that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, did you look this warranty
deed over? Does it encompass enough of the property to make you
feel comfortable with the ownership requirements?
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I think that I -- it references the
lots. And the warranty deed I have in my packet is dated November
28th, 2004. And I would want to compare it with the plat and see
what -- you know, see what remains and whose other -- you know,
other individuals. Because I only have one warranty deed in here as
well.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I have the list of all 29 lots, their
ownership and the OR book and pages of all the warranty deeds, the
copy of those warranty deeds, except for the ones that belong directly
to the Club Estates, LLC and the Club Estates II, LLC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This matter I think just needs to get
Page 31
^.-.------
November 2, 2006
cleared up so it's legally sufficient before it goes to the board.
More documents. Okay, that's the last question I had.
Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have a question on the
warranty deed. We have The Club Estates, LLC and formally known
as Club Estates, LC. Is that the same group of people, the same
owners?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of the
applicant?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Fernandez.
And for the benefit of the planning commission, we've had three
documents added to us today. One is the warranty deed and it's titled
Exhibit A on the first page.
The other one is a letter of authorization with legal descriptions
for Club Estates, LLC.
And the last one is the Exhibit G second amendment to the Club
Estates declaration of covenants and conditions filed on May 17th,
2005.
Is there a motion to accept this into evidence?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I so move.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Commissioner Adelstein.
Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Vigliotti.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
Page 32
November 2, 2006
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I'll be happy to answer any additional
questions that may come up after of staffs or the LASIP project
presentation immediately hereafter.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Okay, who's the staff representative? Melissa.
MS. ZONE: Good morning. Melissa Zone, Principal Planner
with the Department of Zoning and Land Development. The subject
property is within the urban residential land use designation and the
future land use element. The PUD amendment. During conversation
with the application, this was brought in as a PUD to PUD
amendment to rezone it to Homes of Islandia. That is how staff
reviewed it. All elements of the Growth Management Plan Policy 5.4
of the future land use element, this PUD does meet those
requirements. They are consistent and meet consistency with traffic,
as well as the regulations that were set forth in the LDC.
There are some warranty deeds. I have some concerns that --
not concerns, but I would like to make sure that Michael Fernandez
will provide that for us, that it was not given in my packet. And so
before the end of today, I will make sure I have copies so that it is
given to the board on questions of authority for this PUD to go
forward. Just to clarify it for you.
There are also -- part of why we didn't remove a lot of this was
because when the application came in, we were under the old PUD
document. And so it was to be kind of consistent with the
application that it came in.
Page 33
,-~-
November 2, 2006
The new PUD document will have a different form of
application, which will have more extensive information in the
application that will help eliminate some of the PUD document or, I
should say, ordinance. And so that's why we kept a lot of the
information that was already in the document, just for clarity. I
wanted to explain why we did that.
I don't know if there's any questions you might have had for
staff when reviewing it. I'd be happy --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions for staff from the
planning commission?
Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, the five inches that the
county says is needed, where did you arrive at that figure?
MS. ZONE: Well, that is -- and we have Robert Wiley here
from Stormwater. But that's a FEMA number, and staff is still of the
opinion we wanted to keep that as our recommendation. And Mr.
Wiley might want to speak on that for you, Mr. Midney.
Okay, let me correct that. It isn't FEMA. My
misunderstanding. Sorry.
MR. WILEY: For the record, Robert Wiley with your
Engineering Services Department. Formally with Stormwater, but I
haven't been there for over two years.
The LASIP project, Lely Area Stormwater Improvement
Project, and that's what's on the board here, is a regional project
started back in 1984, updated in 1986. So it's been in the planning
stages for many years. The county took 16 years of permitting efforts
through the District and the Corps to come up with permitting for it.
In that particular region north of Wing South Airpark, there's a large
slough that runs through there. This property is right contiguous to
it.
And basically the property, as the applicant described, it's like a
stem wall that gets your property up out of the wetland conditions.
Page 34
-''''-'--'''''''''''''''''''''--''-''''.'' >-'-'--"--
November 2, 2006
So if you put a drawbridge on your driveway, I guess you could say
you had a castle surrounded by a moat in the summertime, but it
would be very shallow. The 9.4 elevation at the north end of Wing
South Airpark is a proposed elevation based on wetland indicators in
the LASIP, the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project. That
was at the direction and recommendation of the Water Management
District for us to be able to proceed forward with the regional
drainage improvement proj ect.
Currently along that area there is a berm, which is just basically
a spoil pile from where they dug the perimeter ditch around the
airpark.
So what will happen is the county will come in, will construct a
weir with a crest elevation of 9.4. And when we addressed this issue
with the District years ago, it was their understanding that they knew
that The Club Estates was approved through the District at 9.0.
However, everything else they had approved was higher than
that, and they realized, whoops, we should have made this higher
based on indicators. So they directed the county to go ahead and plan
on the 9.4 elevation. We had a special permit that when we go to
construction it will maintain that same 9.4 elevation, as far as I know
today.
So what is anticipated is that the development itself will raise its
weir up so its control elevation comes to 9.4, or they will be allowed
by the District to maintain their water closer to 9.0 and the District
will write off that amount in water quality pretreatment. Because
your water quality is between your weir crest and your control
elevation. I cannot answer which way the District will go on that at
this time. They can require the applicant, the owner, to modify it.
Who is going to be bearing that financial responsibility? I can't
answer that right now. But it was at the District's direction and also
at the direction of the Army Corps of Engineers, when we looked at
buying the 99-acre parcel immediately to the south of them, which
Page 35
._-..,""'....._'.'_n _..,-~~-_._-,
November 2, 2006
was the expansion of Club Estates, but then the subsequent
ownership transferred back away from it, that was understood to be
the mitigation area for wetland restoration and removal of exotics,
including a little bit of upland mix in there for the entire -- I shouldn't
say entire, because there's a couple of parcels that the county also
has.
But that's the bulk of the mitigation for all the wetland impacts
that will be created by the construction efforts of the LASIP.
So it's been something that's been planned for a number of years
to have the weir at 9.4.
I personally spoke with the engineer who was working with
Club Estates at that time. It was his understanding when I explained
to him, he said there would be no problem whatsoever. They've got
lots of storage space. Shouldn't affect them, 9.4 from 9.0.
So we went on his verbal declaration. The District looked at it
and said, good with us, and everybody is going forward based upon
that person's statement. I understand that that engineer does not
represent the applicant. He's not even working for the same
consulting firm where he used to work, so -- and he has no stake in
the matter right now. But that's the history of how we got to where
we are. For years it's been known that Club Estates at 9.0 is going to
be raised to 9.4. When this revision to the PUD came in, and my
review goes through there, I review things for their regional
implications. Knowing that the downstream elevation is higher than
your upstream, it will need to reflect reality to be raised up to what
the region is going to be having in the future. That's where the
comment originated.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, does that answer your
question?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Nods.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wiley, don't go away, because I'll
probably have more questions.
Page 36
~_._-
November 2,2006
If you have a crest elevation of 9.4 and then Lely basin, and the
basin is inclusive of this particular project, in essence, aren't you
going to be staging -- wouldn't this project then end up being staged
at 9.4, regardless of what they decide to do internally because their
water will not flow?
MR. WILEY: Yes, it would. They would by default have a
submerged control structure at that point on their invert elevation for
the weir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And if that happens, would
there be any -- and these homeowners certainly are people of means
-- wouldn't they then have the ability to procure a legal challenge to
the county for flooding their properties above what was previously
approved?
Maybe Margie should answer that.
MR. WILEY: I'm not an attorney. But we would look at that at
the peak stage elevation, not the control elevation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't want to see the county set up for
a lawsuit in the future by --
MR. WILEY: I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- setting a precedent at 9.4, knowing
that a property is going to end up being submerged for their outfalls,
and when they're set at 9.0 when there's a clear recommendation
today to go to 9.4. And this is a new rezone, it's not old rezone, it's
not an amendment to a rezone, it's a new rezone.
Ms. Student, do you have any comment or would you rather
remain silent and take the fifth?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I mean, it's very hard to predict
what -- you have to study the facts and what might happen in a given
situation and really see if, you know, that potential would be there.
And, you know, also what's already there and what they've built to
and what they, you know, understood at the time and so forth.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we have the applicant here
Page 37
,._..~-"._.,-
November 2,2006
claiming what would happen ifhe was staged at 9.4. We have an
expert, Mr. Wiley, indicating that the crest at 9.4 would in essence
stage up and flood out his -- potentially his outfall structures.
Assuming all that were to happen, knowing this is a rezone, is
there some language that we can put in the rezone, acknowledged by
the applicant, who happens to be a representative of all the property
owners within this project, that they shall have absolutely no
recourse in the future by refusing to stage at 9.4 now and remaining
at 9.0 to the county and the citizens of this county?
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I would say that given -- yes, and
probably between now and the board we could craft something.
But I would say given the information that they have and the
refusal to stage, that they may have voluntarily assumed the risk.
MR. WILEY: If I could jump in here just for a little bit of
clarification. The 9.0 and 9.4 are really not your flood stage
information. That's your water quality -- that is your wet season
water table. Your water quality goes, in their particular situation,
from 9.0. up to their weir crest, which is much higher than that.
Flood stage then assumes you have a discharge across the weir crest.
The house is then designed so it's staged up with zero discharge at
the 100-year storm event, which is again even higher than that. The
9.0. simply is the wet season water elevation for water quality control
purposes. That's not the top of the weir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We had testimony from the applicant
that by the water being held at 9.4 would damage their property.
MR. WILEY: That concern he's expressing is the potentials that
raising the groundwater elevation from 9.0. to 9.4. could have some
impacts upon the landscaping is what he's talking about, correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And by the county staging the basin
higher than what his property is permitted for and he remaining lower
than that stage, the potential could exist then for damage to the
property. And if there is, I just want to make sure the citizens are
Page 38
.'.._~~-".._^ -~~_.~"-
November 2, 2006
protected by the refusal of the applicant to go to 9.4.
MR. WILEY: I was referring to flooding of the houses when I
was --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was more concerned about any
damage. Sometimes grass is considered damaging, and if grass dies,
everything seems to break loose. So I would rather us be protected
from zero on up completely.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I also want to point out that there
could be issues of sovereign immunity here as well. And it's not, you
know, something that's very easy to give a black and white answer to
on the fly. But we can certainly look at some language that will offer
some protection.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, this issue -- this project's been
in the works for a long time. The application is 4-26-06, and no one
has looked at this issue since April?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That type of thing would have to
have been brought to our office by staff in the form of a request for
legal services, and it was not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Fernandez, we're going to
finish with Mr. Wiley first, then when you get back through we'll get
to you.
Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Bob, just for clarification, so
what would the elevation of the units themselves in the dwelling
units be?
MR. WILEY: Can you say it again?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What would the elevations of
the dwelling units be?
MR. WILEY: Well, the elevation of the dwelling unit is not
going to change. That's already been established for zero discharge.
Basically the LASIP provides a better outfall for the peak stage. So
you're going to have peak stage. But it would affect your control
Page 39
"~..,,"_. '...-.....-..,"'...-''','''~~-"~,. - -"_._-~~,--
November 2, 2006
elevation we're talking about for normal wet seasonal water table.
That's the only difference.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe I'll ask --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but the homes would --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They're going to be above --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- be way above that. The flooding
that I was concerned about is not the homes, it's the flooding that Mr.
Fernandez said would occur that would damage some of the other
aspects of their other property that I don't want them seeking
compensation for from the county for causing that stage to be higher.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My next question would be
what's the elevation of the building pads and then what's the
elevation of the road?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: There's no way to stop them
if they want to file a lawsuit. They have the right there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that. I'm just trying to prevent
the grounds for it.
Go ahead, Mr. Midney.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Isn't it the District and the Corps
who set those elevations, not the county?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to ask Mr. Wiley, I would
assume. I could answer, but I would rather he answer it.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Isn't it the District and the Corps
that set those elevations, not the county?
MR. WILEY: It was basically the District that set them and we
complied with. And we provided the wetland indicator information
to them. And as we go through the process of getting permits, that's
where the 9.4. elevation was established.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So wouldn't that -- if they were
going to sue somebody, wouldn't they have to sue the Corps and not
us, or the District?
MR. WILEY: Probably you're talking more the District than the
Page 40
-. '.---",_..__.~~-
November 2, 2006
Corps. The Corps got involved with wetland impacts but they didn't
really set the control elevation there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My only concern there, Mr. Midney, is
the Corps of Engineers and South Florida Water Management
District are taxpayer funded agencies, and anybody that receives a
lawsuit is going to have to be defended, and taxpayers will end up
paying it. And any losses, the taxpayers will end up having to pay
that.
If we can avoid that by crafting the right language today, that
just saves everybody in the future a lot of hassle. And that's what I'm
trying to get to, making sure that this goes forward under the best
possible scenario.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: You know, we'll have to look at
that. I want to talk to the attorney in our office that handles this type
of litigation, where there's sovereign immunity also.
And I also want to make sure that there's no issues about, you
know, some adhesion type -- an adhesion type issue and things like
that. So it's something that we could look at before the BCC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions ofMr--
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just wanted to ask Mike the
different elevations. I understand that we're talking about five inches
of water in the buffers, but are the roads above this and the building
pads above this?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes. I think, for instance, the homes, I
believe, are 11.5. The issue here, and I think maybe you're getting
ahead of the game, is that the county has not received their final
permit. There's a very strong likelihood in our opinion that they're
not going to end up with a 9.4 elevation, because the District's going
to review that permit when it comes in.
So there is not a 9.4. That was a conceptual permit based on
wetland indicators. It's not a flooding issue.
Page 41
-~--
November 2, 2006
In addition to that, because of the scope of the proj ect, our
clients and all the homeowners will be notified when the county -- or
when the South Florida Water Management District gets ready to
issue a permit. There will be a public notice made. And at that time,
if not prior to that -- and it's our intent now that we have become
aware of the issue to get involved prior to that, to talk to the District
and address the issue prior to that time.
So there will be plenty of time for public opportunity before the
District makes a final determination on what that elevation needs to
be.
And again, it has little to do with what we would normally think
of as flooding issues and ramifications to flooding. It has to do really
with in this case an increase in the wet period for the site and impacts
in this case to landscape improvements that are existing and the
general change in character of the entire site because of that. Our
client is not going to accept that provision and will not go forward
with that provision. And that's our position on it. We don't think that
there's a nexus between what's being requested by the county and
what's being -- and the proposition to amend the PUD for the limited
scope that we are amending it for.
It's not our requirement to amend it to remove the 99 acres.
That's something that the county's in the process of doing. We're
basically attaching to that the removal of these two small tracts and
basically cleaning up the PUD to be consistent with what's already
been placed in the declaration for the homeowners association. And
that's all we're doing.
And again, so our position is that there is not an actual nexus,
that it does potentially cause harm, that we will have an opportunity
to address this through the public notice process that the South
Florida Water Management District has.
And we would ask that you leave this issue to be addressed at
that time with the District. We just don't think it's appropriate in this
Page 42
--""""""""-'~~"'.-
November 2, 2006
venue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Fernandez, since you're refusing to
work with the stipulation, that's your choice.
Do you have any problem with executing a waiver on behalf of
all the applicants involved --
MR. FERNANDEZ: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for any future resource against the
county for any water changes to your property as a result of their
applications to South Florida in regards to weir height?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir, we do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have an objection to that?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have an objection to that, you
have an objection to the stipulation staff is asking you to include to
protect the county and yourself?
MR. FERNANDEZ: It's not protecting the county and
ourselves. Essentially it's being established for an environmental
wetland indicator, which I would tell you changes from year to year.
As you go through the permitting process you have a wet year, you
have a dry year. Those wetland indicators change.
It may very well end up that the county and South Florida agree
that there's not to be a 9.4, it ends up being at 9.0 or some other
number other than those two.
And so I think we're getting ahead of the game. We ought to
allow that to go through the normal permitting process and we'll
handle our objections in that permitting process rather than this one,
which we just don't see that it's appropriate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't see it's appropriate. And
whether we agree or not, that's not the point. The point is, if you
don't see it's appropriate, do you assume then anything above 9.0 is
going to be damaging to your property or do you think it's not going
to be damaging to your property?
Page 43
November 2, 2006
MR. FERNANDEZ: Our assumption is that it will be.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay--
MR. FERNANDEZ: And we'll make those objections to the
District.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm getting more and more
confused. Just to walk through this slowly. It's in Flood Zone X, so
it's high land to begin with on the FEMA maps, correct?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, it's not.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's not? But your -- on Page
I -11 says all of the site is in Flood Zone X.
MR. WILEY: Let me explain that real quick. Robert Wiley,
again, with Engineering Services Department. The current FEMA
flood zone mapping does not address rainfall flooding. It addresses
only local surge flooding. Weare in the midst of a study where we
are combining the local surge flooding with rainfall. But that is far
enough inland that surges are not expected to go there under FEMA's
one percent annual chance storm event as dictated on the current
FEMA maps.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So what we're
concerned about here then in this different elevation is the flooding
of what? You never did answer what the roads are. So the roads are
above it, the building pads are above it, so it's just the buffer area that
could have an elevation --
MR. FERNANDEZ: What we anticipate happening is that early
in the wet season there would be no impact, but as the wet season
progresses the level of the groundwater will increase. So smaller and
smaller storms will cause it to stage up. And when it stages up, it
will increase, because we don't have free discharge until we hit the
25-year storm.
That -- what's going to happen is we're going to end up with
longer and longer periods of water management in the perimeter
Page 44
--~.,,~_..-
November 2, 2006
swale that goes around that roadway, which is where our
pretreatment occurs. The water's going to stay there and stay
stagnant for longer periods of time.
F or instance, this year alone there were some issues relative to
that in that during the wettest season, and more so the prior year,
which was much wetter, there ended up areas of sod that were dying
off. If we were to raise it an additional five inches, we would
probably see all that sod decay, smell, get ugly and have to be
replaced with different planting.
And of course the landscaping that's there now along this
perimeter roadway is like a foil to the rest of the proj ect, because the
rest of the project, the majority of the land in the development, is
conservation, native vegetation, and looks very different from the
well-maintained. So it's part of the ambiance that the homeowners
and the development looks to create and lives by. So it would have a
negative impact.
Again, we don't believe it's even appropriate at this time to be
looking at this issue, because the rezone that we're proposing has no
issue relative to this. And you're essentially asking the homeowners
to take a potential hit. And it's a potential hit only because we don't
know where that is in the process.
We should have an opportunity to go before South Florida, talk
to their experts, have our experts talk to them, look at their data,
which hasn't been submitted. They have not done their final
permitting. It's still a few years away. It's probably more than five
years away before it actually anticipates. There's a chance that the
master developer may be gone by then and then it will just be
homeowners.
We need to take a look at all that information, work with South
Florida and find out if there's going to be an issue. We actually
believe that once they look at everything, depending on the data that
they're able to come up with on a year-to-year basis along that
Page 45
..."..-.,.~-_.-
November 2, 2006
discharge where the weir will actually be, that it may well end up
being less than 9.0.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I understand that, you know, you
feel as though when they study it more carefully that it will be closer
to the 9.0, which is what you want. But what if when it actually
comes out and they study it exhaustively, what if they come to the
conclusion that 9.4 still is right? Then would you be able to accept it?
MR. FERNANDEZ: We won't be able to accept it. What will
happen at that time is the District will have to make a determination
if they want to cause potential impacts to our site.
And they have several different choices. They can decide to let
those wetlands have a little less water, essentially is what it means, or
if they're going to impact our site, and if it does impact the site as
anticipated, then we would want to have whatever recourses are
available to us to seek for compensation for those.
But really we believe that the process that South Florida has of
notification of the public, especially since we're already aware of it,
is ample for us to go address those issues with those agencies that are
going to be the jurisdictional agencies, address our concerns. And
we think once they understand our concerns and our position, that
between that and whatever actual data they get that they'll find that it
would be more prudent to put it at 9.0 and not the 9.4.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But if they do put it to 9.4, you
would rather that you just sort of be like bermed out so that your
elevation is different from everything surrounding you?
MR. FERNANDEZ: It's not the berm. Again, it's the control
elevation. And so it's not -- doesn't really have to do anything with
the flooding issue. It just has to do with how wet the land that's going
to be out there stays and whether or not, for instance, sod will survive
versus some kind of wetland species instead of it. It really has -- we
will have a little bit more water throughout the year. But yes, it's of
Page 46
~~.,--~~^ .-""'.-...-..--
November 2, 2006
concern.
Changing this to 9.4 basically says that we are going to accept
that issue today. And we don't even know if that's going to be the
real elevation five years from now. It may be -- you may be asking
us to shoot ourselves in the foot and raise it today to 9.4 only to find
out five years from now that the South Florida Water Management
District approves an elevation of9.0 and we're suffering because of
it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Fernandez, I think we understand
your point and your position now. I'm sure we've heard it
redundantly many times, so let's move on with this meeting.
Mr. Wiley, had you finished with any comments you want to
make in regards to this issue on this particular case? We're still on
the rezoning issue of Club Island (sic) Estates.
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. Just a little bit of clarification on what
Mr. Fernandez is saying. The environmental analysis has been done.
That was a part of the conceptual permit. That's one of the reasons it
took us so long to get it.
The final permit he's talking about for construction of the
LASIP is set to convert a portion of the conceptual to the C&O,
which is free to address the actual footprint of wetland impact. It
doesn't address at this point change in elevation for control. Just so
you understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Just curiously, we have a weir,
proposed weir or one that extends, I don't know, but that's going to be
set at 9.0?
MR. WILEY: No, 9.4. The existing development there now,
the Club Estates, Homes of Islandia, has an existing weir with a
control elevation of 9.0, crest elevation higher than that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So that's my point.
Now, we have water then will be flowing, I assume? That's what I
Page 47
"~"''''--
November 2, 2006
want you to tell me. Is the water going to be flowing down to the 99
acres that the county has acquired?
MR. WILEY: It potentially can. Basically their discharge point
is going to be at this time going almost due west, versus in the
southwest, which would get it onto the 99-acre parcel.
But the 99-acre parcel is immediately adjacent to wetlands,
contiguous wetlands, so technically the water could go in any
direction.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There's no weir there, though, is
there?
MR. WILEY: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: It's just going to flow into that
99 acres --
MR. WILEY: It will all be stored in that one area.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I certainly understand the
Chairman's point. I certainly do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Melissa, I think you've finished your presentation, or had you
not?
MS. ZONE: I have. I just wanted to state for the stipulations,
the county reviews impacts for the county as a whole, as opposed to
individuals. And though this 9.4 elevation not only will help the
homeowners, but it helps the county as a whole. And I just wanted to
reinstate that.
And that's how we review it is by how we're mandated to look at
the county as a whole.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any other
questions of staff?
Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Melissa, in your resolution
two, would it work if you took out the last sentence?
MS. ZONE: The resolution?
Page 48
,-",,-,,,,~",,-,.,,". '-'-.-'-
November 2, 2006
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
MS. ZONE: I'm sorry, you mean the ordinance?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Would it work if you took out
the last sentence of it? In other words, the way it's worded now, it
would be revise the South Florida Water Management District permit
to comply with the LASIP -- I didn't want to read it out.
The second sentence says the water management facility needs
to comply with 9.4. In other words, you're fixing it there. Wouldn't
the first sentence in essence, needs, whatever the future is, it has to
comply with that?
MS. ZONE: I'd like to defer to Robert Wiley being our
Stormwater Engineer, since the language came from him.
MR. WILEY: Okay, I'm sorry, say it again?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What it would be Bob, is just
remove the last sentence in recommendation two.
MR. WILEY: That's what I'm trying to look at, where
recommendation two is here. Right, the second sentence, it's just an
explanation of what's meant by the first.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. And I think pegging it
at a number -- I can understand Mike's point, he doesn't need to make
it again -- but that maybe it's better to see what the neighborhood
becomes rather than peg the numbers now.
MR. WILEY: The intention is in the first sentence, the second
is explanatory.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of Melissa?
Melissa, I have a couple.
In your staff report, you said that this did not go before the
EAC.
MS. ZONE: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not saying it has to, I'm just
wondering, since you are modifying and reducing conservation area,
Page 49
.._,....._,-
November 2, 2006
I thought the EAC had to be involved when you're modifying
conservation areas.
MS. ZONE: Correct. I discussed this with environmental staff,
because there was already impacts onto this property, they were
reducing the size. Staff felt it didn't need to go before it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so that's an option that staffhas
to exercise and not a requirement?
MS. ZONE: There is certain criteria that gets involved and this
didn't meet that threshold. Because I asked the same question by
them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your recommendations, number one,
provide a 50 by 50 easement subj ect to conservation preservation and
to multiple jurisdictional agencies. What's that to be used for?
MS. ZONE: Um.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fifty by 50 is not a big square, it's a
small square. I'm just wondering --
MR. WILEY: Again, Robert Wiley with Engineering Services.
What we're looking at is the very southwest corner of this property.
The county owns the property to the south, the property owns -- the
county owns property immediately to the west. Both properties, the
99 acres plus the 10 acres which is just immediately to the west, are
intended to be preserve lands for conservation for the county. But
we need to have access across them for perpetual maintenance and
also for the ability to physically get to the weir that we are building
right at that corner. So that's what this 50 by 50 easement is for, is
for access purposes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that clarifies it. Thank you.
Any other questions by staff?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, did you get your
question with transportation resolved?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No, I did not. I'd like to talk
Page 50
"_.'~M.._
November 2, 2006
to Mr. Scott, please.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Melissa, could you take that back down
again so we can see? Thank you for the use of it, though.
One thing is this room is not acoustically well done. These
microphones unfortunately pick up, sometimes not. It's hard for the
court reporter. I have to ask everybody in the audience not to
whisper to one another, not to -- just get up and go out the doors if
you have to speak at all. I would sure appreciate that. Thank you.
Mr. Scott?
MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, Transportation Planning.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'd like some information
regarding actually what is the road capacity passing this PUD.
MR. SCOTT: At the moment there's negative capacity in the
AUIR, assuming the -- essentially the approved developments in the
area. Level of service E at negative 165.
But we have County Road 951 is at about 90 percent design,
and it's scheduled to start sometime next year. With that increased,
you know, four to six-laning we would have access capacity of 735,
about a level of service C.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: It would be your statement
then that this would be usable within the next three or four years?
MR. SCOTT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: There's not going to be a
possibility of change that we have found in the past?
MR. SCOTT: That's a wide-open question. It takes off of last
night's conversation, too. Weare experiencing, what, lower revenues
and great increases in costs, so I can't guarantee what happens with
any of these projects that come in.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's my point, it's negative
now, we have no guarantee it's going to go positive in the next three
or four years either. That's what happened, for example, to Davis
Boulevard, Davis Road. We don't know what's going to happen --
Page 51
November 2, 2006
MR. SCOTT: I would say, based on the discussions we've had
earlier today, I would do Collier Boulevard ahead of some other
proj ects that we also have in our work program, but that remains to
be seen.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of members
of staff?
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Something here -- nagging me
here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who is it you want to ask a question
of? We have nobody at the microphone.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I wanted to -- actually I wanted
to learn a little bit more about the ordinance here and how this works.
Under section two, it says it's hereby repealed in its entirety.
And that's Ordinance No. 99-31. We're also referring to the other
ordinance 04-41. When you repeal, how does it work then with -- the
first part, section one, speaks to -- where is it, amendment, and the
second part speaks to repeal. So if you repealed it, what then do you
have as a vehicle to go forward? I'm not trying to put you on the spot
--
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: The ordinance is repealed, but it
has the effect of amending, you know. So what you've done is what's
changed is changed and then you've carried over, you know, the
things that you didn't amend from the prior ordinance.
And the reason that it was decided to do it that way many years
ago was because, as is the case with Pelican Bay and some of the
older ones, we have stacks of amendments like this. So when you try
to read the ordinance, you have to look at this one and the one under
it and the one under it and the one under it and the one under it to see
what it really says.
So the idea of this was to achieve the same thing where you
Page 52
.--,..,.,.-.--
November 2,2006
have -- you carry forward what you're not changing and then you
change the things you do, but it's all in one document.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Let me see if I can make
it clear for myself. So if I understand you correctly, you're saying
that Ordinance No. 04-41 is amended and that was the base
ordinance for this.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No, 04-41 is the Land
Development Code. And any PUD is an amendment to the Land
Development Code. But when you look down at section two, it
states the specific PUD which was the prior one that's being repealed,
and then this one is the new one. And what this consists of is what
was in the original one with the changes.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Thank you, that's what was
confusing me. I guess I missed seeing --
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yeah, 04-41 is the LDC.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we will take a
15-minute break to 17 minutes after 10:00. When we get back we
will try to finish this one up.
(A break was taken.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, please take your
seats in silence, if we could.
Melissa, we're going to have to ask you to take conversation
outside. This room is not very good for whispering conversation.
And I was reminded, and I do thank Cherie' for reminding me,
that occasionally I'm talking too fast, and Mr. Schiffer and Mr.
Murray are as well. So all of us please slow down a little bit in our
discussions. I will try to as well. With that, we had left off with the
staff discussion on this particular case and questions from us.
Are there any public speakers on Item C, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: No. No one has registered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Margie, I think your advice was
Page 53
~. . .O_U..__._.
November 2, 2006
to hear -- to make a motion on this with the other one as -- like an A
andB.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes. Because before the board on
Creekside, which was similar, where we were taking dirt out of one
and putting it into a new PUD and creating it, there were separate
motions, and one passed and one didn't, so it presented a problem.
So I think this way, they're A and B but still part of the same
motion, and that way we shouldn't have that same problem.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then should we as a formality close
discussion on C and open it on B or just let it continue?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I would close the discussion on C
and state that the motion will be made on C at the conclusion of the
consideration of B.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, you heard what Margie just said.
We endorse it wholeheartedly.
Item #8B
PUDZ-2006-AR-9021, COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION
So we will close the discussion on Item C and now we will be
moving into Item B in our agenda, which is Petition
PUDZ-A-2006-AR-9021, LASIP companion item to
PUD-2006-AR-9576, Homes of Islandia. The vote on that Homes of
Islandia case will occur with this particular vote on this one when we
finish our discussion on this.
So Mr. Reischl, I'm assuming you're -- oh, have you been sworn
in?
MR. REISCHL: I was, but I didn't know if you're going to have
separate swearing in of this project too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. If you all -- that's I think
Page 54
- <-.,.,..~~~-_._,. ~.'-'-~-
November 2, 2006
sufficient. Go ahead.
MR. REISCHL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,
Commissioners. Fred Reischl with Agnoli, Barber and Brundage,
representing County Transportation Department.
Also here today are John Franco Nicalatchi (phonetic), Trinity
Caudill-Scott and Jerry Kurtz with county transportation. This is a
request for a rezone, as you've heard, for a 99-acre parcel to removed
from The Club Estates PUD. And the remainder of The Club Estates
PUD is the Homes of Islandia RPUD. The site's owned by Collier
County and it's being used as mitigation for the Lely Area
Stormwater Improvement Proj ect, which leads to the acronym
LASIP.
As you can see from this, Lely Area Stormwater Improvement
Proj ect is a very large proj ect that goes from Davis Boulevard,
Collier Boulevard, 41, and to points west.
So this is the subject site of our PUD. It is within the
boundaries of the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project, but
it's only a small portion of the entire drainage projects. In the LASIP
improvements, which are to improve drainage to that whole area,
there were some impacts to wetlands. And as mitigation for these
impacts, the county purchased this land and a conservation easement
was placed over it.
The future -- I miss the visualizer. The future land use of the
subject parcel, as was mentioned previously, is conservation. And
this CFPUD, community facility PUD, contains no dwelling units, no
commercial uses and only limited conservation uses. The permitted
uses are restoration, protection, preservation of native vegetation and
wildlife habitat, and stormwater management. There are accessory
uses, as you read in the PUD, which include a nature trail at grade, an
observation deck, signs, parking for five vehicles and a picnic
pavilion. The accessory uses are not guaranteed to be built. They
will depend upon permitting from South Florida Water Management
Page 55
,_.h_',""'_~"_.'''<~k~;/".''''''"'~'' _" ,- ." "........ ....&"..."""''''''''''',_._...w..."..~ - ^._<.~.,-~,~-
November 2, 2006
District and the Army Corps of Engineers.
We have started that permit process to amend the permit to
allow some of these uses. When that permit is approved, it may
include none of them or it may include whatever those jurisdictions
choose to allow. A grant from Florida Communities Trust helped to
purchase the subject site for public use, and they are the ones who
requested that there be passive public recreation on here.
As was mentioned also earlier, the site's currently infested with
exotic species, primarily melaleuca. They will be removed. And
once they're removed, the layout of the path and the other structures,
if they're permitted, will be in the area of least impact to the
remaining vegetation. We held a joint neighborhood information
meeting with Homes of Islandia on September 25th at Edison
College. The issue of fencing off the parking lot was brought up.
What we had gone into the meeting with originally was -- what
we had gone in originally with was having a fence on the interior
side of the parking lot so that cars could go in, sheriff or whatever,
and then come back out. The sense of the neighbors at the meeting
was that they would like the parking lot gated so that people couldn't
go in there and, you know, jump a fence basically and get into the
thing at night. Apparently Naples Lakes County Club folks have had
a vagrancy problem in the area now and they didn't want that
increased.
So the petitioner has agreed to an automatic gate at the entrance
to the five-car parking area. The possibility of school bus parking
was also brought up for field trips. The information that we
submitted to the Army Corps and the District did not include that.
We tried to keep the footprint as small as possible so there were as
little wetland impacts as possible. And I checked with Jeff Storing
from Collier County Public Schools to see if -- for field trip
possibilities, people -- a school bus could pull into the decellane, let
the passengers out and then go back out. He said that would not be
Page 56
~"'.'--- <......-....-
November 2, 2006
permitted by the school district. The only alternative we could think
of for that would be if the school bus parked at Publix, got
permission, obviously, from Publix, parked there and the kids walked
a mile north.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That might counter the McDonald's
supply of overly fat food to public schools.
MR. REISCHL: Well, basically the place is going to be for
birding and hiking. So if they're going to go on a nature hike, it will
just add an extra mile. The LASIP area conservation CFPUD is
consistent with the Growth Management Plan and compatible with
the surrounding area, and we ask for your recommendation of
approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The park will be open to
everyone and there will be access for anyone?
MR. REISCHL: During park hours, yes.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And when will those be?
MR. REISCHL: I believe it's dusk to dawn right now. That
will be set up on the sign, and there will be a park ranger assigned
that will open the gate in the morning and close the gate in the
.
evenIng.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Was this purchased for
mitigation by the county?
MR. REISCHL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Was the county the one
responsible for the impacts, or was it private developers that were
responsible?
MR. REISCHL: No, they're not impacts to this site, but there
are impacts to other areas. For example, putting in control structures
in wetland areas. They necessarily had to impact those wetlands
elsewhere in this whole area. Therefore, those were impacts and
they're going to be mitigated by the purchase of this.
Page 57
_ '.._m_____.._'___
November 2, 2006
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I guess my question is, the
county purchased this land for mitigation. Was it for things that the
county did or was it things that developers in the area did?
MR. REISCHL: Things that the county did and will do with the
LASIP project.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you -- do you know what the
price for the purchase was by the county?
And then Mr. Murray after that.
MR. REISCHL: No, I don't. 2.7 million, I'm told.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And of course that was purchased from
The Club Estates?
MR. WILEY: No, sir.
MR. REISCHL: There was an interim owner between The Club
Estates LLC --
MR. WILEY: For the record, Robert Wiley with engineering
services department.
We purchased that from the property owner. At the time that it
was included into the amended Club Estates PUD, the owner of Club
Estates had an option on the property. He proceeded with the rezone.
Then after the rezone was approved, he dropped his option.
Subsequent to him dropping his option, then we got in contact with
the property owner and acquired it for the county.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was that a friendly purchase?
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir, it was a friendly purchase. Well, I hope
it was friendly. It was not condemnation. It was an agreed-upon
sales price.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only reason I'm -- they then got a
fair market price then for their property?
MR. WILEY: Yes, sir. We went through the appraisal process.
They agreed with giving them 10 percent above the market value just
on the appraisal. And we shook hands and they took the money.
Page 58
.' ~~""'--"__'_"'~""'_""'_'~~""~""_~W.~'_"'__"_'_~_ ._~,"_.'"_, .~'~~-
November 2, 2006
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were there any provisions in the
purchase agreement between the county and the owners that there be
no recourse back to the county for any use of the property or items
like that?
MR. WILEY: In the purchase agreement it was stated that was
for the conservation purposes, mitigation for use of the LASIP, when
we purchased it from the owner.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir. This gate that we're
going to have put in, is that going to be a full gate or is that going to
be a vehicular barrier? What I'm interested in is knowing whether or
not access by pedestrians can make it into that property.
MR. REISCHL: We discussed that at the neighborhood info.
meeting. What we had gone into the meeting with was having a
perimeter fence along the 951 frontage and then having that dip
around here with -- for example, there were going to be bollards at
the entrance to the trail so that four-wheelers couldn't go in there at
night and everything.
And then the neighbors asked for and county has agreed to an
automatic gate so that you can't even access the parking lot.
Obviously it's not going to prevent somebody from jumping the
fence or getting in there. It's not going to be foolproof, but it will
keep anybody who thinks they can just wander in there from getting
--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Moving on then, if we
look at the tract and we see that there's a proposed boardwalk and we
go --
MR. REISCHL: No, just for the record, it's not a boardwalk. It
can't even be mulched. It's just going to be an at-grade trail with
directional signs.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I'm sorry, I thought it was a
Page 59
November 2, 2006
boardwalk. Okay. Nevertheless, there is to be a walk there.
MR. REISCHL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But my concern would be, if
you look at the property line and you see that walk, would you have
an idea of how far that walk is from the property line?
And then the next question on top of that would be what -- I
know we're going to take away a lot of melaleuca and we're going to
replace it with slash pine and so forth. I'm concerned with trespass.
I'm concerned with that. So if you can answer those questions,
maybe in detail.
MR. REISCHL: During the break I was talking to a gentleman.
And this is a very conceptual plan, just to show that we have a trail
and that the trail is going to be limited to basically the eastern half of
the parcel because we anticipate this to be the wetter side of the
parcel.
This is not a definite distance from the property line. If you
want to the say that it shall be a minimum of "X" from the property
line, that's fine. What we plan to do, is once the melaleuca is
removed, is find the path of least resistance and put the path and the
deck there.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Okay. I appreciate the path of
least resistance. But for the concern of the neighbors, the issue for
them, and it's a very important one, that trespass does not occur
because, as you may note from the other document we have, their
homes, their plats are right there. And they are deep concerns. All
right, let me go on then. I noted not a big thing, perhaps, but in your
PUD document it says the subj ect property was acquired July 25.
However, the warranty deed says 2002. So I don't know if that's
meaningful, but it certainly is interesting.
MR. REISCHL: What page was that on?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, it's in your application for
public hearing rezone, where it says July 25. And the warranty deed
Page 60
'~""-.'--"'-
November 2, 2006
is on its own here.
MR. REISCHL: It's in the application. I can amend it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's a typo, I suspect.
MR. REISCHL: Okay. I'll correct that. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're welcome. I have a
couple of other questions.
Also, the affidavit wasn't filled out, or at least on my copy.
And, you know, I recognize the county is the owner based on some
other things, but I thought the affidavit had to be prepared.
MR. REISCHL: We submitted an affidavit.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We didn't get the copy of it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to slow it down a little bit in
the interaction between. Wait till one stops and let the other one
speak.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I apologize if I'm going too fast,
it must be the coffee. Let's just --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just look up and I see Cherie's face
and fingers and I worry that she's going to collapse on us here in a
minute.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Now, in the area where we're
talking about the department of defense here, and that's the -- we're
talking about the United States Army Corps of Engineers, they're
talking about mangrove wetlands creation. Is that going to be or is
this just general overall or --
MR. REISCHL: Right, that's the only program in for the entire
--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought that it might be,
because it seemed very strange.
Okay, I'm almost running out of questions. So -- okay, on
special conditions it speaks to number one, the conceptual phase of
this permit shall expire on October 14th, 2006. I have no idea what
that means, the conceptual phase of the permit.
Page 61
,."".."-"",,--~....,.-,,, . . '..........,.....-.,..,-.-.-
November 2, 2006
MR. REISCHL: That's in the Army Corps permit, again, I
believe. Which I believe that we have submitted an amendment --
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: No doubt. But what are the
implications, in as much as it appears it has expired? What does that
mean to us?
MR. WILEY: For the record, Robert Wiley again, Engineering
Services Department. That is a reference to the South Florida Water
Management District conceptual permits which encompass the entire
Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project area.
That was the original permit issuance. Subsequent to that we
have done permit modifications, which every permit modification
where the District gives you an additional two-year extension. So we
still have a valid permit. That just identifies the first termination
date, when the conceptual date has been amended and the date
extended.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I see, this was a trip wire in
there so I would read it and you'd know I read it, that was what it
was.
Okay, let's see if I have one more. No, that's it. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions of
Mr. Reischl?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm assuming we have a staff
presentation?
Thank you, Fred.
MS. ZONE: Good morning, Commissioners. Melissa Zone,
Principal Planner with the Department of Zoning and Land
Development.
The applicant has stated pretty much everything that is true.
This is a conservation area. It's going to be a community facility that
will be managed by the Collier County Parks and Rec. Department.
We -- the county purchased this, as Mr. Wiley mentioned, as
Page 62
~.., ""...'._------~.,~""_..,.
November 2, 2006
mitigation for the impacts that were throughout the LASIP, which is
the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Proj ect area. And this area
is to stay as preservation. We meet the future land use elements,
goals and objectives for LDC regulations. This being a passive park,
we've worked with our ADA engineer, who has given us very good
guidance on a passive walkway. So not only for those bird watchers,
but also to be ADA compatible.
And if you have any questions of staff, I'd be happy to answer
them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of staff on this issue?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For once I don't think we have any.
MS. ZONE: Great, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Ray, do you have any speakers on this issue?
MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we will close the public
hearing on agenda Item B.
Now, we need to discuss the order of motions, and I think we
want to look at making a motion on agenda Item C first, followed by
a motion on agenda Item B.
So with that, is there anybody willing to make a motion on
agenda Item B -- C, I'm sorry, the one that we originally discussed on
modifying the PUD?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I will.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You want to do that?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Doesn't matter, Bob, I'll make
it. I'll make a recommendation to move forward with a
recommendation of approval PUDA-2006-AR-9576, with staff
recommendation but the elimination of the last sentence on
Page 63
~"'"""''''',~H__L__"i"'''.."~''"" _ ...___..,0_
November 2, 2006
recommendation two.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I didn't hear his last word.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He said with staff recommendations
but with the exception of the second sentence of the second
stipulation.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner
Schiffer, second by Commissioner Midney.
Discussion? Go ahead, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Did we not talk about having the
homeowners sign off on changes as a third stipulation?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got like five stipulations we talked
about. Want me to --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Go ahead, you can run through
them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The first one would be that
there's going to be a requirement of a joinder including for the HOA
to be part of the applicant. That the PUD language in its redundancy
and non-applicability that was carried over from the original PUD get
corrected before it goes to the BCC. That we receive -- that the BCC
receive a corrected warranty deed to the satisfaction of the county
attorney. That -- well, the other one is what Brad already indicated,
stipulation sentence number two be removed.
And if we're leaving stipulation two in, then we don't need to
craft language about a waiver to the county, because that stipulation
takes care of that. So that's the stipulations that I can recall.
And does the motion maker accept those?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the second accept those?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Nods.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other discussion from the board?
(N 0 response.)
Page 64
November 2, 2006
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll call for the vote.
All those in favor of the motion as stipulated, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
The second part of this is a motion to approve the first item on
our agenda today, which actually was heard second. It's Item B,
2006-AR-9021.
Is there a motion to recommend on that?
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I would make a motion to
recommend PUDZA-2006-AR-9021 to the Board of County
Commissioners for approval.
And I would also like to stipulate that any trail or walkway be
limited to a minimum of 30 feet from the property line. Maybe that's
too small; I picked an arbitrary number. Make it 50 feet. My point
being I want to protect the people in that community. So 50 feet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion seconded by Commissioner
Adelstein.
Is there discussion? Mr. Adelstein?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'd like to amend the motion
first, if I can. However, the park portion of the PUD shall not be
Page 65
<-,~_._.._."..~." .,_. .-. .-""'"'''''''._'<''_'L<~".~''.> ..._-,,--
November 2, 2006
restored in any way until 951 has been properly widened. We have a
failed road here. We're now going to put more things on it and then
more things on it. I think it's possible for us to get it started faster
because the county would like to have this done, to get this widened
road and see if we can get something for that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, the trips that would be
generated by five spaces in the parking spot are far, far less than the
49 units that were originally approved for the property.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I understand that. And I
understand they could go around it that away. I feel this way:
Someone's got to start sitting up and saying look, we can't keep
putting things on 951. It's failed. This is something we all want. I
want it, too. But I would also like to have it when the road would be
adequately safe for us to be driving on it.
Now, it's not that I don't want this, it's that I want to have it
come faster and properly.
MR. REISCHL: Mr. Chairman, I just want to state that the
petitioner has no objection to that, as long as, realize that the exotic
removal will go ahead --
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Different issue. Totally
different issue.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Won't that represent just as
many trips, taking care of the exotics? And won't that add trips
temporarily, taking care of the exotics?
MR. REISCHL: That could be done today under current zoning
just as soon as we get --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right, and you're only adding a
few more. As the motion maker, I would not accept that. I think that
that's unnecessary.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the motion's made.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll second it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the second already had seconded.
Page 66
-.. ._....~,-^"----
November 2, 2006
We don't need another second unless you're withdrawing your second
to the motion.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm going to have to
withdraw my second to the motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You are not?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'm going to withdraw my
second to the motion, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You are withdrawing your second.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I will withdraw it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Midney are you going to
second the motion?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the motion has been made
by Mr. Murray with a stipulation that there be a 50-foot setback for
the trail from any of the surrounding property lines. And it's been
seconded by Mr. Midney.
Are there any other discussion on this board?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, I'll call for the vote.
All those in favor of the motion as remade, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-1.
Thank you, that ends that portion of our meeting for that
particular public hearing.
Page 67
.."..",-,._,~.",.."";".-."".,;.....,-_.,-,,~., .. ~-"'-'---
November 2, 2006
Item #8D
TIS (TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STATEMENT) GUIDELINES
AND PROCEDURES
N ow we go into the famous Transportation Department TIS
issue. We're going to take a five-minute break to change hands here
so the court reporter can stop and not have to worry about picking up
this chitchat.
(A break was taken.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got to ask that we refrain from
discussion in the audience. And we can move forward with another
one of Nick's proposals.
THE COURT REPORTER: Do you want me to swear everyone
in?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Anybody that's going to be
speaking on this, this wasn't a hearing issue, this was more of an
opportunity for the planning commission to opine on something, so
I'm not sure we need swearing in on this.
Ms. Student?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: What type -- this is not a land use
petition, so it's not quasi-judicial, so you don't need to swear people
in. Unless it's a land use petition, it's quasi-judicial.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning. For the record, Nick
Casalanguida, Transportation.
Chairman, Commissioners, thank you. This is a proposal that's
going forward. It's not required for your review, but we appreciate
the fact you have taken the time to review this application. It's for
changes to the TIS guidelines and procedures. It was submitted for
your review several weeks ago with the idea that we would bring it
back with additional changes and comments.
Page 68
, ....',"',..... ......';._,."_.
November 2, 2006
I do apologize to the Chairman. I was supposed to modify the
should and shalls of the prior submittal and I went through it and
made those changes. We've spent probably 20 to 30 hours in
individual meetings with the stakeholders, with the county consultant
who works for us, Marty Shapiro from CH2M Hill who is here today.
We've reviewed the prior document. The document now takes a
lot of the considerations and recommendations that this commission
has made to us in the past. Construction traffic, intersection analysis,
the depth and the reach of our scope of review when we review
transportation impact statement applications.
There were some changes that were made yesterday, in meeting
with the stakeholders. Most of them were not substantive. They
were clarifications on sentences that they felt required clarification.
And we agreed with that. I provided a page that has that at your
desk. It has the red highlights, and it has the shoulds and shalls in
there as well, too. I'd like to quickly go through it and circle the
should and shalls where they're appropriate, if that's what they'd like
--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, what I'd rather do, Nick, is like we
have typically done so that everybody can air their concerns in some
kind of orderly manner. We'll just take this one page at a time.
And if you have changed to the page, tell us first as we begin,
then maybe we won't have to bring our changes up. And then we
walk through it one page at a time.
And with that, then I guess the very first page is the one titled
Purpose and Applicability, and that is your first page.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: In the first sentence of that, the
second line, it says concurrency requirements. We added consistent
with the comprehensive plan at the request of the stakeholders. No
other changes to the first page.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's your only change on that
Page 69
- ~.,-
November 2, 2006
page, correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I have a question on Page 1. It
says the TISs are required for all applications for, and then it lists
various things. The very, very first one is an amendment to the compo
plan, under which you've said that you only need to do roadway
segment analysis if you're putting forth the compo plan.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Typically.
COMMISSIONER CARON: That seems to me to be the exact
wrong thing to be stated there. We should be doing system analysis.
If we're going to change our compo plan, we ought to be looking at
the entire system, not just a segment.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you look at Table 9-1, it talks
about how far you have to go out in terms of that. And also, farther
in the guide it talks about what's required as far as analysis.
What we try and distinguish between a compo plan amendment
and, say, a land use submitted for a rezone, and then farther on down
for concurrency is, the farther out the application is, say a compo plan
amendment is pretty far out, you're looking at the roadways as much
as you're not looking at the intersections.
Now, we did meet with the stakeholders and we discussed, it
depends, and we conditioned that. It says typically, not all times. If
it's in the urban area and you're looking at a compo plan change and
there's an intersection involved, we will ask for an intersection
analysis, and we do so. If you're in the rural area, and you're seeking
a compo plan change, and depending on the size, you may be looking
at just roadway analysis, will the roads in the area have sufficient
capacity to allow such use. Then they have to come back for a PUD
where the review gets tighter. And then they come back with that
SDP where the review is really, really, tight.
So, again, it says typically, and that was at the request of the
stakeholders, and they are correct.
Page 70
---'- .,,~ ,._ .....~C"..-;-=."__".' V M '--'--'-
November 2, 2006
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think where Ms. Caron may be going
is why do you want to provide that flexibility by using the word
typically in there? Because someone's going to hang their hat on that
and now you've got to justify why is it atypical then, why is it not
typical.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, again, the compo plan
amendments that we've seen come through our office, it's hard to
justify in certain cases intersection analysis for a compo plan
amendment, because they may not be near an intersection. You may
be looking five or 10 years out. We will ask for it if that intersection's
failing. We have the right to ask for that. So that we can present that
information to you at the review hearing. We can say, this
intersection is failing, it's expected or not expected to be improved,
depending on the E plus C network. There is different things that
we'll bring to you.
But typically in a compo plan amendment we're looking at -- a
look in the future is what we think the roadway network will be like
and can we make a recommendation of where that network is
consistent with the compo plan amendment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But do you have to give that? Why
don't you -- if you typically only look at those and you look at what
you need to require, why do you need it stated there?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can cross that out, if this board
recommends that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would think the more stringent we are
in this document, the better off this community is going to be.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments--
COMMISSIONER CARON: I would just like to say that a
system-wide analysis of any road impacts is not just intersections,
correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: But we do do a system-wide analysis.
Page 71
,.'..-.-,......."....... ..~.._...
November 2, 2006
When it says typically roadway site analysis, it's multiple segments,
depending on the size of the compo plan. If I get an amendment of the
compo plan and it comes in and it's, let's say, for 20,000 square feet of
general office, and that -- those impacts only go out so far. It might
be just one roadway segment that we're looking at.
Now, if that compo plan was for a million square feet of medical
office, those impacts would, you know, greatly be, you know,
expanded. They would look at intersections, multiple roadways,
multiple networks. So it's always on an application by application
basis.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But see, that's been part of our
problem, is we always look at the tiny little, every little individual
proj ect and we never think about the big picture on these things, and
that's part of what's gotten us into trouble in the past.
And I just think that if you allow yourself to look at the entire
project, the stricter we are on these things, the better off this county
is going to be.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I've struck it through and I've put
CCPC recommendation to remove.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'd like to jump --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- in for a second here. My way
of changing -- because I thought I understood your intent in the
parenthetical. And I appreciate the need for some overview, but I
don't know the total plan.
But the way I changed it would be typically, comma, roadway
segment analyses will be required. I don't know if that conveys for
you what you intend or whether we stick with the stringency that was
just introduced.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It was requested from the
stakeholders, but again, I assure you that this in no way limits us.
And that's why it was typically. It was to say that, yes, that's
Page 72
'<-"'."_.~.,,,,,~, -.,".,,"-., .... '0'~_
November 2, 2006
typically what we do but there's no way does that limit us to not look
at --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You were basically trying to
provide guideline information; is that what you were doing with the
parenthetical?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. And then it's trying to just
identify that when you look at a compo plan amendment, you're not
going into the detail of, say, a site plan review. Because it hasn't
gone through zoning, it hasn't gone through SDP application. So
you're looking at a big picture. Is this consistent with the big picture
review of the project.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, if you were looking at
this absent that parenthetical statement, could someone construe that
to mean that you would have an expectation to have a complete
analysis of all of the segments for miles and miles and miles?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think with or without that statement
we're covered.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So then you don't need that
parenthetical.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, fine for me.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have two questions, Nick. The
meeting last night that you had, what civic associations were there
represented?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Civic associations?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Mr. Murray, was he there
representing the East Naples Civic Association?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was somebody from the Golden Gate
Estates Civic Association there?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was anybody from North Naples Civic
Page 73
,__,' "_m_=-"_."""^^'~ ---,_._,,',--,
November 2, 2006
Association -- who in the world is stakeholders if the community
isn't?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The stakeholders, meaning the
applicant stakeholders, sir. The developing community stakeholders.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the only stakeholders represented in
transportation issues are developers?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. I think most of the
recommendations we've taken from the stakeholders from the outside
of that would be the board or recommendations through that public
hearing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you mean stakeholders, you mean
developers or their representatives?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Developers, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So stakeholders do not include in your
references citizens -- ordinary citizens, I should say, non -- the
people not representing a development interest.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They do, but we did not meet with a
public group. A lot of the requirements in there are not at that level
of discussion. It's not -- it's detailed. It's more people who are
applying for these projects that we brought it to, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think out of fairness to the public, at
least a notification ought to have been made to some of the major
organizations that represent citizens as well as landowners that there
was those kinds of discussions going on. I have one question on Page
1. It would be number two. All traffic impact statements or studies
are to be prepared by a transportation professional.
Is there a certification or a license for a transportation
professional, or is that an engineer?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That could be considered an
engineer. It could be considered a transportation planner, AICP
planner as well, too. There are several people in the community who
have submitted -- who work for the private side that have submitted
Page 74
c..,.__"___._.~.,,... .... ---. .... -_.-----
November 2, 2006
that have experience that provide excellent reports.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a classification in Tallahassee
through DPPR or one of the others that notices or certifies someone
as a transportation professional?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not that I'm aware of, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So any engineer can come in and claim
they're a transportation professional?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They could. They could claim
they're a transportation professional.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any way to tighten that up so
you only have transportation professionals that you're looking for?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Is there a recommendation you would
like to make?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know, I'm trying to find one.
As engineers, you can be an engineer for structural buildings or an
engineer for bridges or an engineer for a lot of things, but do those
engineers qualify as transportation professionals in order to make the
arguments you're asking them to make in this document?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I guess my comment says with
training, experience in traffic analysis in transportation -- at the last
sentence, end of the last sentence of the first, section two, it says with
training and experience in traffic analysis and transportation
planning.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I drive on the roads --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You might want to reduce -- not
reduce, but change transportation professional from the upper case T
to lower case T and upper case P to lower case so as to reduce the
implication of there being some kind of certification of some kind --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's fair.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually, I was trying to hope
there was a certification.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I know you were, but inasmuch
Page 75
- .---_.~'"~._". .----
November 2, 2006
as there isn't --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you can't change it, you can't.
But I was concerned that that would bring in -- there's no definition
in that.
Mr. Scott?
MR. SCOTT: Can I comment on this? It said in there before a
PE, Professional Engineer. But obviously what you just talked
about, you can be a PE in civil engineering, structural, and have
nothing to do with traffic. And that's why I wanted it to be not a PE
but -- obviously we don't have any certifications strictly for
transportation.
I mean, we do have like a PE that's, what do you call it, PTOE.
But obviously there's -- that doesn't cover everything either that we're
looking for.
You know, it is up to staff. It's up to these two -- your planning
commission and the board to finally review some of these things as
they come forward, too, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was -- I made the point. If you
have a way to make that so you get the people you want to do these,
fine. If you can't, then that's the best you can do, we'll just keep
movIng on.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would you -- in this context
here, you use consultants as well, do you not? And they are typically
PEs, right?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They are.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And with particularly training
or a skill in that area of transportation.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And if you had a home-grown
person, so to speak, an employee, you would look for someone with
those skill sets.
Page 76
"~.,"-,..,..,-
November 2, 2006
MR. CASALANGUIDA: With those skill sets, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And would they necessarily
have to be aPE?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And how would you know that
the skill sets are adequate?
You're basically -- your evaluation of their resume and what
their history has been and so forth, correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's exactly correct.
MR. SCOTT: More so evaluation of the product when it's done.
Because people sell things all the time and say well, I can do this --
for instance, you talk about modeling, you might do modeling. Well,
that's more of a planning function than a professional engineer doing
it. But that is a piece of this.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: So you're really talking about
several skill sets that you bring together and you --
MR. SCOTT: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But you have it covered, right?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's one of the reasons why we use
consultants. They have the ability to tap into a model or a plan or a
transportation engineer, an intersection design engineer, all of those
aspects.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move on to page -- oh, Mr.
Schiffer, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On the site development plan,
so all conventionally-zoned sites, people sitting with a C-2 site, for
example, they have to provide this?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. For a new application that
provides additional traffic impact, they would.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And could you limit the ability
of what they're doing on that site based on that?
Page 77
._-,-
November 2, 2006
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For concurrency you would want
them to, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions on Page
I?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Moving on to Page 2. Nick, do you
have any -- you have one change, I see.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Page 2, bottom paragraph, about
halfway down. Sentence reads, the table, and I put should/shall. We
circled shall to clarify that.
That was the only change on Page 1.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the change, you're going to
eliminate should, you're going to put the word shall in there.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions on Page 2 from anybody?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, top of the page, second line, talks
about the consultant review fee. The second line says along with a
minimum of four copies of the TIS and methodology statement.
Are those copies required to be signed and sealed?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not with the guidelines that are
upfront. They're not providing any design information, they would
not have to be signed and sealed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they were signed and sealed,
wouldn't that at least mean then they've got to be certified in
something? And that would -- wouldn't that put them on the hook for
the authenticity or the strength of the document that they're
producing?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would have to go back to that first
page and modify that, who would be required, who would be allowed
to submit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's where I was going in the
Page 78
,-.,_...., '-'.,-,-- ~..,._..._-
November 2, 2006
first page. So now we get there on the second page. Is that -- I mean,
if you've got an engineer and he's saying as a traffic professional this
works, and it's bogus, now his license is on the line. And I think he'd
be more apt to make sure that nothing is wrong with that when he's
thinking that way.
Is there anything wrong with that train of thought?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: There's nothing wrong with that. I
think we have adequate staff and consultants to review that
application. Again, we'd have to go back to Page 1. You'd have to
probably clarify Page 1 if you wanted it that way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Only reason, I know that when you
submit building permits as an architect, you have to sign and seal.
And as an engineer, an SDP, the county requires everything signed
and sealed. So if you've got all those people and professionals on the
hook, why wouldn't you want to put these in? This document is
probably equally important, if not more.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If that's your recommendation, I'll go
back to Page 1 and modify Page 1.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would think that -- Mr.
Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's talk about that. Because
you testified that the person doesn't have to be a licensed professional
at all.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir, they do not.
Again, as Mr. Scott pointed out, you could have a bridge
engineer with a PE signature sign and seal this. So it's more that we
would want people who are doing this, people in the business who
are doing this.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But do you want it to be a lot --
I mean, what the building codes state is that it's a licensed engineer,
qualified and experienced. And in this case you state transportation.
So, I mean, if you want a licensed engineer, that's one thing.
Page 79
'_..~'""..",--"..,-
November 2, 2006
But do you have to -- is there a state requirement to have a licensed
engineer do this?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe not, sir. I believe it's a
jurisdictional requirement.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So if there's no licensing
procedure, then there's no sealing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but if you have a licensed -- if
part of this process is assumed that the professional doing it is
somehow licensed as an engineer as a minimum, and I think it did
say PE, from what Mr. Scott said it previously said --
MR. SCOTT: That's what it said previously, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So as a PE, you're still probably
assuming as a minimum a transportation professional is a licensed
PE. And if he is, would he want to put his --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can tell you that from experience,
the two years I've been here, the people who actually do the work
may not be the person, the actual PE who's signing and sealing. It's
under their supervision as required by the State of Florida --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Same with an architect.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The draftsman in the back room and
the draftsman at the engineering offices --
THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Strain, I'm sorry, but you're
really, really fast today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. I thought I was slowing
down. I was actually thinking about it.
I guess I just thought you guys would prefer to have, like the
rest of the departments, someone signing and sealing this.
MR. SCOTT: I didn't want it because of certain things. But we
can go back to the way it was. I mean, that's fine, if that's what your
direction is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the thought of this board?
Page 80
~ M"__,_,,__.,..,.__,,__
November 2, 2006
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My concern is that the state
doesn't require it. If it's not a licensed professional, you're restraining
the trade of somebody who's a traffic consultant without a PE license.
Something that we should think about.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there such things?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you be a traffic consultant and
hang a shingle out without having a license?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think you could. They're out there
right now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I didn't realize that. Well, I'll
drop my request then. Further on in that page, under small scale
study, you have the word criteria. You list four bullets. Is the intent
of this that they have to meet all four of the criteria, all four of those
bullets?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe you should say that. Because I
-- reading that, I didn't -- I was assuming, you didn't say it, you could
meet a certain number of them. But if it's all four, maybe after the
word criteria put in all four must be met or something to that effect.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can do that.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: It has and after each one. So
it's a continuation of the next.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's funny you pointed that out.
Someone made that comment last time, that that "and" qualified that
it had to be all of those.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, that's fine. In the last
paragraph before you made your change from should to shall, the
next line up, you talk about service capacity. Above 110 percent of
adopted service capacity.
Do you mean level of service?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Service volume for that roadway.
Page 81
."~""''''~~'_.."--,,.~ -.'. ,.. - ~---"._~"-'''''''._'--''~-'-'-
November 2, 2006
Adopted level of service volume.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to make sure we're consistent so
someone reading this -- so is service capacity a known signification,
or is it level of service that you're referring to?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can clarify that to service volume
capacity .
MR. SCOTT: Service volume.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 3. Any issues on Page 3?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have one more should to shall by
you, Nick?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct, that's shall.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Page 4.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Again, shall.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is on internal capture.
Would it be wise if we made it such that the people who made the
interconnections were trying to encourage that they could actually
include what they interconnect to as part of the area for this?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They can. When submitting an
application, if they provide that interconnection, they could qualify
that or quantify that internal capture.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the way you worded that,
it says multi-use developments. I don't get the impression that --
should you maybe note that in here?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm not sure where you are.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On number five, internal
capture.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're on Page 5 now?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm on Page 4. It is five on
your new handout.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. And at the bottom?
Page 82
.-.-~~'-~._-- ....-..-
November 2, 2006
Sir, what was your question?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The way it's worded, you call
it multi-use developments, and it's defining internal capture. And
you give an area requirement --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: As a guideline. Should typically
between.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My point is that once
somebody does the interconnection, can they start including the area
of the projects they're interconnecting to?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, they can. With the word should
there, and that's why it's in green in my book. Because it should be
kept there as should. Because in certain times you will review
projects for different sizes, and they will have some internal capture
because they do interconnect with another proj ect.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, my point is if a guy's
got a 50,000 square foot project, and there's a 50,000 next door and
he interconnects, he therefore gets your threshold.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Absolutely. Well, it's not a threshold,
it's a guide, again. We're trying to say that usually this is the typical
size of development where you're qualifying for internal capture.
That doesn't mean if a residential community comes in and uses a
shared access road with a shopping center that we wouldn't look at
internal capture. We do look at that and we do allow for that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So it's clear in your mind that
when you say multi-use developments, you mean development and
its adjoining properties can be accumulated to meet your desires
here. I mean --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: When an application is submitted, the
site plan of that application is reviewed. So if an applicant was to
claim internal capture, that would be shown and justified through that
application. I believe it's clear to the community that we work with
when they apply for this what it means.
Page 83
..._-,._--~
November 2, 2006
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah, what is the legal
distinction between should and shall?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Should is a recommendation. That's
probably one for the county attorney's office.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Is that correct?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, shall, you have to do. The same thing
as must, really, just a nice way of saying it.
And should is most of the times probably you should do it but
some of the times you don't have to.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, what's the distinction
between the red and the green?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Should was -- the green was where
we thought should was obvious. Should/shall where the red areas
were, we could have some discussion about it. And I've circled the
ones based on recommendations and it was up for discussion. Not
that they're not all up for discussion, but they were more obvious that
they had to be talked about.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on Page 4?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, let's start on trip generation,
number four on Page 4. By the way, the Page 4 that I'm reading off
of has number five on it as well. Not the one you passed out today.
Under trip generation, you have the green in yours. The ITE trip
generation handbook should be followed. Well, does that mean I can
write my own handbook and follow it?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then it shall be followed, right?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It should be followed. There are
cases you could provide a study, even though ITE says you can
provide a study.
Page 84
--' ..".." """"""~,>"...... "......... r ' ~.,.,,,."_.' --'''''''"'''--'-"'--'''-'-'~-.,-.~....-
November 2, 2006
Also, we didn't want to limit it to just ITE. There are other
studies that are provided that come in and are valuable. We wanted
not to be as restrictive in there. So it was a guide that says ITE
should be followed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if your intention is that it should
be followed unless there are other alternative studies, then the next
sentence needs to be corrected because it says if the county and the
applicant cannot agree on an acceptable trip generation, the applicant
may provide a study.
Wouldn't it be then shall provide? They've got to do one or the
other, wouldn't they?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. Would be a shall on
that one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the may (sic) changes to
shall.
And the next -- on the next green should, in order to estimate the
new -- the net new trips from a project, vested trips and trips from
existing use, if any, should be subtracted from the total trip
generation.
Wouldn't that be shall? Why would you want the option of it
being in or out as you have it in green?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: There was a reason. I'm trying to
think of why I left it as should. Trip reduction for existing land use,
however, will be permissible only if the site was operational within
the last 12 months and will be determined at the methodology
meeting. I think was that the idea behind it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you explain what that means,
Nick, in relation to that word to?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Thank you, I was struggling
with it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I couldn't understand what you were
trying to say in those sentences.
Page 85
"',"......-.._._~'"~.,....< ~.~-~..-
November 2, 2006
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. The next two sections --
actually, the next three sections: Trip generation, internal capture
and pass-by, Pramod would like to also interject on these because he
had a lot to do with the way these were written.
MR. CHOUDHARY: Do you want me to spell my name for
you?
THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, please.
MR. CHOUDHARY: P-R-A-M-O-D, as in David. Last name
is Choudhary, C-H-O-U-D-H-A-R-Y.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to speak closer to the mic,
SIr.
And just so the record's clear, are you one of these non-citizen
type stakeholders, or are you a working employee of the county? So
we know who we're getting testimony from.
MR. CHOUDHARY: I'm the consultant for the county on
dealing with traffic.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. CHOUDHARY: What it's trying to say here is that you
may have an abandoned piece of property which, you know, the last
couple of years or three years, nothing has been done on it. So if
you're asking to develop something on that piece of property, then
you wouldn't be allowed any deduction for the trips.
But if there is already an existing property, say a Winn-Dixie
and it's going out of business and you want to bring in a Wal-Mart, a
neighborhood market, then you would be allowed to subtract what
the Winn-Dixie was generating from the trips that your property
would generate now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so let me put this in real simple
terms. I am not a traffic professional of any kind, even though I don't
-- I could be, yes. Let's just call me that for the heck of it since there's
no qualifications needed.
MR. SCOTT: I get applications all the time that says I'm a
Page 86
...~...,.M...,._.".__,..._.,,,,.. .- - '_..,~--_.--
November 2,2006
truck driver, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There you go. And I can testify on
driving here this morning how much I learned. Say we have a
capacity of 100 trips on a road and this allows you -- this says that
for trip reduction, within the last 12th months will be determined at
the methodology meeting.
So that means say you have an existing proj ect that has 50 of
those trips consumed, leaving 50 for you to use, but you need 60,
then you would not be allowed to go forward. Is that the genesis of
these two sentences?
MR. CHOUDHARY: Not exactly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then I -- can you break it down
in simpler terms, please?
MR. CHOUDHARY: If you have -- for your example, if you
have 100 trips left, that 100 trips left is with the existing development
that's already there. So that is -- the capacity is already there with the
existing property of the development.
Now, if you replace that property and bring in another use
which will generate another 50 more trips than what the other
property was generating, then you're left with only 50 as your
capacity on that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So this gives you credit for
what was already counted in the system based on the prior use that
was there.
MR. CHOUDHARY: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Simpler terms. That helps.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would it serve any purpose to
stack the sentences the opposite way? In other words, start out with
trip reduction for existing land and eliminate the word however?
And then if you have to qualify, the qualifier becomes the -- the
second sentence was really the first sentence initially?
How did I confuse you with that one? I didn't mean to, but I
Page 87
,._.,-........","'--~-"'_.- .........._--
November 2, 2006
even confused myself doing it. If I can restate it again, second
sentence would be first, eliminate however, and if --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, you're going to have to
slow down. She's not -- it's taken all this time to get your first
sentence.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a twofer. I apologize.
I think I was a little embarrassed at my way of trying to put it and got
confused.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're okay with that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. My intent was
good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cherie', I'm really going to try hard,
too. I know you're getting frustrated, all right? I'm working with
number five, which is internal capture. It's on your Page 5, but it's on
my Page 4. I asked the planning commission if they had any
comments on Page 4. Why don't we see if there are any on internal
capture, because I had quite a few as well.
Anybody want to start, or I'll just go into it?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Internal capture, Brad started talking
about that second sentence, the multi-use developments should
typically be between 100,000 and two million square feet and should
be planned as a single real estate project. There's a lot of flexibility in
that. Why wouldn't you just say the multi-use developments shall be
planned as a single real estate proj ect?
Because if you say should typically be between, that means I
could come in with a 5,000 square foot project with two uses on it
and say okay, I'm multi-use. And while you may not anticipate that,
it could happen under those former sentences -- or former language.
MR. CHOUDHARY: This definition actually came from the
ITE handbook. Internal capture is unfortunately the most
misunderstood concept in traffic engineering.
Page 88
"""--'~"'"'~ ...,_....O'..__..~..,__,_
November 2, 2006
And what they have tried to explain in the handbook, in their
guidelines, is that internal capture would be allowed on
developments which are developed as a single entity, like a huge
mall. Within the mall you have different land uses where people
would, you know, park or even if their right-of-way because they
would not be accessing any outside roads, it would be in internal
trips. So that's why they identified it as a single entity.
Now, what you were referencing to, if another property comes
in and they want to have an internal connection, that would have to
be considered separately on how the internal capture would work and
whether there would be and how much it would be. That would be
something that we would discuss and talk about and find out what is
reasonable. It will be based on subjective judgment.
But as per the ITE definition, this is what it says that the
multi-use developments should look like if you are trying to get
credit for internal capture.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And ifit doesn't look like this, they can
still take credit for it, though?
MR. CHOUDHARY: That would be up to us to decide whether
it's looks reasonable or not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Just a -- multi-use, could
that ever be mistaken or misused, misapplied for mixed use? I
understood your definition was more like a mall. But mixed use?
Multi-use?
MR. CHOUDHARY: Yeah, I understand. There could be a
confusion on that.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Well, I have a concern because
there was land development language that went through having to do
with mixed-use projects, and I wouldn't want to think that somehow
or another that you locked in certain things.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: One more point of qualification.
Page 89
".~.,.. <'~.'~~_.'~~..'m'~"",,'_'.""" --,-
November 2, 2006
Your Island Walk-type developments where they have a town center,
a gas station, barber shop, convenience store, not necessarily a mall
for a mixed use development or it could be equally considered
multi-use development --
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I appreciate that --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right.
-- would have internal capture as well, too.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, so we're not excluding,
everything is inclusive?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Questions for the consultant.
So you're in agreement that adjoining properties can be grouped
together if they have interconnection and be considered for use of
this clause as a single real estate project?
MR. CHOUDHARY: It can be, because those trips are not
using the external links to access the property --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's why we should
connect them, is to cause internal connection --
MR. CHOUDHARY: That's -- yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But they'll be allowed to, when
they're doing the cap -- I'm a new guy, there's a few guys on each
side of me, I'm going to interconnect to them. I'll be able to use all
their data in my calculations for internal?
MR. CHOUDHARY: Yes. In Fort Lauderdale -- just as an
example, in Fort Lauderdale, they have this access management
problem where they are trying to -- what the property owners are
doing is that are -- in order to get that credit, they are trying to
connect their driveways. Other than having individual driveways for
each property, they're trying to interconnect and take some credit for
it.
Page 90
. '''..,"....''''''---".^.".--...... ~,- ..-...,,",...._,..~_.._--
November 2, 2006
So, yes, we probably would be looking at that as well.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Do you think maybe the way
we described it as a single real estate proj ect could cause confusion
with that? I mean because when I read it, I thought you weren't
allowed to do that.
So could we change the wording to make it obvious that that's
encouraged, or --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my suggestion on that, Brad, was
going to be to leave the first, where it says the multi-use
developments should typically be between 100,000 to two million
square feet. And then instead of should be, I would suggest shall,
and shall be planned as a single real estate project. Because that way
you're assured then that you're getting the internal roadways or
connections needed.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My confusion would be is that
again it's a guide between two existing projects. He's going to
interconnect. His proj ect is the real estate proj ect. The other two,
their data is not his data, unless we let them use it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, ifhe doesn't utilize the
interconnection, then he cannot be considered -- and he wouldn't be
applicable to internal capture then, so he loses the ability to use that
which would be a huge incentive, most likely.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, it occurred to me
that it's -- my other example is, you know, let's say there's a 25 on
one side, a 25 on one side and he's going to be a 50. If you guys are
going to consider him 100,000 and you can let him take advantage of
this, then I'm fine with it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We do.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not sure it's worded to
encourage that, but -- we can move on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the next sentence, we'll move on
all the way to the next sentence, the calculation for internal capture
Page 91
..._...,_"._.____."c~. ...,,~........__._-
November 2, 2006
should be done according to procedures.
Now, I understand that means that if you don't do it, then
alternatively you do the county developed Excel spreadsheet. Is that
the way that reads?
So you feel it's written strong enough so that they have to do
one or the other, they couldn't bring in a third study of any kind?
MR. CHOUDHARY: (Nods head affirmatively.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so if they don't use the
handbook, they have no choice, they have to go to the county's Excel
spreadsheets; is that correct?
MR. CHOUDHARY: (Nods head affirmatively.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Further on, the last line of that
same section says, Exhibits 5B and 5C depict the county procedure
for internal capture. The internal capture trips, it says should be
reasonable and should not exceed 20 percent.
Why don't you just say will be reasonable and shall not exceed
20 percent and drop the last line? That opens it up for going higher
than 20 percent.
I mean, there's no advantage to the road system to let them go to
some unreasonable or high level of internal capture rate. In the end
-- I drove here this morning, and people aren't driving in between the
gas stations, they're driving on the road trying to get to work.
Internal capture means nothing.
So I don't see why we need to even allow it to be 20 percent, if
that's what ITE is allowing, why do we even give them the
opportunity to go beyond that?
MR. CHOUDHARY: You will not see that scenario here, but
there have been instances, such as The Villages up north -- the
development in The Villages over there, the way it has been planned
is the internal capture over there is almost around 70 percent. And
the DOT has allowed it because it is a self-sustained community with
their own shopping center or medical center.
Page 92
_.,~.,.<.",~ "~">.d'_"'_._'
November 2, 2006
If you come across such a development allowing just 20 percent
would not be easy.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm sure glad you weren't here
when Ave Maria came through. They claimed 65 percent, and at the
time I thought that was not encouraged by the transportation
department.
And to be honest with you, I have real concern that when you
have those developments that yes, they may be able to do their
shopping, but they're still going to want to get on the roads and go
see the amenities that they moved here for. And that isn't going to
keep them within their communities.
MR. CHOUDHARY: Sure. And they have to do a study to
prove that. They weren't just allowed to go ahead and do 70 percent,
they have to do an extensive study to show that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you're a stakeholder and you want
the study to say whatever you want it to say, you just keep hiring
someone that says that for you.
Mr. Murray, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just wanted to add to that. I
was thinking about it. The point's well taken here about the capture
rate. Peak hours capture rate has got to be considerably lower. And
20 percent is a significant number. It does allow for -- I would agree
with the Chairman, I think you want to cap it. I don't think you want
to give yourself an opportunity. The anomaly that you've decided
about Villages is probably going to end up having its own
requirement for declarations and how it should be handled. I don't
think you can mix the two. So--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what if we were to take that last
sentence and instead of the words internal capture rates higher than
20 percent should be adequately substantiated, why not use shall be
--
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I have --
Page 93
.'".""""-'''~'"''''~ .-'--'
November 2, 2006
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that would strengthen the -- go
ahead --
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have it in this document.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that was passed out an hour ago.
I didn't read that last night, so I have to go by the one I read last
night.
I think that would -- I understand now why you may need it in
excess. And I know from experience on this board that occasionally
that can happen. I disagree with the extremes that you mentioned at
70 percent.
And I certainly disagreed at the time with the Ave Maria
believing they were going to have 65 percent out in the swamps.
Those people are going to want to come into town and they're going
to want to go to the beach and they're going to want to do what
everybody else does in Collier County.
But I don't think that 70 percent is right. I certainly think that
occasionally you may get above 20. So that's my suggestion.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question on the handbook.
Does the handbook calculate this during various times of the day?
MR. CHOUDHARY: No, it's just for the PM peak hour. And
it's just one example that they show you how to do that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in other words, we don't
have AM data on capture?
MR. CHOUDHARY: No.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because I thought we were
going to try to peak it out at the AM peak hour.
MR. CHOUDHARY: Typically most conditions appear during
the PM peak, and that's why addressing the internal capture mostly is
in regard to your commercial development, most often. And the
commercial developments, their peak is during the PM peak.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Significantly.
Page 94
___'~'B.'''...__, -,^---"..~ --_..~".--
November 2, 2006
MR. CHOUDHARY: Significantly, yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I was just going to say, we
had made a determination here that whenever peak was considered, it
would be whatever actual peak was. And so if it happened that a
commercial facility's peak was actually in the AM, those were the
numbers we were supposed to be using for everything, as opposed to
just PM peak.
MR. CHOUDHARY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: We made that determination a
year ago, I think it was. Correct me if I'm wrong.
MR. SCOTT: Yeah, we had long discussions about having AM
and PM analyses, which we have included within here. Conversely
though, from a concurrency aspect, and we'll talk about that more as
the AUIR, the database in the bank trips is built on a PM-based thing.
And I've looked at AM analysis so we can talk about it, but
unfortunately as we do this, if we want to go AM bank and PM bank,
it's a lot more work than originally thought.
Now, obviously commercial trips, shopping centers, things like
that are mostly the PM peak, but there are areas of the county that
have a lot higher problem with the AM from a residential aspect.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For clarification, criteria studies
under small scale, minor and major, we look at AM and PM analysis.
If the flow in one direction causes an AM failure at an intersection,
we look at that. So we do do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want us to move on to Page 5?
And Page 5, I think we'll probably start from what we had previously
to an hour ago was number 6, pass-by capture. A lot of shoulds in
this -- a lot of shoulds in this one, Nick.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Paragraph six, the first one, we kept
Page 95
- ._-,- ---,-.-.,.-.^,.- ------
November 2, 2006
it as should. The reason -- one of the reasons why, if you have a
project that comes in, it was pointed out by several professionals,
your pass-by heading westbound should be equal to the pass-by as it
comes in and comes out and continues westbound. You may have a
project that has a driveway on a link other than the one that's coming
in. So you would not be -- in other words, they head westbound,
they come in and then come out northbound on another exiting
driveway.
So it should be equal to it, but if you can show that you have
another driveway, you would show that in your study, and the trips
would come out someplace else.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that's your green one that
you're talking about?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. The first one in green was right
out of the guide.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Nick, I've got a question for
you. I was trying to get to this meeting this morning and I tried to
come down Pine Ridge Road -- well, any road going east/west is a
mess right now, but Pine Ridge is supposedly the least of the mess. I
was passing all kinds of shopping centers, and it was peak hour, 7:30,
8:00 and it was a mess. Nobody was open. So how does pass-by
capture help us?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It typically doesn't in the AM. It
happens in the PM, depending on the use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When they get a reduction based on
pass-by capture, doesn't it give them a better reading for traffic
impacts to the road system as a whole?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Part of what we covered in the future
chapters is you will do mid-block counts and intersection analyses.
That's going to show you the actual traffic that's on the road and your
new trips based on that.
So if someone was to try to ask for a reduction for the morning,
Page 96
-----~-". " ..-...'...--.'"'","---.......-...-. -",--.,---.,,-
November 2, 2006
that would be considered inconsistent with what we want, depending
on where the project was and what the project was. When we review
these, we have to be careful. And again, I listened to both sides. It's
very subjective on what the application is. When you talk about
internal capture, what are you talking about? Is there internal capture
between an assisted living center and a convenience store? Well, not
much. I mean, it's going -- it depends on the use. So it's very
subjective, depending on the land use.
MR. SCOTT: It makes a big difference. I know we've had
discussions before about where is that project, too. We had a
discussion about the gas station out at, what was it, at Wilson and
Golden Gate Boulevard, would someone from Naples drive out there
versus pass-by that do it versus something like you're talking about in
the AM on Pine Ridge.
Meanwhile, if it's that development that's being done, the AM
doesn't matter as much because it isn't open. It's when they're being
built for the PM that's causing the problem.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would hope that through this
document that anything you can do to tighten up qualifications for
projects on Pine -- like Pine Ridge Road is just a great example. We
expanded that to six lanes years ago, and everybody thought this was
great.
And I remember the projects coming in for submission that we
approved based on your analysis that it could take the capacity. But
it really doesn't. I mean, typical morning coming down Pine Ridge
Road, you can't get from where that road really starts getting
congested, I think it's Logan, all the way into 41 without at least a
half an hour or more sitting through one after another after another.
Now, I don't know what caused that. I don't know if approvals
of pass-by capture or internal capture or whatever. But those are the
conditions that we somehow I think have got to stop approving until
they're corrected.
Page 97
'-""""'''"'"''''.~''''~---'-''''''~ ~-,-
November 2,2006
And if this is doing that, then fine, it's a better document. But if
it isn't, please help us, tell us what could be done to make that better.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Farther in the document, your
intersection analysis, as we talked about, your actual meters or
gauges to allow traffic to pass through roadway segments and links
have been significantly tightened up in this document. So your
analysis of those intersections will greatly help us to determine where
a project causes a failure on the roadway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One of the biggest -- you know, your
queue lengths and the stacking lanes, I mean, on Livingston Road off
of Pine Ridge going south is unbelievable. And Whippoorwill Lane
is the same way.
MR. SCOTT: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We can just move on with it. I
think we understand your red corrections on this, Nick.
Does anybody have any questions on this page?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are we on number seven on
this page?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Explain--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, seven's on the real page.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I'm with you, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go by the one we looked at last
night.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The Collier County model,
what is that exactly? In other words, I have this illusion that the way
to solve this would be that we do have this great master model, a new
project comes along and they plug in their data and we can see how it
affects the whole model. Is that me playing Sim City too much or is
that reality?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll touch base on it for you, and also
expand on what we discussed. We have a land use model that talks
Page 98
... ".,.,...-.--_.,"-'''~'-''''- ..~~..,---",-"-,,-~-
November 2, 2006
about different traffic analysis zones for forecasting purposes that we
use. When you try to go out 10, five, 10, 15, 20 years, you're using
that model for future global traffic on different roadway networks
that are going to be forecasted in the future.
It is what it is, it's a model. There isn't a set guide. It isn't
perfect. But it gives us a guide for future land use maps,
comprehensive plan amendments, zoning changes, things like that.
Or large developments that build out over the course of 10 years.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we don't have something
that's real time or -- I don't mean electronically fed or anything, but
something that really is up to date, has the model. I guess, the AUIR
data is essentially that.
MR. SCOTT: Yeah, if you're looking about distribution and
assignment, though, it's telling you where trips are coming and going
to from a global standpoint, and that's what you're trying to use for
that purpose. It doesn't give you everything. And things can change.
But obviously, one of the things we just talked about is very
heavy peak hour directions coming into the urbanized area and
leaving. I mean, that's the -- and we've had these discussions with
some people that submit it, if certain parts of the county and trying to
split it 50/50, it's not the way it works out there.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: To also answer your question,
Commissioner, is we are going to a new software version of
concurrency tracking that will actually plug in the work order today.
We'll have an updated visual graphic GIS interface, you'll be able to
see more of the trips, which will present the planning commission
and the board commission review of projects.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And wouldn't it be wise then if
all the consultants are using that same software and they just come to
you, argue about the data to enter and it goes into this big great
master model and we see what happens?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The final product won't allow that to
Page 99
" -,,~..~.-..---,.._.,.-~ "-"--'-"'--~'-'-"""--
November 2, 2006
happen, because you still have the subj ective review that comes in
when they apply, because you have to take in the specific parameters.
Again, when a proj ect comes in, we look at the median openings
so we can quantify pass-by capture or traffic distribution, and you
can't do that without having a subjective review in the beginning. But
it will graphically display all projects with trips on the network. And
you'll be able to see that in, say, rezoning, or a planning commission
review of a project. And it might help you understand that project
and surrounding projects.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What's the name of that
software?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's provided by CarteSoft, and Palm
Beach county is implementing it right now. And we are second. And
we're about to have a kick-off meeting shortly.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, on number seven on trip
distribution, on the third paragraph, I believe what you're saying is
the reason that you kept should in sentence number one is because
you've qualified it in sentence number two. Is that correct?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. All I would ask be added
is that you don't just discuss them and approve them in your
meetings, but when they're presented to this board or the BCC, that
be explained. Because I hate getting percentages that don't add up.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Part of what we're trying to do
is provide a format. You will see the finished product. And if there's
a mid-block reduction, it will show that in the presentation.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, can we go back to pass-by
capture number six, first sentence. It says, the total gross external
trips for retail uses may be reduced by a pass-by factor. Instead of
Page 100
,,,.--....--. O'''~'''''''_'''~_'''_''__~'''_''''_'_'' --..-........--
November 2, 2006
the -- right after the word may, could you insert the words qualified
to? They may qualify to be reduced? That way it gives you guys
some flexibility.
And then if you go down that paragraph and you get to the
sentence separated from that paragraph after the paragraph, the
following pass-by rates would be permitted. Could you say may
qualify to be permitted.
And then after you get through your 50 percent and 40 percent
pass-bys, the last sentence of that -- couple of sentences following
that, any pass-by rates higher than the above permitted rates -- you
have would require. Why don't you just take out the word would and
say rates require justification.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Shall require?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, either way. And then under
number seven, although I think -- hang on a second. I think you got
all those.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Quick question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On six again, the Land
Development Code has SIC codes but these are LUC codes. Are we
going to defer to the Land Development over this or --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: This is ITE.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This is ITE codes?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, those are from ITE.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What does that mean, LUC?
MR. CHOUDHARY: Land use code. That's the --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wouldn't it be wise if we were
all on the same --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Meaning? I'm sorry, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, they're using the
LUC, which I thought -- remember, Mark, one time you had
mentioned that there was another one that updates the SIC --
Page 101
"-,."-"'-"'''''''--'-''~~~-''''''--''-"
November 2,2006
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I follow the ECIC -- yeah, FIC --
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: NAICS.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: NAICS, I think. And I don't know if
the tax assessor uses that. And some other departments use NAICS.
But I was told our land development department wouldn't use it
because it's for a more intense industrial application, which I don't
see how that fits.
And good you brought that up, because I meant to bring that up
at the regular meeting and try to ask staff how they justify not
converting to NAICS, when it seems like a lot of other people
already have.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The bulk of our work is based on the
ITE manuals. These codes are taken from the ITE manuals.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It could be good if there was at
least a cross reference or something, so that, you know, people -- I
mean, I don't know what the differences are.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think they're more specific codes
you're talking about, as opposed to us -- for us it might be retail
versus general medical and medical office. I think the uses may not
be interchangeable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand your argument, Brad. I
think what we need to do is originate the argument through -- to
CDES and then let it trickle down.
With that, let's move to Page 6 and it starts, number eight,
significantly impacted roadways/intersections.
Nick, you have one change on Page 6. On your Page 6, it looks
like.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? I think I've just
one, Nick, and it's Item B, 8.B, major intersections, and in
parentheses, signalized and/or unsignalized intersections of major
roadways.
Page 102
,- ..-._---~._~,,-,.--.- ....~'"-_.-'" -'-~-"~"-'-'-""'~"""'-'--
November 2,2006
By the term major roadway, is that defined somewhere so we
know what you're talking about?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Arterials and collectors.
MR. SCOTT: There you're talking local roads in some cases,
though.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You could be talking local roads in
some cases.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I'm pointing it out. So how
do you --
MR. SCOTT: Signalized, too, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So how do you--
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You could strike the word major and
say of roadways as determined in the methodology.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that works. That gives you the
opportunity to use it any way then. Hearing no more questions on
Page 6, Page 7, which actually -- analysis scenarios and definitions.
No changes, Nick, by you.
Any comments from the planning commission?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm sorry, there were a few in the
table. I think I made them in red. Table 9.1, the left-hand side, it
says the land use amendment, we put comprehensive land use
amendment to qualify that. Under rezoning, we said including
conditional use applications to clarify that, as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those weren't in red on the copy you
handed out, right?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, for some reason the graph didn't
come in red. But we wanted to include conditional use applications
and identify them as comprehensive plan amendments.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your table under the column number
three, in the middle it's called background traffic, your item three --
Phil, I've got to ask that you refrain from -- it's being picked up up
here. Where do you get the background growth to build-out? What
Page 103
,. ._.-.",_.~''''''_--''''' ..,..... .. ...,__"."...._w.~_'_._.....'.....,_,_..._
November 2, 2006
statistic do you use for that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Background growth to build-out?
You can look back to the three years or prior five years, you can --
and it's discussed at the methodology meeting, the background
growth of that roadway.
MR. SCOTT: We do trends on -- we have counts on most of the
roadways and do trends on them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you use actual statistics, not--
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's what I was trying to get at.
Under footnote two, and maybe I'm not used to this word, what's
Euclidian zoning? I hope you know, because I didn't know what it
was.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Actually, I was going to strike it out.
It's from one of our other consultants that contributed to this. I guess
it's from Euclid, Ohio is where they determined Euclidian zoning. I
think the county attorney's office can expand on that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It's a term that talks about
separating the zoning, you know, into the various districts. And also,
if memory serves me correctly, it was the idea that the lesser intense
uses were also included in the more intense uses. And it comes from
the case City of Euclid versus Gimbel Realty, where zoning was
originally challenged in the United States Supreme Court back in the
1920's. I think those were the -- so it means separating at the
districts.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a need to have that word in
here? It's capitalized. I don't know of a definition for it, and I'm not
sure how many people would know the legal background.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think the consultant from Tindal put
that in there. We could put in comparable zoning. I don't think that
needs to be there.
Page 104
____".,._~.._.~....u.,....,._.,...">_,,,__.____~__ -,..,_..._<,--~,...,._.""."" ~"""---"-
November 2, 2006
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That doesn't need to stay then, right?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on Page 8. Nick, you've got
some changes on there.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We referenced the incorrect section.
We corrected Chapter 10 from four to eight. We changed a couple of
shalls. On Section 10.C.4.A, similar information should be included
for future analysis. It talks about geometry. It's tough to use the
word shall because they may not be able to provide that information.
So it's should if it's available. We wanted to keep that should.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which one is that, 4A?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Four A.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you put it in red.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: As a discussion point. But it circled
it as should, yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's apparently shall on ours. But
you still mean you don't want shall?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would prefer it to be should.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In all the other conditions where you've
shown it red in parentheses shall, we've assumed shall would be the
word that you would use. In this case you're not doing that.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: As we've discussed them, we've had
the should/shall discussion, I'm circling everything we've agreed
upon. And I'll provide that to you before we --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now I'm confused. The times
that you were not wanting to use the word shall and you wanted to
use the word should, you left should in green. In all other cases it
was my understanding you were going to use the word shall if it was
in red.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It was our intention to convert it to
shall, but not without discussion. And when we discussed them and
agreed upon them, I circled the ones that we agreed upon.
Page 105
"--"--'-'-~"'--""~~'" "~.,__,,,,,____.~_....m.
November 2, 2006
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the ones we didn't discuss, you're
assuming we didn't agree upon?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We talked about the shoulds in green.
We did go through those. I thought those were obvious shoulds. I
didn't change those. The ones that were for discussion, where you
couldn't -- at discussion, I left them red and I circled the ones we
agreed upon.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The green shoulds are --
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So basically the parentheses
here should have been around should, not shall.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct. The first one is should, the
second one is shall. I have them circled and I could photocopy them
before we leave today and provide them to you, if --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Nick, I've been under the
assumption anything in red you basically agreed should be shall, and
we've been doing that until this one came along. That's not your
understanding of what we've done so far to this point?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That was my assumption when I
brought this to you. But we've had this discussion going through
them and we changed our mind on a few of these, so I circled them
as we've gone through them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the ones we have not discussed,
shall is still the dominant?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Shall is still the dominant.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that works.
With the exception of 4A, in this case you're going back to
should and not shall.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Four A is should, and the next one is
shall,4B.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments on Page 8?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Does this mean that we're
Page 106
___,,"e."'_,_" _,__~__.,.___"."",_ ~^'~-- ....._...,..~.,""""~." ^ ,.'"~.,_.__..-
November 2, 2006
going to get uniform traffic? In other words, when you look at the
referenced exhibits, is that how all our exhibits are going to be from
now on?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: In terms of your TIS submittals and
reviews when they come to the board, we're shooting to have a
uniform application. We're going to provide even a further example
outside of this guidance saying based on this guidance here's the
format we want you to follow --
MR. SCOTT: Provide an example of exactly what we would
like you to follow.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Our goal is when you look at a TIS it
should be -- it doesn't matter what consultant -- another consultant
does, it's the same format.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we should look forward to
this kind of software print-out?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You will have a format that's
consistent.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the impact of changing the
heavy vehicle factor from two to five percent?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We discussed this yesterday. Five is
actually higher. And it's usually in the urban area. And we had to
make distinguishment (sic) between the urban area and the rural area.
You don't have a lot of difference in the urban area of heavy vehicle
factor typically, you know, the Airport Roads and the Pine Ridge
Roads, unless you've got a construction project going on.
But in the rural area where you have a lot of mining operations
or you could be close to a batch plant, you could have much higher
truck factor, a typically higher truck factor. So we said if the data is
not available, we use five percent, which is a pretty high default.
And in the rural area we want you to quantify that, what it is,
depending on where you are.
Page 107
_...-_--~ ,.._---..-, -_.,,,.,,.~----~<-~~..~<..- ^-.".- .~._-_.~"~-'_._- _._"..~^'.._.-
November 2, 2006
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But in no case would you have a
minimum, say, of two percent?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Actually, it's five.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, if they want to qualify in the
urban area for a lower percentage than five, how low could they
qualify for?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If they provided the actual study of
the road with the classification counts -- one thing to keep in mind is
our 10 permanent count stations that we have out now, soon to be 15,
hopefully to be 50 in the next couple of years, they do classification
counts as well, too. They won't get to tell us what it is. We'll tell
them what it is, based on what's actually traveling on the road.
So we have 10 now. In the next four or five years, maybe 30 or
40, and they're on all our major urban roadways, Pine Ridge Road,
951, and they provide vehicle classification with that analysis.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions on Page 8?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Move on to -- go ahead, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I do have one question. I
just want to correct. Is the shall in E, is that changing to shall?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That should be should. Because we
point out that it can be higher.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I mean, you're going to
have to let us know when you're doing this.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I was about to do that when you
started talking. I didn't want to interrupt you. I have them all
highlighted there.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So you want should on E?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the peak factor, you're saying, could
be .5 instead of .95, or 1.5.
MR. SCOTT: Point nine seven.
Page 108
"__'__"m"" ""_'''~__~__m .__.,",._. . "<,--""--,."--,~,-,,,,,,,,",,",.... -- _.,.____._m_w_._
November 2, 2006
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Huh?
MR. SCOTT: Because it you won't go over one, but it can go
like .97.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a benefit to going lower?
MR. SCOTT: It's -- yeah, it's a benefit to go lower.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then by the way you worded this, it
could go lower.
MR. CHOUDHARY: Actually it's based on the actual count
data. So it's the fluctuation within the peak hour traffic. So based on
your actual counts you may find that the peak hour factor is .9 or .95.
Sometimes you'll see .97 also.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the lower the peak factor that's
shown on the counts, the more capacity that would be assumed
would be then allowed on the roads. The peak factor gets up to a
certain point that it hits a threshold.
MR. CHOUDHARY: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So by allowing values below .95,
you're actually opening the roads up for more traffic.
MR. CHOUDHARY: No. Because what is happening is that
the lower peak hour factor you have, lower than .95, then you are
being more conservative in your analysis. The closer you get to one,
you're not making your adjustments to your raw data that you
collected in the field.
So you are basically -- let's look at it this way: You have a
number, you're dividing it by the peak hour factor to get to the
number that you will use for your analysis. So the higher your
divisor is, your change in the number will be less.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will be less.
It's a good thing nobody needs to be licensed to do this.
(Laughter. )
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move on to -- well, I think we're
on traffic. We're on Page 9, which is traffic counts, I think.
Page 109
._---_..~ - ~"""';';...._I T _.."....-,.~ - -" ~"...~."'~-,~-
November 2, 2006
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct. That first should/shall
should be shall, circled. I have it circled.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, I'm going to assume everything
in red that has parentheses shall will be shall unless you tell us
otherwise at this meeting.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That sounds correct. The second
paragraph, it should read should be placed at a location where the
queues would not extend past the count machines. I can't say shall,
because it depends on subjectively where it's placed out in the field.
We can discuss that in methodology meeting by review.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: TMC data should.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, in the second paragraph.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second paragraph.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That should be should.
In the next paragraph down where it says, the approach volume
for the peak hour of the intersection should/shall, should be should.
And the next sentence should be should as well, too.
Continuing with that paragraph, the other two that are red are
circled shall. Segment tube counts shall be done concurrently with
the intersection turning movement counts. The segment machine
counts at mid-blocks shall be checked against turning-movement
counts at the adjacent intersections.
And the other change to that section is the word significantly
was changed to substantially so as not to confuse significant impacts
versus substantially different.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go back to the first paragraph.
About the middle after your reference to Exhibits 8A and 8B, the raw
TMCs should be adjusted using the most recent --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Shall be.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the green should goes to shall?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, I'm sorry, that green stays
Page 110
",><_'_"_~'M"_'",,__,~,_,__,,____~,_~~,,__ " '^"-""-...,,,...-.--..,-.',"'...,.....-.." >"_..._"-',,~-~,,-
November 2, 2006
should.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why wouldn't it go to shall? Why
wouldn't you want the most recent data used?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct. Shall.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the green should goes--
MR. SCOTT: Well, the only qualification to that is if we had --
as we get more data in our permanent count stations we have better
data than FDOT does, then I'd rather use that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it says or Collier County.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Shall is appropriate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's telling you, I thought you used
--
MR. SCOTT: No, my version is written over here, sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Just before you go on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER CARON: You changed -- where it says
under traffic counts, paragraph three, the first two changes you want
to be should?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm sorry, once again.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Paragraph three, under traffic
counts, paragraph three.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Where it says peak hour of the
intersection, which is underlined.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Is it should or shall there?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's should.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It's should. In the next line --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go past that one, Donna.
Why would you want that to be should, if peak hours are a goal?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: There was a reason. We discussed
Page 111
-,.----_.~.._._,.~.-~".,._,...---"".._- ~"- ,_...~" , .~,"~"-,,.... ._,_.,---
November 2, 2006
that yesterday.
MR. CHOUDHARY: The reason is that we will not be using
that methodology for every intersection.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why?
MR. CHOUDHARY: The reason being is you need the
approach counts to determine your turning movements at the
intersection only when you have a saturated condition, you know,
because the turning movement counts that you do at the intersection
is basically manually counting all the ways they are turning at that
intersection, which is not really telling you what the actual demand is
on those approaches, if it is a failing intersection.
But if it is an intersection that is working at level of service C,
there is never a cure on any of the approaches, then there is no need
to go and do an approach count to find out what the turning
movement would be. Kind of would be based on money, you can
afford to do that approach count.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you are going to do an approach
count, shouldn't it be done at peak hour?
MR. CHOUDHARY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And isn't that all we're trying to say in
that first sentence, that applies if you're going to do one? If you're
going to do one, you should do it at the peak hour. Shall do it at the
peak hour.
MR. CHOUDHARY: I think that gets it. You're right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so it is shall. So now the red
shall is the right one instead of -- the green should is not. This is
good.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I may. If you take Airport
Road and Pine Ridge, what is the peak there? As far as I know,
traffic is just as bad in the morning as it is in the evening.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The peak directions is different. In
peak it can be bad. But typically -- I've traveled that road a lot the
Page 112
~.."....~~--~_.._,-~ ~ -~.- .._~_._^._H'" .-' _....,_._.-..,.~.._--
November 2, 2006
years I've been here, different pieces at different times of day -- but
your westbound traffic in the morning is higher.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is the peak, and that's what we
would be choosing in that case?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: In that case. For now it's just the
intersection analysis.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Then just to continue on here, that
next sentence should also read this shall be done for approaches with
residual queue build-up during peak ours.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If you change the first one, you also
change the next one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, Nick, I was going to thank
you for allowing the planning commission the opportunity to review
this document. I'm not sure what you did to us here today. We're not
done with it, we have five pages to go, and we're going to have to
wait an hour so we can take a break, have lunch and be back here at
1 :00 to finish up. The last time some of us were rather late. Please try
to get back at 1 :00 because I'd like to get through this document so
we can finish this afternoon with the rest of the day's work. Thank
you.
(A lunch break was taken.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Nick.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're on the third paragraph of 11.
We agreed that the first should/shall is a shall. Second should/shall is
a shall. Count machines, the last one was a shall be placed in
locations, the green should is a shall. You're in the version that I
passed out, we're on Page 10. But if you're not, we're still in the third
paragraph of Chapter 11. It reads in no event, however, should the
estimated turning-movement counts be less than the existing field
counts. Segment tube counts shall be done -- I'm circling shall --
concurrently with the intersection turning-movement counts where
the segment is part of the intersection --
Page 113
"'_.....",---",~".."'''--,.,'- _."'-"._.--~.,_.,--
November 2, 2006
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You better slow down, Nick.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The segment machine counts at
mid-blocks shall be checked against turning-movement counts at the
adjacent intersections.
In general, the mid-block counts and turning-movement counts
should not be substantially -- change significantly to substantially --
different unless the difference can logically be explained. The reason
to be if you have driveways in between your analysis counts and the
intersection, you may get drop-off, and they can show that, that's
okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you quantify substantially by a
percentage?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's subjective. And I can't, because
you could have a significant development in between the intersection
and the approach count. You may require that development to also
put up two counts to say how many cars are coming in there as well,
too. So it would be on a case-by-case basis.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure does make it hard to defend,
doesn't it?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Again, I have to say, when we do
this, you're getting so many variations of an intersection analysis,
median openings, that you have to allow for some flexibility to
analyze that on a case-by-case scenario.
MR. CHOUDHARY: Also, tying it down to a percentage
number doesn't really help, because if the percentage is very strong --
what I was trying to say is that percentage and a hard number would
not really get you what you're trying to look for, because, you know,
depending on the traffic volume, your percentage can mean only five
way (phonetic).
So that's the reason we didn't really try to quantify that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that finishes up the discussion
on number 11. Number 12, which is on our old documents, begins on
Page 114
__~,~_'_o"""~__'_"'~""~" ..~. ..,.<<-~.....,--",,".,,.._...- .."_.,-,_..",_.~-,_._,
November 2, 2006
Page 9 and goes to Page 10. In the new documents, it's on Page 10.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct, we changed -- in 12 we just
referenced the Table 9.1, because it was really redundant.
In Section E, the TIS will consider all vested development on --
instead of in -- the significantly impacted links and intersections.
This information shall be obtained from the county and agreed upon
at the methodology meeting. When we talk about vested traffic, it is
subjective, and it is within the area of significant impacts.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of the
panel on Number 12?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, let's go through your should and
shalls. By the way, they introduced a new format here. Now we
have a capital should.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: This is the 11 :00 p.m. should.
Minimum annual growth rates in all cases should be two percent,
unless otherwise approved by the county.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: H, it's a shall. Development of the
future intersection turning-movement count shall be adequately
documented.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From the board, is there any questions
on Number 12?
Nick, I have a couple. Under B, you use the reference to the
most appropriate adopted model. I mean, whose determination as to
what is most appropriate?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Maybe I shouldn't even use the word
adopted. Most appropriate model. We could have a model that's for
a roadway project that we've done, we brought a model, and it may
be appropriate for that proj ect. It may be that an application that was
submitted, such as Ave Maria, the model, not necessarily the internal
capture, is appropriate.
Page 115
"-__4"-"__~O"'_'.."__", '"'~'M..___'_"'" v - _=~..~ . . "..",---_._-
November 2, 2006
So it says adopted model. We typically reference our adopted
Collier County MPO 2030 long-range model as the adopted model
that we use for transportation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but in referencing the word
appropriate, who makes the decision on which is appropriate, you or
the applicant?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: County staff would.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Should we just add that to the end of
the sentence, appropriate model for the specific application as agreed
-- or as directed by county staff, something to that effect?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under D, you have the same
occurrence with the word appropriate in the first sentence.
Socioeconomic data of the model shall reasonably represent, if
appropriate, the recently approved developments.
What is -- what if it isn't appropriate?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, there's a subjective -- they may
not review a development or the data the same way we would. I
guess you would have to quantify that as directed or approved by
county staff as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I was trying to go. Then
in that same paragraph, you're talking about the distance to adjoining
or the distance to other sites or other project sites included within the
model. And it says a minimum of 10 miles. Does that mean a
minimum of 10 miles until it touches the outer limits of the boundary
line of any project, or does the full project have to be encompassed in
that 10 miles?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Probably better off to saying
approximately 10 miles or just saying from the outer limits of the
project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There you go with approximately
again. You go into more ambiguous terms rather than defined terms.
Page 116
____'M_,__."_.~._."___,_____...~.__ -- ...-....,;.-""...- ...."" .~~. " "'-"'--^'-~-'----~-
November 2,2006
I just want to make sure if someone comes in and says, well, that
project, it's a five-mile long project and only one mile of it's in my --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: From the project boundary, because
you quantify that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I was--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's better.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I had on 12. I guess we can
move on to 13 then.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: This was more wordsmithing in
paragraph C or subsection C. Average control delays up to 100
seconds are acceptable for individual turning movements and through
movements where the corresponding V /C ratio is less than .8. So just
to clarify that word then.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions on 13?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, on part B, the following words I
would suggest you strike, and maybe you can tell me what you think.
Although it is acknowledged that Collier County does not have
an adopted level of service concurrency standard for intersections of
major highways (sic), I would drop all that -- or major roadways -- I
would drop all that, start with the word "the", capital T. I don't know
why you'd admit to a failure. It's kind of like going to court, why do
you want to admit you've got a failure before you even get in the
door.
Is there a reason to admit something like that? Just leave it
without being said.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: My concern is that we do not have an
adopted level of service standard for intersections right now. And we
wanted to make that clear that we do not. I don't think it puts us in a
difficult position to say that, because we still -- we still make it a
point to say that those issues that we want to maintain an intersection
-- a functioning intersection.
Page 11 7
...------..-..,,-----.- ,.," ~,- -.".- -'.<,~^" > ~--,.'..."'-,..,..._..~_...,----...-_-
November 2, 2006
But when we met with development, the applicant community,
their concern was that we reference the level of standard for the
intersection for concurrency and we do not have one, and they
wanted that clarified. If we remove that first --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're subject to argument.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark, may I ask, why don't we
have a level of service concern?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I was going next. That's a
good question, Paul.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You have a level of service that you
don't want. You don't want it to be a failing movement. But the
level of service standard would mean that you'd have to have 127
major intersections, or more than that, you would have to have
up-to-date analysis of those intersections, the county would. We're
not staffed to do that, to set a letter grade at that intersection.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Why can't we work towards
that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Any comment on that, Don?
MR. SCOTT: I was going to say, the other side of that is you
can have a -- you can make an intersection, you know, change timing
of it, work at a level of service D but have major failure on one
movement. And that's obviously not what we want someone to do,
too. Just by setting a level of service standard on an intersection
doesn't actually solve your problem.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But--
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But it can tell you how close you
are or how far away you are.
MR. SCOTT: Seeing the side of it from my standpoint, too,
what we've always did design before, even though, you know, you
might have a roadway that's level of service standard E, we try to
design for level of service D or better on the intersections.
Now maybe that's what we should be putting in there, but--
Page 118
-",~._,_.-.._-_.^~,~"..- .....-.----...-....,'-." .._~.,~".~~-
November 2,2006
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But, I mean, when it comes
before us as a planning board, if we can have something quantitative
like a letter grade on an intersection, it would help us, because we'd
have something concrete to work with.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You do in your analysis of
intersection. We quantify and grade the different movements. As
you see in the report it will say the through movement is functioning
at level of service A based on delay, but the left turn movement could
be failing at F. And it is in your report when you get that.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Why can't we have that in our
concurrency standard?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We've adopted concurrency on a
segment basis because we're doing a time delay study on the
segment. To break it down by smaller segments and intersections
would be a tremendous task. I don't know --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Iflmay?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How much commonality is
there with regard to intersections? Would you say that there's a lot of
commonality or hardly any commonality?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not as much as you would for the
overall link. Not a lot of commonality, no.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Wouldn't that be the basis for
your not -- your having difficulty in establishing a standard, the fact
that you're limited and you don't have the commonality? If you have
an awful lot, you establish criteria.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So is that the basis for why
you're -- I don't agree with what you've said here. I can appreciate
why you'd want to say it. I understand the Chair's desire to be very
emphatic and be straightforward. But if you're subj ect to an
argument, what is your comeback? Let's say that you had eliminated
Page 119
","-^,--~-~,_.",.".~,""~~.",,,,,,-
November 2, 2006
this first sentence or that first portion of that first sentence and began
with the performance, and you're going through your evaluation, now
do you become on the defensive with there's an issue raised?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The biggest key to the word in that
first sentence is the word concurrency standard. I think that we don't
hold concurrency to an intersection. And right now that's not in our
Growth Management Plan, our transportation element. I couldn't
reject somebody because of a concurrency failure because I don't
have an adopted LOS for an intersection. I'd get in a lot of trouble
doing so.
But I want to be clear as you read into the intersection analysis,
we review intersections quite critically. And again, the bulk of this
document is the approach to the intersection, the delay, the review of
that. I just can't hold a concurrency standard to that review. It's
health, safety and welfare, it's operational review, but not
concurrency.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Okay. What the Chair was
getting at, too, and maybe you want to evaluate this, in the middle of
that paragraph, where more or less it says may be evaluated in the
TIS using appropriate indicators such as volume to capacity ratio, et
cetera, et cetera, would it be reasonable to think of restructuring that
sentence so that you began with the criteria that are available to you
and that you will accept? And then you don't then have to point out
the absence of an LOS concurrency standard for intersections.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I probably could rewrite that first
sentence. It might help us out to say that we don't have -- we're not
maintaining a concurrency review at intersections, not that we don't
have a standard. Because we have standards for intersections, but not
concurrency.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it needs to be cleaned up in
some regard, so maybe that's something that you can move it forward
with to clean up that language.
Page 120
,-.__..__"", "'_~'.'-_"W__"""_'_'.....",_' ~. '_H_, 4L""4 ~.,~> ~,-,.,'-'--"--'~..-
November 2, 2006
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I guess if we have road segment
concurrency, that implies intersection concurrency.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It does. It does. Because the
intersections are -- you keep your vows to that road segment. If
intersections are all failing -- you could have one failing intersection
but still have the overall segment function at an acceptable level of
servIce.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your paragraph C, I know you fixed
the last sentence, but the first sentence, I'm trying to understand it, it
says, the delay for individual turning movements and through
movements may exceed the segment standard by one letter grade,
provided that the volume/capacity ratio for the subject movement
remains less than or equal to one.
So that means if you've got an intersection at E, you could go to
F and it's acceptable?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. Your V/C ratio and delay would
control that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you have a -- the V/C ratio then,
even if it's less than one, if it's less than one, you could never have an
F?
MR. CHOUDHARY: You can.
MR. SCOTT: You would have F for certain turn movements,
you may.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then we don't want F, do we?
MR. SCOTT: It's not what we're trying to strive for, no.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then why would we give them
that out?
MR. CHOUDHARY: What we're trying to say here is that if
any individual movement or through movement, the standard that we
would allow is one letter grade lower than the segment. So if your
segment grade is that -- say your concern is that the segment is at E,
Page 121
~.".,......,'~--...... ,,".......,.. ,-""-,~--",,,,~-~-,-'~'..~ .~~_._o_.~__
November 2, 2006
are we going to allow F.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A failure.
MR. CHOUDHARY: You're right. But it wouldn't happen that
way, because then you'll be by C, will be more than one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just asked that question and I
was told that you could have it less than one and still have a failed
intersection.
MR. CHOUDHARY: For the original movement. What Don
was referring to, you could have a level of service D for the overall
intersection, but you may have a movement that is operating at level
of service F. I think that's what you were trying to say, Don?
MR. SCOTT: Yeah, but the question is from what you're
writing in here --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is by individual.
MR. CHOUDHARY: Individual movement.
MR. SCOTT: You're talking about D to E, but you won't get F
because you're not going to be able to go over 1.0 -- or is it 1.0 for
the entire intersection?
MR. CHOUDHARY: No, for that movement.
MR. SCOTT: So it's anything for above that limit, but not F.
MR. CHOUDHARY: That's right. So say you have level of
service E --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just add that language to
clarify it, in no case can it go to F, and then you're covered.
Okay. Did you have --
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, that was my question with C.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go on to number 14.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We struck the words at minimum in
the beginning. It didn't make any sense. First section A, we
referenced again the table. B, we corrected to kind of quantify, the
tabular presentation of the LOS standard of all the existing
significantly impacted roadways.
Page 122
'_-"-""~"".........._-".,,,.._-"....~. .",'. ~ ~-
November 2, 2006
So what we're saying is when you present your methodology
meeting, if you have four segments that are significant, you're going
to tell us what it is existing, what the LOS standard would be, and
tabular presentation of the LOS standard for the significantly
impacted segments, the same ones, with committed roadway
improvements.
So we're saying what's the condition existing and what's the
condition with roadway improvements committed. And it's just a
tabular presentation so we can see what they are.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What's the margin of error on
that? Do you allow a margin of error? What's the process?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, it would be -- in other words, in
our AUIR we say existing is D with a service volume of "X" trips,
and with the improvement, it's C with "X" trips. You would just
present that. You would get that from AUIR or from analysis.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: In Section G we crossed out the word
vision, because that was again done by the outside -- not this
consultant, but our legal consultant said vision. That didn't make
sense, the vision, why you quantify that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Legal consultant added something that
didn't make sense?
Jeff, you didn't jump to your defense.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It wasn't Jeff.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not defending this.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah, I love you, too.
And the added sentence reads, as agreed upon at the
methodology meeting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we finish up Section 14,
which has two on the next page of your new one, which is page 12.
Page 11 in the old one.
Page 123
~'--~~"~""""'""~'-~'~'_"-" ..-.".,'..... -,,~._..-." ~---_..~.~-,._-
November 2, 2006
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Graphical presentation of total
adjusted for internal capture, if any, and net new proj ect traffic.
Which is one to quantify, that your total would be adjusted for
internal capture, if there was any.
The trip distribution percentages in the study network should
add up. Any mid-block reduction in trip percentages shall be
graphically depicted with adequate information.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm waiting for Ms. Caron to raise her
hand and say she wonders how they could not add up.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The should sentence clarifies that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: We discussed that in the last one.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Also, do you intend to strike J?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, that was -- Section 15.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One question on 14. In the very first
sentence where you struck the words at minimum. It says the
following additional information may be required. Does that mean
they don't have to provide any of it?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It depends on the application. If it's a
small-scale study, they may not have to require this. If it's a major,
they may have to require it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fifteen. You've got one change on 15.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For purposes of operational analysis.
We always want to consider all the traffic. And the LDC amendment
that was heard by this commission, also by the BCC, where it talked
about cumulative trips covers this as well, too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, move on to 16, which is two
sentences. Nothing changed.
Seventeen?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I have a change on B where we just
corrected the paragraph reference.
Page 124
"'__~"""_"H"'.._<...~__.___"_" "--~"-'~'" _._----~-~~.-,.,-...-
November 2, 2006
And E, the word should meet the following criteria, because it
refers to an option.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So you can meet one of these
criteria and be fine?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you meet the following
criteria, it's plural.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think he's saying the improvements
should meet the following criteria, which means it doesn't have to
meet any of them if they don't want to.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, it's plural, criteria, so it
would be all of them. Meet the following criteria.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it should, meaning it doesn't have
to. Should isn't mandatory.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: This E is an optional. It talks about if
you can't meet a certain thing and you propose something else, it
should meet the following criteria. And it has to be approved by the
transportation administrator or designee.
I'll read from the beginning, maybe it will clarify it a little bit.
If the developer presents evidence acceptable to the transportation
administrator or designee that the required --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Slow down, Nick.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- equal mitigation improvements are
not feasible in relation to the development proposed, mitigation
strategies at alternative locations other than the primary location may
be proposed and may be accepted if approved by the transportation
administrator or designee. At minimum, the improvements should
meet the following criteria. I don't think shall would affect us here. I
think you could go to shall, it wouldn't change it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think shall is more
appropriate.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think so, too.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: All the criteria, plural.
Page 125
".._..----y.~_.,_.,-,_.----'.'.=--_.. -,' ._'-"~'"'-----'-^" -
November 2, 2006
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions on 17?
(N 0 response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Back on the first paragraph of 17,
Nick, the last sentence, would it be helpful to add as determined by
transportation staff?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: First paragraph?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, last sentence, just at the end of
last sentence, to make sure that it's the transportation staff that
controls what's acceptable.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the middle of the fourth paragraph,
it talks about your delays. Can they go ahead if the delay is above
110 percent of the level of service standard? Of course it's only
applied to an intersection.
MR. SCOTT: This is only for an intersection.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I guess we're on to -- any
questions on 1 7?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on to 18 then.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No changes to 18.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Midney.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Does this mean that if a roadway
is constrained and there's no possibility of mitigating the impact that
you would be allowed to build on that road if you did mitigation
somewhere else?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It talks about that as an option.
When we have four intersections that are on roadway segment, if you
can't do an improvement in a specific location but you can do an
improvement at another location that overall gives you a benefit, that
has something that's considered, but it is an option. Also talks about
the donation of right-of-way or different things that you can do.
Several of the projects that we have recently approved, there
Page 126
_____w_.__.._._.,"_W~'"..._" _0.__" .., _,.........'._~._,_.__'~...h_ ..~_.-
November 2, 2006
was issues at the intersection. And they said we will give you the
right-of-way valued at much higher than what our fair share would
be, but no quantifiable cash donation or actual fix. Then we'll allow
you to make that fix when you have funded that fix.
That was an acceptable form of mitigation, and then we'd fund
that project to actually build a turn lane. That right-of-way alone
would have cost us five times what his fair share or a minor fix
would have cost, so it allows for some flexibility for things like that.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But I don't see if you have a
constrained roadway that it would ever be of benefit to the county to
allow that to become even worse, even if you compensate by going
somewhere else.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We do that right now in the TCMA,
in a sense, we look at overall system improvements, mid-central
TCMA and the northwest TCMA. Because you do in that urban area
have a grid pattern. And if you can improve something in the grid,
you improve the area. People will tend to go to the area that is less
congested.
So to not -- to be able to say to someone, well, we review the
TCMA as a grid but we don't let you make improvements to the grid
almost seems kind of opposing itself in away. So you allow them to
make improvements to that grid or link that overall benefit the
system.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But in order to follow where Paul's, I
think, trying to go, wouldn't you want to then have some language in
here that says if there's going to be proposed alternative mitigation, it
has to somewhat show a benefit to the area that -- where the
problem's occurring?
I mean, I understand now what you're saying by TCMA, but
what if they want to improve by this some area outside the TCMA
and say that they're meeting a public benefit by doing so? Does that
mean they're still allowed to go forward within the TCMA?
Page 127
"~___~"',","'._~_"_.m.'.___'"_'~.'~N. ,... .."~",~u~..;____;.,,,_.~" "P,._,...."~-
November 2, 2006
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. It would have to be within the
area of the project it would not be approved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you add that, then, to clarify?
Paul, does that work?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I don't know, it still doesn't seem
right to me that you're going to make a road that's really bad and that
shouldn't have any more traffic, that you're going to allow them to
add more traffic and let them make some improvements somewhere
else. I just don't think it should be allowed at all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That philosophy is exactly what's
called a TCMA. You're right. That's where I remember a specific
project that came forward, an auto parts store on Golden Gate
Parkway in Golden Gate City.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's a real good example.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Constrained roadway, you can drive
there any morning and any night and find it backed up. Yet this auto
parts store got permission to go there. And they're a high volume
user --
MR. SCOTT: Don't--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because they're in a TCMA.
MR. SCOTT: Don't constrain yourself by the thought of -- it
might be, when we're reviewing some of these things, it might
already be a vested development, but we're getting an operational
improvement out of it. So we're not -- we don't have the right to stop
it concurrency-wise, but we're still getting an improvement out of it.
And the second part of that, that was constrained by the board.
You know, the argument from the other side could be, well, you
could go in and six-lane that roadway if you wanted to.
But I don't think that's what the board wants to do. I mean, I
don't know from a legal aspect where that stands. But I mean, it is in
the TCMA and it's hard to say. But constrain doesn't necessarily
mean that it's -- it can be failing, but it also could be something you
Page 128
---". - '~-'-'.~ -" '.,.~,. ,^,,,.. ,.- ~"__~,""""u__
November 2, 2006
can't widen.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, in the case of that road,
there was a canal on the other side and, you know, it's just
impractical. Yet it could be widened, it could be six-Ianed, but it
could just cause so many additional problems that it's much better not
to even go there.
MR. SCOTT: It's a community decision, too. I mean, you
could take all the median out, all the landscaping, but that's not really
what the community wants.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's not what we want. So I
just don't see where you should be allowed to put any more stuff into
a constrained road.
MR. KLATZKOW: You know, we talk about concurrency as if
it's written in stone, but it's really just a short-term implement to
develop it as it is. Sooner or later everybody's developing it, whether
that road's a failure or not. That's just a reality.
You may be able to hold them back a couple of years, but the
county's going to be given the choice of either dropping our level of
service or building more roads.
MR. SCOTT: Or buying that property.
MR. KLATZKOW: Or buying that property. And we may not
like to hear that, but I think that's the long-term reality. Everybody
gets to develop. It's simply not fair to say to somebody who is later
in line you can't develop your property because everybody else
sucked up the road capacity.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I think that's fair.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, it's not. Just because you got to
develop first doesn't mean your neighbor, you know, who didn't
develop can't develop now. And that's what's going to happen down
the road. So I think what this is doing -- (microphone feedback) --
see, nobody wants to hear this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kady, is this getting out of hand?
Page 129
-----<._~--~-_..., ." .._,...,"'-.-_----~ ~.,'-,., ., --~,~',..._-_..,'"-
November 2, 2006
We'll take three minutes here.
(A short break was taken.)
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If I could clarify something as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to come back on the
record. That was a -- Mr. Adelstein's been having a lot of trouble
hearing the speakers from there, and the system wasn't working out
right, but we'll have to do the best we can.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: There's a clarification to 18. If you
read the first sentence, an applicant may request alternative
mitigation when equal mitigation fails to -- the key word is
completely -- completely offset the impact of development. What
we're trying to say, if they increase a turn lane and they've maxed out
that turn lane, but they've done so, and they're still not there to
mitigate that, but what else can they to do?
And when you look at the options, as Commissioner Schiffer
pointed out, that interconnection, what else can you do to add to the
mitigation you've already done?
So it talks about something else you can do, commuter
subsidies. Our TCMAs and TCEs talk about commuter subsidies,
public transit. It's in order to entice them to continue to do something
else.
MR. SCOTT: You know, in some of the discussion, too, say
Tacomy Parkway or some of the areas that have been identified,
there are still some things out there that could be done. It's not where
okay, this is it, there's no more to do. Obviously there's intersection
improvements and things that can be done in that corridor that would
help.
MR. KLATZKOW: I think you're really getting at how many
tools in the tool box do you want. And this one just increases
transportation number of tolls. Not everything has to be road
improvements. You know, CAT systems putting into place, putting
into place pedestrian systems, bicycle lanes. Whatever they can do to
Page 130
,~,_._-".- ,.,-~,.,..,.;,-. ".,,-'~.__., '-.'-~--
November 2,2006
ease the congestion. I think this is what this is there for.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we're going to have to be
stuck with something that's -- unfortunately there probably are some
rights that development -- I wish there weren't.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I think we want to go back to
show benefit to the area.
(Microphone feedback.)
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That speaker is picking up
.
your mIC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to have to bring that
speaker back on the table then, so, Mr. Adelstein -- that's where it
was originally. It's just going to make it hard for others to hear, so --
thank you, Jeff.
Where were we, anybody?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: So I believe that we're back to
Mr. Strain's comment of show a benefit.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Local improvement.
MR. SCOTT: Locally show some improvement.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We'll add that language, locally to
the proj ect to allow some flexibility.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just out of curiosity on Item B, you're
stating instead of paying 100 percent impact fees, are we paying 150
percent.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Funny, that was the request of the
development community.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, because the amount of money
that that actually is for -- is nothing. Impact fees don't impact
development, as much as they claim. Profit margins in Collier
County are much higher than the impact fees ever would impinge
upon.
Page 131
_.---~,~--~~ - -~.__.._~--~--~--_..- "-'"'---''''~''' --"""~'-'--
November 2, 2006
MR. CASALANGUIDA: But the idea was to fund an
improvement faster, they could fund that improvement faster if that
wasn't part of the proj ect.
We have had several developments where the development
across the street on the right-of-way could do the improvement and
the project was there, but the development to the south couldn't do
the improvement on their property. And they worked out
negotiations between themselves to make that improvement
funding-wise, and that worked out okay as well, too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But does 50 percent of an impact fee
for transportation really buy you that much in the cost market you're
into today?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Again, this is an optional, and this is
at our election. So that's something they could do above and beyond.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm just wondering if you need it
there at all, because I don't think money's that big of an issue when
you're talking about the developments that are coming through. And
if that's an option to buyout, it's going to be like the affordable
housing coming up. You know, if there's a buy-out there that's below
reason, they will buyout, because that's the cheaper way to go. And
I'm wondering if that's not going to be the case here.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: The only thing I can say is the top of
18 says if equal mitigation doesn't completely fix it, this is an option
they could do. Again, as Jeff said, it's a tool.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But instead of limiting it, though, to 50
percent we'd be better off not limiting it?
MR. SCOTT: Additionally, yeah--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah--
MR. SCOTT: Because even in some of the ones we're talking
about out there, one of them is at 185 percent. So it's at 85 percent
above.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's what I'm thinking, why don't
Page 132
~'__.">o..,,__._..,.~_ _.-"..-< <~-- -... _..","-" -"_.,, ._,._-~-
November 2, 2006
we just take out the 50, and that way if you feel that to make the
improvement it's going to take 200 percent more in impact fees, that's
an option that you can then choose.
MR. SCOTT: Conversely, I guess, ifit was 120 percent, you
could also consider it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay, that's fair.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess we move on to 19 then.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Nineteen, we worked really hard to
make sure it made sense. The idea behind 19 is if you have a proj ect
-- and again, it happens quite often in the projects we see, that it takes
three or four different developments to pay their fair share towards
an improvement for mitigation. This defines how you figure that out.
And again, we talked earlier about Pine Ridge Road. Pine
Ridge Road and Whippoorwill, there's a rezoning at the corner,
there's another project across the street. There's the Kraft outparcels
that are going in. We rejected every single one of those applications
and said you need to fix the intersection. They weren't talking to each
other. Now they are. And they're doing it on a fair share basis. And
this is where this comes into play.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The first sentence, where it
says, if the developer presents evidence acceptable to the
transportation administrator or designee that the required equal
mitigation is not cost feasible in relation to the development
proposal, where were you -- how will you determine that? I mean,
you could sit and bring any developer in and they'll tell you any
improvement is not cost feasible. So how are you going to control
that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's for our review, Section 19. So
they have to present to us, it's for our review. We can say that that
doesn't apply. The idea behind it is exactly the example I gave you.
If one of the outparcels came in and said we made this improvement,
I am a 10,000 square foot retail center, relatively expensive but when
Page 133
c,_,_,~,,".__,,.<,_",...., ,-,,,,,,,",,,,."-~""-"",,,..,,._.
November 2, 2006
you compare it to other projects relatively inexpensive. To do the
improvement might be $3 million. So for me to deny him based on
that improvement and say you have to do the whole thing, it wouldn't
be cost feasible for him to make that improvement. So that's where
18 comes in.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any limitation though on how
you have to accept or not accept the cost feasibility? You just used
the example of a 10,000 square foot facility with a $3 million hit.
What if that was a 10,000 square foot facility and the hit was 25,000,
and they said that's not reasonable? Would you still be able to reject
it based on the language here?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe we could. I mean, if we
need to tighten it up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How could you do that? I'm just -- and
Nick, I'm trying to -- because everybody's going to use this if they
can. Is there a way you could turn it around?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Which must be approved by the
transportation administrator or designee. It allows for some
flexibility at our approval of their proposal. The evidence must be
acceptable and the application must be approved by the administrator
or designee.
So I don't think it's at their option. County attorney's office, it's
written that way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, there is a financial impact
analysis model that the state's been working on for quite some time
that determines if impacts on a development and how they are, how
they impact a community. We were involved in it for a while, and
then it kind of -- discussions stopped on it.
MR. SCOTT: I think we're still talking -- you're talking about
FlAM.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: FlAM.
MR. SCOTT: Yeah. We provide inputs to -- projects are still
Page 134
--,,--.~. """_'_"_-'-"~'~"-~ '--'-""'-'-~
November 2, 2006
being looked at like that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would that -- would instituting that
into this equation somehow be of any help, or is that too
cumbersome?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If there isn't someone from compo
planning. I reviewed a little of that FlAM application, and one of the
other commissioners mentioned intersection level of service, the
amount of data that is required to maintain that. The amount of data
required to update and maintain that FlAM model is incredible.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was worried about.
Okay. I'm just concerned about your ability to control the feasibility
of it. But, you guys, that's just a thought to pass on. I don't know
how to correct it at this meeting.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nick, and this is just fun with
math here. When you have in your equation, you're subtracting C
from A and B. Why don't you just put A over B? Wouldn't you get
the same thing?
MR. CHOUDHARY: Maybe--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean C is what's allowed --
MR. CHOUDHARY: Maybe in this case -- maybe in this case
what you're saying could be applied, but not in all cases. Because
the difference is 20 between each of the improvements. That's why.
See, even 100, 120, 240.
But if you're looking at the improvements overall, then you have
to take the improvements, you know, in that fashion to determine
what the fair share would be.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that okay, Brad?
Okay, I think we're on to Number 14, which is really the last
page.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Construction traffic?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
Page 135
~-~_.~_.,~ . . .".~.__._...,._- ~~" .~_~..,._'m ~'_.'~N__
November 2, 2006
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You've asked us to review
construction traffic at various times. We've implemented
construction traffic review now already. We're starting to ask for all
off-site improvements to be completed prior. And we've quantified
that a little bit in Section 20.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last sentence, though, takes away
the quantification, basically.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: With the may?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I mean, you say all that in the
beginning, and then you say well, you may require it. Well, okay.
It's like saying we don't really care if we require it or not.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's hard, because again, when you
define it and not allow for any flexibility -- I can't foresee every
problem. When a project comes it would always have to do the
off-site improvement. At county's discretion, may require --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm thinking that's where you -- if you
insert something there to show us at the discretion of the
transportation staff or the review process, then that can come up
during the review of rezones, PUDs or whatever. It would be an
issue that we implement at that stage.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Nick, is there any place
that you require a statement on the construction traffic? Because
what this is really saying is that if there's an anticipated problem, you
want to see it mitigated. But don't you think in all traffic impact
statements there should be something that's stating what the
construction traffic could be or would be, if even if it's just a --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Methodology meetings we now more
than ever are starting to discuss construction traffic, especially with
reference to the Wal-Mart site.
And if it's a concern that we have now, we'll ask them to
Page 136
.^".....~-~--~--._....,- - ^-,-,--....-.'->...'~.,..."'. <-
November 2,2006
quantify that. Sometimes it's hard to quantify construction traffic,
per see The most difficult part is how do I check construction traffic.
There isn't an exact formula talking about --
MR. SCOTT: Can't look at an ITE manual. Now, obviously
we've raised it where there are certain things, you know, where
they're bringing in 10,000 truck-fulls of fill.
But I think what we're talking about covers it as either us in and
through the review agencies.
As we go forward, too, we'll know some of the things, like
collect data as we've gone through process to use that for future
analysis, too.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's difficult to check that. In other
words, we do it on a case-by-case basis. One site we recently
reviewed was a balanced construction site. In other words, they
brought their trucks on-site. Most of the earthwork that was used
on-site was maintained on-site. One was just the opposite. Required
an incredible amount of fill to be brought in.
So that's the kind of questions we ask at the TIS. And it's
difficult to quantify that on every occasion.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What I'm saying, this statement
only says that if somebody anticipates, either you -- I guess, I don't
think they'd turn themselves in -- couldn't you start now requiring a
statement of construction traffic where they start to tell you what
kinds of things they're doing, even if it's just verbally, people starting
to think about it?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's fair. Provide a paragraph.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then from that you can see
whether you should anticipate a problem or not.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can structure this as a requirement
in the TIS where they have to do a construction traffic statement. In
other words, saying what they anticipate it to be so it's required.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: To the best they can.
Page 137
'~'--'=~'-'.""~"'-''''''_P---.~~'.,~, _'T'.'O"..",..;,_>>>__,.-~'"" ...."
November 2, 2006
MR. SCOTT: Yeah, I mean, if they're bringing in fill, where it's
coming from, things like that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In a construction project, it's
not something people don't think about, I mean, when they're staging
the site, and stuff like that. The contractors and the developers will
be figuring out what to do with the construction traffic. So if they
could just share some of that stuff with you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct. I can require that, to have a
construction traffic statement in the TIS.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think we're on to your Exhibit
A, which is your -- well, any questions on Exhibit A?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then we'll take all the charts and
exhibits at once, move through them.
So you don't have any changes on Exhibit A, do you, Nick?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, the same.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody on the panel have any
questions on Exhibit A or any of the other exhibits?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do we have any speakers on
this issue?
MR. SCOTT: Yeah. I see shaking heads, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, how about those slips right next
to you, they might give you hints.
MR. SCOTT: Oh, yeah, sorry. I didn't know I was in charge.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're the only one sitting there.
MR. SCOTT: I'll take them in order.
Ed Kant.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They might tell you what they're
looking to speak on, too, what sections.
Cherie', when you would like to get ready to switch, let us know
and we'll take a five-minute stop.
Page 138
.'~,,,,",-~~.'-"-""<'^-'..." " .... ,- ., ..._,~",_-..--~--"." ,...,," .. .. ....."--"""""'_.._,,.-.,..~-
November 2, 2006
MR. KANT: Good afternoon. My name is Edward Kant,
professional engineer. I see some friendly faces. Of course I see
some people that know me, so I guess I'll leave those out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You went over to the dark side, didn't
you?
MR. KANT: I retired some time ago. Currently I'm on the
adjunct faculty at UF and I'm doing a little bit of private consulting.
At first I had a lot of things to say about this. The one thing I do
want to say is that the staff has put a lot of time into this, obviously.
I think Nick and his staff and Don have done a lot. There's also been
a lot of work done on the outside. I'm a little disturbed. I know when
I saw the first draft about two or three week ago, I thought perhaps
Alice had some mushrooms left over. And then I see where it has
been reworked to where it is now a little more reasonable document.
I was fortunate enough to be involved in developing the first
real traffic impact statement requirements back in the mid-90's. And
life was a lot simpler then. We didn't have checkbook concurrency.
We had concurrency but we didn't have it in the current fashion. I'm
not going to go into some of the technical details. You managed to
thrash most of that out.
There is one thing that does seriously concern me. There was a
lot of discussion earlier this morning, and unfortunately I had a prior
appointment and I had to leave for a little while. So I came back just
as you were finishing up Page 14.
But I was here for the discussion of who shall prepare these
things, and who shall review them. And I would invite your
attorney's attention to Chapter 316 of the Florida Statutes which --
I'm sorry, 316 is motor vehicles -- Chapter 4 -- I think it's 4-16, 436
-- there's a four and six in there and my mind gets confused with
them -- which defines the practice of engineering in the State of
Florida. And I would submit to you that this type of documentation is
indeed the practice of engineering.
Page 139
,~..,.,.,<"_..._",~.."",,.~....
November 2, 2006
And I believe further that it is very important in terms of
protection of the public health, safety and welfare that these types of
documents be prepared by professional engineers. I was a little bit
concerned about some of the statements that were made about, well,
you know, anybody -- any old engineer can do it. I would further
submit to you that anyone who is carrying one of these, which is an
engineering license, is going to go out of their way to protect it. I've
carried one now for almost 40 years, and I've had to defend it several
times. And it means quite a bit, because it's my livelihood.
So I don't think engineers take this very lightly in terms of
saying, well, you know, you can get some guy who's a structural
engineer and he'll sign and seal some transportation if he has
somebody on his staff that does it. I would submit to you that while
those aberrations may occur, and I call them aberrations, they simply
are not the way business is done in the engineering profession.
So I would be very concerned about how you treat traffic impact
statements and recognize that these are many times very extremely
technical documents subject to a great deal of analysis. I would also
suggest that the methods and data and procedures that the Institute of
Transportation Engineers has developed over the years are probably
the best representation of state of the art, and to suggest that, well, we
can come up with something better on our own, I think is really both
facetious and shortsighted.
I've worked with some of the other stakeholders, and frankly,
the stakeholders are not just the development community. The
stakeholders are everyone in Collier County. The fact that the
professionals have taken the time to look very carefully at what's
being crafted I think says a lot for our profession, but also says a lot
about our dedication to this community. Weare not looking to allow
development to run rampant. If you look about you, that's happened.
If you're concerned about closing that barn door, that horse is long
gone.
Page 140
..~~_~._.~,_,_w,._" --"". "-.'"""'"'_''''"_ ' IIW _n 'N~;___""_'_ .,.~._,---
November 2, 2006
The problems with some of the types of things that we see --
that I see, I can only speak for myself -- in this document, there is a
great deal of emphasis on data. I would submit to you that a lot of
the data that's being asked to be collected is not only superfluous, but
really, once we get the data, okay, what are we going to do with it?
It's not going to tell us any more than what some of the computer
analysis is going to tell us.
So I think that there's probably still could considered a work in
progress here, although I do see the light at the end of the tunnel here
and I do know it's a train, because this document is going to be
improved in the next few weeks, and is going to be reflected in the
costs of development, not only in the monetary cost but in the time
costs, because some of these things that you're looking at are most
reasonably done in high season or are most reasonably done in a very
labor intensive manner.
So while I think the ideal of coming up with a good type traffic
statement so that we can make sure that we're not going to let
something happen that we don't want to have happen is just that, an
ideal. I think you also have to allow for a certain amount of
flexibility with the staff and with the professional side of the
stakeholders.
I can't speak for every engineer, I can't speak for every
developer. But I do know that in the years that I was sitting on your
side of the table looking at these traffic impact statements, and there
are some of the folks that I worked with on this side of the table now
that will say the same thing, I feel pretty certain, that we were just as
tough then as what you're trying to do now. I would only be very
concerned, and somebody once said be careful what you wish for,
because the costs of not only preparing this document but of
reviewing it and making it defensible have to be done on both sides
of the table.
I thank you very much for allowing me to speak.
Page 141
"~_....,_","...A'.,,...~ --'"",_.~-'-
November 2, 2006
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ed, before you walk away, you hit on a
couple of issues we were -- I don't know if we got resolved
completely with staff.
And I want to ask you, where it says the statement is to be
prepared by a transportation professional, would that be better suited
to be substituted with Florida licensed engineer specializing in -- and
then it goes on to say with training and experience in traffic analysis
and transportation planning?
MR. KANT: That's the way I wrote it when -- first wrote it
when I wrote it 10 years ago. And I received quite a bit of, shall we
say, response from my brethren who are transportation planners.
The truth of the matter is that those planners who hold the AICP
designation are not licensed by the state, they're not licensed by
anybody. That's a designation of the American Planning
Association. The only state in the union that licenses planners right
now I believe is the State of New Jersey. There is some discussion
about whether that should become more prevalent, but that at this
point is pure rhetoric.
The more direct answer to your question is, you're asking me as
an individual. And my personal opinion is this is engineering work
and should be signed and sealed as engineering work.
I do not want to preclude the planning community, especially,
for example, doing modeling and the work that's done for
comprehensive plan amendments. There was some discussion earlier
about well, why don't we just take out that parenthetical phrase of
road segments. That is a big picture analysis when you're looking at
comprehensive planning amendments. And there is planning
involved. What I'm concerned with is that the final product is an
engineering -- in my opinion is an engineering document. As I said,
I'm speaking as one individual.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you very much. That was
helpful. Mr. -- oh, Mr. Kolflat.
Page 142
. ,,____._._ - 0' . _~~.".__"". '. .,o^""....,._.."',_,"'_,""."'.'.' -,--"",-._,-
November 2, 2006
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, let me ask you a question.
On that little certificate you presented, it designated you as a licensed
professional engineer.
MR. KANT: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Is there any designation on
there that you specialize in road construction or transportation?
MR. KANT: I'm glad you asked that. No, there is not. The
State of Florida issues a professional engineer's license. Some states,
for example, State of California, has certain -- have certain
designations. State of California, you could be licensed as a
structural engineer as opposed to, say, as a civil engineer or
professional engineer.
There is, again, within the licensure arena, there's a discussion
of whether that should be done. Right now the policing of that, if you
will, is a self-policing effort by the ethical tenets which we practice.
As I said, I've got 40 -- I don't want to tell you how many
40-plus years experience -- I've done drainage work, I've done a little
structural work, I've done a little road work, design work, but for the
last 25 years, my emphasis has been in transportation and traffic. So
I'm very comfortable talking about myself as a transportation
engineer or as a traffic engineer because that's what I've done. I've
managed to do that.
Now, does that mean I can't make water run downhill anymore?
No, I can do that. But that's not what my particular emphasis is on.
And I think if you talk to ten engineers at random and ask them
what do you do, what's your specialty, you'll probably get ten
answers unless you're in a roomful of traffic engineers.
By and large, for example, if somebody is a structural engineer,
that's what they do. They're very uncomfortable getting outside of
their realm of expertise. Engineers, if you don't ready know, they're
kind of weird people sometimes. They're very uncomfortable usually
outside the four corners of what they've picked as their area of
Page 143
.M"'.__,~
November 2, 2006
expertise. Some of us have had a little bit broader background.
But over time I've found very few engineers that call themselves
generalists. Almost all tend to go into one or more specific
categories.
I hope that answers your question.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So a licensed professional
engineer who might specialize in design of nuclear power plants
could sign a TIS for transportation for Collier County?
MR. KANT: In theory, that's correct.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Don't you think there should be
some additional qualifications where before you accept these?
MR. KANT: Yes. And as I say, in the document that's before
you, I believe there is a caveat with regard to training and education.
Again, I can only speak for when I was doing that review. If I
had somebody new walk in with a statement, I would ask to see their
credentials. I'd want to know -- I'd ask for a resume. I would ask--
tell me about yourself, give me a little background. I wasn't shy
about doing that.
And I know in talking -- Nick, I don't want to take your name in
vain, but at least in talking with Nick, I know that he has some of the
same concerns that we had. And I don't know if he ever requested
me, but I know that there have been some new people coming into
town, and that's what we do. If somebody brought in a drainage
design, I feel comfortable that whoever is reviewing drainage over in
community development would say well, who is this guy.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So evaluation of their
qualifications might be more important, other than the fact of just
being registered as a licensed registered professional engineer?
MR. KANT: In my opinion, I would say yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: On the converse side, could
there be someone with 20 years or 10 years of experience in
Page 144
~---" "'~'~".''''"'''''---~."~''.
November 2, 2006
transportation but not be an engineer that may know more than an
engineer in another field?
MR. KANT: In a nutshell, yes. I know people with 20 year of
-- well, I know people with one year's experience 20 times, and I
know a lot of very good designers who have never for, one reason or
another, either never registered or who went to a technical school and
could not get registered then. But they're very good at what they do.
But under the laws of the State of Florida, without that piece of
paper, they cannot sign or seal. They can't legally call themselves
engIneers.
Excuse me, I'm not trying to render a legal opinion. But they
cannot use the term engineer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank, you, Ed.
Cherie', are you ready to --
THE COURT REPORTER: We're ready, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll take a 10-minute break
while Cherie' and Lynn set up.
(A break was taken.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Getting back on the air, so everybody
needs to take their seats and stop the side conversations, please.
Thank you.
And I was reminded -- Kady had mentioned to me during the
break that because of the length of today's meeting it will probably
not be aired this evening, but starting tomorrow morning most likely
at 9:00.
And we have a new court reporter here, Lynn, who is fresh and
ready to go, and according to Cherie she can type faster than
anybody. So we can talk at a higher rate of speed. Well, we are
again not able to function. Where is everybody going during the
break? We're going to have to wait for a quorum. So I guess we'll just
have to stop.
Okay. Now we have a quorum. We'll continue with the
Page 145
~. ..,...,-___'"_AA~_.'..
November 2, 2006
meeting.
Before we go too far, just so everybody knows what the rest of
the afternoon is going to be, we'll hopefully finish this transportation
issue up soon. And I notice the audience -- most everybody is
probably here for the environmental portion of it, and I think that has
to do with Section 24, North Belle Meade. If you are not here for that
and you are here for anything else, would you please raise your
hands.
Sir, would you mind telling me what it is you're here for?
MR. GRAMATGES: I'm Phil Gramatges, public utilities. I'm
here for the EAR, review of the EAR amendment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, Phil, I'm sorry, I didn't recognize
you. You're right. I'm glad. We're going to take the environmental
section that Bill Lorenz and the audience is here for, the rest of this
EAR is going to be deferred until the next regular meeting of the
planning commission, which won't be for two weeks. So, we
probably won't be able to get to it.
That's why I thought I would bring it up, to save anybody a
problem. Is anybody in the commission disagreeing with that? Is
that okay with everyone? Okay.
Thank you, Phil. Sorry to keep you waiting.
Who is our next public speaker?
MR. SCOTT: Reed Jarvi.
MR. JARVI: Good afternoon. For the record, Reed Jarvi,
Professional Engineer in Collier County. I'm speaking on behalf of
myself, the transportation professionals, which are the people that
Nick referred to as shareholders, or stockholders in the process, and
also I am a member, although I'm not speaking directly for DSAC,
who met yesterday on this same subj ect.
I want to start my remarks with, we have worked with staff as
the transportational -- excuse me, transportation professionals in this
area. There were four people primarily, and two or three others that
Page 146
.'---.,-.--,..,., --~._---.,_.,-
November 2, 2006
worked on this effort outside of the county-sponsored effort, and
these people that worked have probably in the neighborhood of a
hundred to a 150 years of transportation professionalism and work in
this area. So I think we shouldn't be taken lightly.
We worked it with the county to try to make this traffic
guidelines, TIS guidelines a workable document within the
knowledge and the expertise of the transportation community and the
transportation profession.
I want to talk about probably three items that the transportation
professionals came up with in disagreement with the county staff.
Most of the stuff we've talked about we were able to work out how
we thought it should work, and between the county staff and county
consultant and the transportation staff -- or transportation
professionals we were able to come to an agreement on how things
should work from our perspective. And I think that has worked fairly
well over the last several weeks up and to probably fairly late last
night.
A couple of things to look at. One of the very first items that
was brought up today was on the comprehensive plan amendments
brought up by Ms. Caron, and it was talking about taking off the
language that Nick put in in parentheses. I think it should be
important to note one of the problems of this TIS guidelines, and
even the one that preceded it, is this happens to be or tries to be a one
size fits all. And unfortunately that is not particularly the easiest way
to go, which is one reason you see 14 pages and we talk about
different things.
Throughout this document we talk about concurrency, we talk
about operational and at the same time we talk about comprehensive
plan. Most places in Southwest Florida look at comprehensive plan
changes more, I think what Ms. Caron may have been looking at as a
system, or you would actually look at the differences.
If you had a hundred-acre parcel that was designated
Page 147
...__~'"~.^._..^ ,~. '-_'"O_._U~'_~>''' --"~-_.~, " '""--"-
November 2, 2006
multi- family from a land use -- future land use plan, and that's what
the 20/30 plan, which is the current long range now, shows it as, and
you wanted to make it commercial, or mixed use or whatever, you
would look at those differences on the long range plan and see what,
if anything, it does to the long range plan.
We've talked to staff about that and we think, you know, we
have a difference of opinion there, but basically came down to we
would look at the links. Because we're looking at something that is
four, five, six -- could be four, five, six, ten years, 15, 20 years out,
that looking at the intersections and other things didn't seem to make
a lot of sense, which is why Nick had it the way he did and said, you
know, if it's a short-term comprehensive plan -- because I have had
those and you have seen those -- it might be a two-year
comprehensive plan or a three-year by the process, that might be
important to look at the intersections. But something that is way out
there doesn't, you know, we're going through this and looking at
something that is a 15 years from now intersection based on data that
we had yesterday.
I mean, it doesn't make a lot of sense because I can tell you one
thing, I can't tell you what that intersection is going to look like 15
years ago, I can just tell you it's not going to look like whatever we
say it's going to look like. I think that's important to look at on the
comprehensive plan.
I don't think the change that was mentioned necessarily changes
that because we're -- most of this refers to talking about methodology
meetings and how we'll be looking at this. But I think it's important
to note that the one size fits all does not fit all, and there are some
situations that staff and the consultant feel should have some
flexibility. And I think that's about it on that aspect.
The other thing I just want to mention before I get into my --
Mark's construction traffic was discussed a lot at the end of -- or a
little while ago in Nick's presentation.
Page 148
.. ^'.W"~_~."''''''_ _".,._,._.,___>_,~ ,..".".'4"_"'_"__~',"""'_
November 2, 2006
And I think what we came up with, we can talk about
construction traffic and traffic impact statement but it will become a
here is the construction traffic paragraph because there is nothing
defined about the construction traffic and whether I'm bringing in
carpenters today or truckloads of fill today or steel for the building,
we don't know.
And if I'm -- especially if I'm looking at a comprehensive plan
amendment or zoning, probably the developer doesn't know, because
the likelihood is they are guys that are going to flip it to somebody
else, so we're all making guesses at it.
And we went through this and talked to staff and basically came
up, is the answer going to be doing off-site improvements ahead of
time? Yes, that's probably the answer. Well, we don't have a
problem with that being the answer. We know what the answer may
be, getting to that answer is going to be we're guessing --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Reed, I think what the intent, at least--
I have been on this board for a while and what we've always wanted
to get to is a point where the off-site improvements, your turn lanes,
your accellanes, your intersection improvements close to the project
are done before the project is developed, before SDPs are issued for
the on-site work. And I think that was what I understood the gist of
the construction references being, is that those improvements get
done to the roadway system so we don't have another Wal-Mart that
just occurred on East Naples, that is atrocious.
MR. JARVI: I think that was the intent when the language was
written, what we've come to an agreement on. And I don't think in
general the transportation professionals had any problems with that
being the solution. I just don't really want to get to, I think there
might be 13 truckloads a day because I might need 4,000 yards of
fill, which is the inference I got from your-all's discussion with Nick.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think, honestly, my thoughts
have always been get the improvements done so that when the
Page 149
~"'~'~-""---""~~'--
November 2, 2006
construction and the slow trucks starting moving in and out of a
project they have a road there to move it in and out of.
Has anybody else had a different thought?
Okay. So maybe, Nick, you ought to understand where I think
we were coming from. Because that was brought up by Mr. Kolflat
and others on this panel a long time ago, that we ought to be
addressing construction traffic. I don't mean necessarily the count,
but get the improvements done so the construction traffic has better
access.
MR. JARVI: Okay, then I understand. That was not the
inference I got from your discussion. I don't think we necessarily
have a problem with that, because I agree with you in general that
that's what should be done. There may be situations that's not
appropriate, but in general that's the right answer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron had a comment.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I wanted to make a comment.
Concerning what you said about compo plan amendments coming
forward and then they are probably just going to be flipped to
somebody else, that's where I really have a problem with it. I don't
think we should be having compo plan amendments come forward
that are just for the sake of making the land more salable to
somebody else. I don't think that's a good use of our compo plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just don't have any control over that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I mean -- but this is why
they don't want to look at systemwide, why they don't want to do any
detailed analysis, because the real intent for a lot of the GMP
amendments is just so that they can make it more valuable and flip it
to somebody else, and we're left holding the bag.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Reed hadn't finished his presentation,
but I was just trying to respond to the construction.
But go ahead, Mr. Vigliotti, if you had something pertinent.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I was going to ask you a
Page 150
o_.".^"..._,_.~,.~_. " ,.....'.,~._.,--~-,~~- ",-"-"".,,,..,,,,,,,"-,"--,,,",,,,,,,,,,,",,,,,,..
November 2,2006
question. You are an engineer, how do you feel about having
engineers sign it or not?
MR. JARVI: See, I wanted to go before Ed because Ed has a lot
stronger opinion about this than I do. I think there are people out
there -- and I'll mention two names. Most of you probably know Jeff
Perry from WilsonMiller. He was the MPO coordinator for, like, 17
or 18 years. He's been involved with traffic for, you know, probably
going on 30 years now, and he's an AICP. He will never be an
engineer, he doesn't have the engineering background to be it. And I
personally think he's competent to do a study. There are certain
operational issues that probably are better dealt with by an engineer,
and there are people that can do that, especially when you get into
specific signal issues. I don't -- I mean -- and the other person or
persons is, you know, Ron Blum, who is at David Plummer, who has
been around here for probably as long as any of us have been around
here, who is also an AICP, and he does it.
Now, both companies have engineers, so they can get and
engineer to sign and seal it. But I think, you know, what have we
really proven by doing that, my point?
And I just talked to staff a little bit at the break, and I said, you
know, my opinion is on that statement on the front page, I think it is,
the front page, section two, is no matter what statement's done there,
it can be abused, there is no -- you can make it a PE, you can make it
a PTOE you can make it an APE that's had 20 years experience. We
could do whatever you want there and it can be abused. I think you
got to trust staff to weed out the people that aren't appropriate.
I can also tell you that with the fee structure that's -- I don't
know if it was the first exhibit or the last page before the exhibit, but
at the end of this, I think you will have somewhat of a self-regulating
program. It won't happen in a month, won't happen in two months,
but over the years as the person comes in for their seventh or eighth
review because they really don't know what they are doing, at $500 a
Page 151
. - ~,~ ..y",'.._------...__.. ~~~-".~,-,.,-,- <- '."
November 2, 2006
pop sooner or later the developers will say this is not the guy we
want to do this.
And also, the last part of it is, you do have three levels. The
current standards have two levels of analysis. And this one, if you
just look at the first level, which is basically a trip generation and
some distribution, relatively simple, I don't believe you need a P --
you know, a traffic engineer, a PTOE-type person to do that level. I
mean, it takes some competence and takes some knowing what the
books are but it's fairly easy to do. And there are several people that
do that around here regularly now, and, you know, they don't need to
call me in to do a trip generation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. JARVI: The other -- the things that we have a
disagreement in, and they have been brought up today a little bit by
Ed and they have been touched on. I did e-mail you all last night but
I apologize for it being so late, because that was when Nick and I got
finished with all our discussions, and I didn't want to -- I originally
had about three pages of comments and we went through all but three
of them. So I didn't want to bore you, maybe it's not the right word,
but distress you with the details that we were trying to work out and
we did come to a conclusion on that.
Section five, the internal capture section, a couple of comments
on the discussion this morning. Our opinion is selectively that we
really shouldn't have the second to last line there, which talks about
should not exceed 20 percent, because it really is covered in the last
line.
Having done many of these, if you were doing -- and there is no
typical project -- but if you were doing a 50-acre mixed use project
or a 100-acre mixed use project, I think it would be very unusual for
you to have more than 20 percent internal capture. But if you're
doing Ave Maria, as an example, good or bad, it may not be 65
percent but it's probably higher than 20 percent at build-out.
Page 152
^.--,~.._~.,,~,.,. ......- _'"'_'n., -,.__..~~.. ....-
November 2, 2006
If you have a qualifier, anything over 20 percent has to be
further justified. Weare comfortable with that. But there is
documentation and there is information out there in ITE that suggests
there may be higher internal capture rates. And we shouldn't be
precluded from using those if that's appropriate.
And I'm going to put in my comments that I know your intent or
your purpose is trying to get the most development traffic on the road
so it has the most impact so therefore you can look at the worst case,
but I think the important thing here is to use the most appropriate
data. Whether it's high or low, it's the appropriate data is the right
answer here. And if it's more than 20 percent, if it's 22 percent, then
that's appropriate. If it's supposed to be 12 percent, 12 percent is
appropriate. And I think that's an issue that between staff and the
consultant they work out what the answer is. And I can tell you,
having done this many times with Nick, that it's, you know, more
than likely, more often than not I lose that jump ball.
And so it's just an issue that I think we should leave to the
profession. I think you should look at things as a long-term. The last
TIS guidelines have been around, I think nine years, if I remember
right what Ed told us when they were approved. Doing things that
are static, this could change -- the transportation profession is
changing, maybe not quite as fast as biotechnology, but it is changing
yearly, information becoming more and more available, and you
shouldn't restrict yourself in this. And that's my opinion on internal
capture.
And pass-by capture, I have sent this all to you. If you want
another document, I'm sure you probably need a chance to look at it.
Don, could you pass that around, copies. This is a study of --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, he's got a pass-around fee.
MR. JARVI: That's why I asked Don and not Nick. There are
some people in the area that say that if Nick gets eye contact with
you it will cost you $50,000, so people just won't look at him
Page 153
-~-_._,..,....-.,," -",,",--~,~'---'~""-'~'~- w.._..__._H__
November 2,2006
anymore.
This is a paper Randy Spratham, who is a PE with well over 20
years experience in traffic, almost exclusively in traffic and
transportation, put together. It has not been published, it has been
peer reviewed locally. But basically it takes existing data and gives a
history of pass-by capture. And the transportation professionals'
opinion, and mine too, is that we should use what we call the Bible,
which is generally ITE.
We've talked about it extensively. There is data available. This
document basically says if you took the ITE data, which is national,
took out the non-Florida stuff, so you just did the Florida ITE data,
you actually find that pass-by capture is several points higher than
the national average. Florida data is showing, and that's more recent
data, is showing that Florida typically has a higher pass-by
percentage than national average.
So once again, arbitrarily capping it we don't feel is appropriate.
And the data that was -- is cited in the FDOT handbook is, I think
it's eight years old, seven or eight years old. It was based on the ITE
trip manual, fifth edition. Weare now on ITE manual, seventh
edition.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Has it changed?
MR. JARVI: It changes every edition. Pass-by data has
changed, and it's in there, I don't remember the statistics, but it's
something like 40 --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 45.
MR. JARVI: -- surveys for shopping centers were in the sixth
edition, and/or the fifth edition, and now we have well over a
hundred. So it is -- there is more data coming, maybe not daily, but
certainly yearly on this information. On the trip generation
standpoint it changes, but it is a logarithmic formula and it changes
the number way out there, and it may make a hundred unit
subdivision have 101 trips versus 102 trips or a 100 trips versus 99
Page 154
_~'N.~"_'" ...,.^..._."..,__..~~__~___ -"~,,,",,----'-"~'"-"" .~<,~-...,.~,......,.",.-._,""""
November 2, 2006
trips, it's to that level.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would you recommend that we
incorporate or they incorporate the edition -- reference of the edition
in the document?
MR. JARVI: Yes, sir. I mean, it is in here. It is -- the ITE trip
generation manual is talking about --
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Latest edition, right?
MR. JARVI: Or -- probably, actually, the latest edition. I don't
remember it, specify seventh edition or --
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: The latest edition would cover
that, I guess.
MR. JARVI: My opinion it should be latest edition. The ITE
specifically -- the ITE specifically vets their stuff very well. Some
other organizations may not. But it's just more and more data. I
started on the fourth edition, third or fourth edition, and there is lots
and lots more data now.
So I think -- and it is mentioned in here as a reference. In some
cases we felt the ITE trip generation handbook is what should be
used. Once again, that's the transportation professionals' opinion.
I will also note that your own transportation impact fee, road
impact fee study basically uses the ITE pass-by, trip pass-by capture
rate in the calculation of the road impact fees.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You are advocating a single
standard?
MR. JARVI: I'm advocating that the ITE standards should be
generally used. And once again, I don't --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Preeminent?
MR. JARVI: Preeminent would probably be the right word.
But there are situations, and that's a problem we had in the discussion
earlier, we are using shoulds and shalls. This isn't rocket science, it's
a lot of art. And there are situations that you should do it one way
versus the other situation you do it another way. And when we lock
Page 155
, _ ."A'.,~~,.~"~,;.~,'_""'_'~__"_"_
November 2,2006
ourselves into shalls you are reducing flexibility of what the most
appropriate answer is. So I think there is situations that should is
more appropriate than shall.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: From the point of view of the
persons trying to bring order out of chaos, you say the most
appropriate. So it becomes a haggle for them each time, does it not,
unless you have a clear standing?
MR. JARVI: I think there are situations, and engineering in
general is this way, that different people look at it different ways.
I started in water management and I can tell you, I can give you
a precise amount of flow out of a particular basin, you know, you
talked about it earlier with the petition. There are engineering issues
that, say, that weir that Robert Wiley was talking about at 9.4 feet,
will exactly show this is the amount of flow over it. However there
are different aspects of that weir, how it's shaped, what the thickness
is, that would change that number. And there is always engineering
judgment that is used. That's why when we get a license we get
engineering judgment automatically, that's part of the law, I think.
But it's part of what we do as an engineer. You get judgment.
You are looking at things. Certain situations are different than other
situations and there is not a one size fits all. I know you want that
but that's not the way engineering is.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't know that I want that. I
know that we want to get close to that. I'm not sure everything can
get that far.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I would like to get close to is
knowing how much longer you're going to need for your
presentation, let you finish it up and we can ask our questions and get
moving. Because this has taken on four hours today that we really
are doing as a courtesy to transportation. And I would rather get
through it and move into the other subj ects we still have to get to yet.
MR. JARVI: I have two other points --
Page 156
-"---~",-,-,,,-".-,,,--,,---~,,--'-"-'----~-"-"
November 2, 2006
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. JARVI: -- then I'll be done. Section eight, which is the
significantly impacted roadway intersection section, it is our opinion
is that if the land development code and the comprehensive plan say
335 is the answer, the transportation or TIS guidelines should reflect
what the land development code says and what the comprehensive
plans say.
If those change then the TIS guidelines change also, or could
change also. My suggestion is that we say significantly impacted
roadways are in accordance with the land development code and the
comprehensive plan, so then you don't have to change it all the time
if that does change. But I think it's important that they all say in
reference to the same standard.
Last thing I'll just say, and Ed talked about it a bit, is the data
collection. This particular TIS guidelines has a significant amount of
data collection. We have talked with staff extensively about that and
we've come to the conclusion, I think, together, that some -- excuse
me, some situations mayor may not require the data collection, and
we've agreed with that.
But just be aware, as Ed said, we're collecting data that has -- of
value maybe, but in the long term may not have data -- may not have
value, so we question some of the expense that's needed to collect all
this data over and over again.
Once again, I go back to the comprehensive plan. If I'm
collecting data, you know, yesterday, for a comprehensive plan that
we think might build out in ten years, I don't know the specifics of
that. I can tell you the specifics of that data is not necessarily
appropriate for ten years from now.
And with that, that ends my comments.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Reed. Is there any other
questions of Reed?
Nick, I would like to follow up some of their concerns. And
Page 157
-,~,~,_-~'.""
November 2, 2006
let's start with Ed Kant's in regards to the licensing issue of a PEe It
does strengthen that first sentence.
Are you guys that concerned that it's a problem?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ed had his opinion on it, and Reed
had a softer opinion on it than other people.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: What we're concerned about is, is
you have experience and training, I don't think you could be a PE in
structural and sign these things, you could be -- it would weed them
out. It would show up. And I don't -- I hate to restrict the people
who have experience from applying because, you know, again, then
they get someone assigned in their office, and that doesn't really do
anything different either.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't disagree with you, and I
certainly can understand Reed's reference to Jeff Perry, who's been in
the business for ages. But the way this is written, I'm wondering if
you have any way to limit it to people who have that kind of
expertise rather than taking the people who don't have that expertise.
I think that's more of a concern, not for those who do have it but
those who don't have it that could slip in because you have
inadequate references here. I'm just pointing that out. You are the
guy that's got to deal with it in the future. It's not a point -- I didn't
want to push.
Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The statement I'd make is that
the state is in the business of deciding who to license for the health,
safety, welfare of the community, and then they license people who
do fingernails. If they have determined this isn't necessary for the
health and safety I don't think we should.
I think the PE is no answer either, the injuries and fatalities, if
the only fatalities caused by the building collapse were signed by an
engineer or structural -- there's no secret to that. You're going to
Page 158
_.~._"""---,,,...-..-
November 2, 2006
have to decide whether it's a competent proposal or not.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can tell you the direction we're
going. We're going with having a consultant on staff on a regular
basis. That consultant has professional modelers on staff, it has
design intersection engineers on staff, and we use them all the time.
We have them review intersection analysis, we have them do
modeling. We review it ourselves internally. So I think we are
covered. I think if we find anything that's submitted inappropriately
it shows up really, really clear.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This consultant, just to be sure,
this consultant, do they ever come on behalf of development to the
county?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So there are no ethical issues --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They are in Orlando and that's why
we chose them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other issues that we need to bring
up? One of Reed's comments concerning the ability to tie this stuff
do to the GMP and the LDC.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any concerns on that
issue?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. I think we've asked for analysis
to 223 but that doesn't mean we turn them down for concurrency to
223. There is a different classification there. Three percent of the
service volume on a six-lane road in the peak direction of that road
could be in the mid to high 3,OOO's. Three percent of that is a hundred
trips. We lowered that threshold to about 60. That just says what is
significant. That's not concurrency. Concurrency is by the LCD,
335, unless changed.
So what we said is, what we look at is by 223. We still approve
Page 159
~ ~_~'_"_'''___'_'_'H"~''''''_
November 2, 2006
you or deny you by the LDC, whatever that is, if it's 335. But you
drop that threshold of what we look at for intersections to 223, and
for other operations.
So I think, unless we turn somebody down for something that is
inconsistent with the LDC, the guidelines, I think, are okay at 223.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other comments?
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: You were probably going to
bring it up anyway. What about his argument about the 20 percent
cap?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. With both internal capture and
pass-by, we have -- the last sentence says -- and we spoke with Ed
Kant out in the hallway and he was comfortable with it -- I'll give
you here, for instance, internal capture. It reads internal capture rates
higher than 20 percent shall be adequately substantiated and
approved by the county staff.
And then pass-by capture, I believe the last sentence in pass-by
capture says the same thing: Any pass-by rates higher than above
permitted rates shall require justification and prior approval from
county staff.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It seems fine.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right, it's there. And if there is abuse
I'm sure you'll hear about it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Honestly, I think we've gone over this
in much detail, and what our conclusions were earlier I'm still
comfortable with myself. I do think that we got into a -- if we're in a
mess with our road situation, I think it's because of the way the
system is now. So if you are recommending changes I'm, honestly,
looking to go with your recommendation myself.
Anybody else have any concerns or comments?
Well, Nick, I don't know if I should thank you for the last few
hours but I do appreciate your department allowing us the
Page 160
,.-'.....-- "",,".,",,_.~M_'_,_,
November 2, 2006
opportunity to review this.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I want to take this chance to thank
you all. I understand we bring our review to you and there are items
that you have concern about. We hope we've addressed them. The
reason we brought this to you is so that as petitioners come forward
your questions are answered by these guidelines and requirements.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Mr. Kolflat.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Are you going to prepare an
update on this, what is should and shall throughout the whole thing?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: As a matter of fact, probably in the
next hour I'll start. I'll complete it today --
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Can we get a copy?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I will e-mail it to you and it will be
uploaded for our board review on the 14th, so you'll get a copy of it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. I appreciate it.
Enjoyable.
Now, Bill Lorenz was going to bring forward the -- we're going
to go into the EAR recommendations. And I don't know who from
staff is going to be in charge of this, but I think we're really down to
today discussing the portion of the EAR that we received earlier
concerning the CCME and the section involving the red-cockaded
woodpeckers, Area 24 and all of that. Is that correct, Bill?
MR. LORENZ: Yes. For the record Bill Lorenz, environmental
services director. David Weeks, I think, is going to be the staff
member in charge of the EAR amendments, and then I'll go through
the presentation --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, if you want to just -- I don't
know if you were here a minute ago when we talked about -- I know
Bill needs some time to set up. We can break if we need to ifhe's not
done by the time we get done discussing. I know we have several
sections of this document that we have not gone over, but due to the
Page 161
-""'._"'-~-~~' "'.~"'-'--"-'~-'''"' .
November 2, 2006
time today that we're getting into, we made an announcement earlier
we're going to work on just the area involving Bill Lorenz's portion
of it today. And the rest of the EAR is going to be deferred until the
next regular meeting of the planning commission, which will be two
weeks from today. Most likely it will in the morning it will start
because we only have one case that day, so we'll go right into
finishing the EAR that day.
MR. WEEKS: For the record David Weeks, Comprehensive
Planning Department. Mr. Chairman, does that mean limit to just
Section 24 or the other changes to the CCME as well?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the entire CCME. The intent was
to get through that today and then we'll finish that up. And two
weeks from now we'll finish the other ones up that we needed to.
MR. WEEKS: Okay. Mr. Chairman and commissioners, in
your staff report for this hearing date on Page 7, 8 and 9, I think
would be the beginning point, probably would jump right into the
Section 24, that red-cockaded woodpeckers area issue first, and then
come back --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. WEEKS: -- to the amendments that were discussed at your
last hearing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will work fine.
MR. WEEKS: Okay. On Page 9, actually under the heading of
future land use, however, in the middle of the page, because these are
linked, the actual change here is to consider the redesignation of
Section 24 in the North Belle Meade Overlay from its present neutral
designation within the rural fringe mixed use district.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. David, I'm going to have to
back you up because I want us all to get on the right page to start
with.
MR. WEEKS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're on Page 9 of the response to
Page 162
"_"'_"_ __ , ...._.~_~~""_,,'"_"____".,,_w~'",_"^....,
November 2, 2006
the York report?
MR. WEEKS: I'm on Page 9 of the staff report to the planning
commission for the November 2nd hearing. Of your packet it should
be the very first document.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have a red--
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: We have a red line copy in
yellow highlight?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir, it has yellow highlighting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm there now. And as each of
you speak and bring up issues would you get us to the right pages,
because this document has changed so much there are a lot of pages.
MR. WEEKS: Okay. And again, working out of the staff report
up at the upper right-hand corner, in small print 11/2/06 CCPC
agenda item 8E. And again, that document does have yellow
highlighted throughout it. This is part of the packet that was
delivered to you last week and it was not in your original binders for
the October 11 hearing.
And now jumping over to Page 9, future land use element.
Backing up very briefly, when the rural fringe mixed use district was
established in 2002, there was a lot of contention about the North
Belle Meade Overlay area in general. A lot of property owners
participated in the hearings, many of which were unhappy with the
proposed designations. Specifically Section 24, I'll call it a
compromise was reached, because at one time this section had been
proposed as Bill's outlining the very northwest portion of the North
Belle Meade Overlay.
At one time during the hearing process in 2002 that section was
proposed for receiving, at another time it was proposed for sending,
and ultimately what the county commission did was adopt it with a
neutral designation with a 70 percent native vegetation retention
requirement, whereas all other neutral land is 60 percent, and with
specific language providing that the county would do a survey of the
Page 163
~_'""__''''______~'_''''^,_,M_.m.._",''..... ., ~.." "."';",..,~._" ........""',..--.,,-.
November 2,2006
North Belle Meade Overlay area and pay particular attention to
Section 24 in regards to the red-cockaded woodpeckers, which is a
protected species both at the state and federal level.
At your transmittal hearing, the recommendation by staff and
endorsed by planning commission and the board was to change
Section 24 from neutral to sending based upon the results of the
study that was done of Section 24 and the rest of North Belle Meade
by the county's consultant. There was some discussion by interested
parties that still disagreed with the conclusion and disagreed with
having at least some of those properties designated as sending.
The county commission, in transmitting Section 24 to be
changed as sending, gave staff an additional directive, and that was
to contact all of the property owners in Section 24 to solicit their
approval, to go on their property to do some groundtruthing. Part of
the objection was that -- from certain individuals was that there were
no red-cockaded woodpeckers, no cavity trees, no actual birds on
their property; therefore they thought their property should not be
changed to sending.
County staff did contact each of the property owners. We sent a
letter -- Bill Lorenz's department sent a letter asking for that
permission. And Bill can give you the details but the short of it is
very few people responded at all or responded affirmatively.
But based upon the responses that were received affirmative, the
staff did go out and do additional observations. And their conclusion
was that the information from the consultant's original study was still
valid.
However, also we have to look closely at the property
appraiser's aerials and some other data looking at the parcel sizes
within Section 24, looking at the number of existing houses and other
structures on the properties, looking at where clearing had occurred
already, because there are at least two different agricultural
operations within Section 24. And the end result is staff changed its
Page 164
c......__......____.~.. ......
November 2, 2006
recommendation to now be split. We want the majority of Section 24
to be changed to sending. But for some of the properties, most
particularly along the east and southeast portion of Section 24 and
also a portion along the west border of Section 24 to remain as
neutral.
And further detail on that is provided in the first attachment to
your staff report, which is referenced on Page 9. It's called data and
analysis supporting redesignation of various neutral lands to sending
lands in Section 24, North Belle Meade Overlay. Again, that's the
very first attachment behind your staff report dated October 18, 2006.
And Bill Lorenz has a portion of that up now and I think I'll turn
it over to him to walk through.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Those who did agree to having
their lands evaluated, what amount of acreage were or the acreage
were -- how much was that, was that percent of the totality, 10
percent, 1 7 whatever?
MR. WEEKS: I'll let Bill address that specifically. But I would
eyeball it and say perhaps 10 percent.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Ten percent.
MR. WEEKS: Roughly.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's in the western portion?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me read a statement that's on Page
4. There are approximately 244 private parcels owned by 180
entities, all within Section 24. Staff sent letters to the owners
requesting permission to enter their properties to evaluate the habitat
for RCW s and only seven, I guess, responded, to visit 12 parcels. I
thought that was odd, too. I read that and was going where you are
heading, Mr. Murray, that out of all of those property owners only
seven allowed staff to enter.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Seems very strange.
Page 165
___'_"_""'_'_'_'_"_'_""_~_'_""_."H'___'___'___'"",_""'" ---"..--.~-_..".."..-- ,.._.~_".__'.M._.'_....._""__
November 2,2006
MR. WEEKS: No. And Bill is going to show you in a moment
some exhibits, one of which shows -- it's in your packet, again -- will
show the parcel lines. You can see all those parcels shown within
Section 24. Many of them are small, about half-acre lots per tract.
And then also identified on the exhibit are those specific
properties for which we had permission to go. And as I look at it I
see it's certainly more than 10 percent. But also that includes the
Conservation Collier tract.
Bill, you want to --
MR. LORENZ: Yes. I think everybody is on the same
document. I'm going to be working simply off of the figures that you
have in your document here when I show them. And I -- just to make
sure that everybody is knowledgeable of the area, this of course is the
North Belle Meade Overlay. This is Route 75. Section 24, we
outlined earlier, is in the northwest corner of North Belle Meade
Overlay. And three portions of -- which you don't see them on this
map, is adjacent or abuts the Estates. So that's -- that gives you a
little bit of the location of North Belle Meade and Section 24.
So we can always refer back to that if we want to. While I bring
this particular map up, let me -- let me say that we are looking at
habitat, a habitat survey, not to be confused necessarily with an
actual nesting and foraging survey for actual RCW s. So we're
looking at potential habitat. The 2003 study that we had the
consultant do mapped out the potential RCW habitat in all of North
Belle Meade. The staff -- or the board, as David noted, the Board of
County Commissioners at their transmittal hearing wanted to have
staff to look at, get some additional data, excuse me, in my term I'll
say validate the study.
And of course, the only way you can validate the study is to get
on the properties. So we requested permission of the property owners
for staff to go out on those property owners that provided permission.
Mac Hatcher here, one of my staff, actually did the site visits, I think,
Page 166
.'---"-""'"~"~-~"'~~~-""" ."._--,. ~"..._----... _""''''_'''''_'''__''''''UO,''_.._
November 2, 2006
the two different site visits.
So he was able to go out and validate the habitat on those
parcels that he had permission to go on. They basically verified the
consultant's mapping to the degree that that was a groundtruthing
with selected parcels that we got permission on, that's essentially
what we were able to accomplish this past summer.
Also I would like to note that, although it's not in this particular
report, it was reported to the board at the transmittal hearing that
staff, including Mac, had gone out to the Conservation Collier site,
which is located up in the northwest section, portion of Section 25 --
24. And at that time did observe one RCW and heard several others.
That was not a full-blown nesting survey, but he did observe a bird
and heard others. So at least as of March of this past year we do
know that RCW s are out in Section 24.
But the primary purpose of this analysis is to look at habitat,
RCW habitat, and that was the basis for our review and our
recommendations. We have already talked about the number of
parcels. What we've outlined here in yellow are those parcels that
Mac did get permission. And you can see along here he did get, even
got some permission on some of these smaller family parcels. He did
get permission on this parcel here, of course, which is in a nursery,
and the other parcels are outlined there that you see on the slide.
Before I shift here there are two things I want to draw your
attention to, and it's a matter of where we -- the buildings that you
see that are outlined in red, those buildings come from the property
appraiser's database, but that was only current for 2003. The aerial
that you are looking at is a 2006 aerial flown the beginning of the
year, January, February time frame.
Sometimes, although it's hard to pick out here, you can see some
additional clearing that has gone on, perhaps representing some
additional buildings or home sites coming into this particular area.
So I just want to make sure that you are comparing -- you're
Page 167
--~---"-'"'- .,-..-"..,-. ,_,.".'<Offi 4. .,".-"-'-'
November 2, 2006
comparing the red buildings of 2003 to the aerial of 2006. So just
keep that in mind if you want to draw any conclusions, especially
down here, Mac, I guess, you can see some additional clearing that
has gone on down in this southern portion, although you are only
seeing some red buildings because they are three years earlier than
that.
But certainly you can see from the aerial the large amount of
fragmentation that has occurred on the southwest -- excuse me,
southeast, eastern and southeast corner because of the single family
home lots. Up into the northeast corner is nursery. In the southwest
corner, this is Hideout Golf Course, which is developed. And then
going up to the western boundary are single family types of
subdivided lots. And let me just move down here a little bit because
you can't see the bottom.
Also down here you can see that this particular corner here is
intact habitat.
Now, let me shift to another figure so we can clean it up a little
bit and not look at the aerial. Here we go. The red buildings again,
2003 property appraiser's data, dates, that was the latest that we had
for that.
And you can also see here the subdivision or the subdivided
lots. These are actually property boundaries that you see in here,
over in here as well. These are the property parcel boundaries. And
in here these are parcel boundaries as well. That's a little bit tougher
to see on the wall.
The green shading is RCW foraging habitat that has been
mapped. The lighter blue -- excuse me, I'm sorry, the lighter green is
actually cavity habitat. This color here is foraging habitat. And
these are -- this is within the proposed sending lands. We are
proposing that the sending lands be within this area here that's
outlined by the red bolded area and also down in here, the southwest
corner. But we're showing, we're showing that RCW habitat within
Page 168
.._~- "".__.,--" "..,_.....~ _.~."._><
November 2, 2006
the sending lands there is that darker green.
We've also shown in this particular display the habitat that is
within what we're proposing to remain as neutral lands as this grayer
shading here. So you can see that there is still some RCW habitat
within the proposed neutral areas, within the southeastern and the
eastern boundary of all of these subdivided lots and also in the
western boundary in these subdivided lots.
N ow one thing to note is that there is a lot more fragmentation
of subdivided properties in the south and eastern, eastern and
southeastern portion of the section. Certainly you can see with the
2003 aerial, 2003 database a lot more buildings that have occurred in
this area. And if you compare that to your aerial you'll see even
some additional development, single family home development in
those areas as well. Less so along the western side, but still what we
would consider having a potential for single family development on
the western side.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Iflmay?
MR. LORENZ: Certainly.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm fascinated. Those are -- the
red little parcels there, those are homes you've indicated?
MR. LORENZ: Those are actually building footprints.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Footprints, not necessarily
improved.
MR. LORENZ: Building footprints. They could be homes or a
barn or something else.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: But I'm fascinated because it
appears that the red -cockaded woodpeckers finds a certain comfort
remaining in that area where there is a human habitation. Is that
common? Is that a condition that's normal?
MR. LORENZ: I would be cautious a little bit in terms of,
again, comparing or identifying actual observation of birds and
potential habitat. We did not do an actual count of birds or a nesting
Page 169
------""'..._..__...---,_...__.~_..._._.."> ,. ""-'.'"",,.- ..._ .'w,.... _-..-._""
November 2,2006
survey, although we did, as we were out in March we did see one
bird and hear others.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't hear you use the word
potential when you described those little green areas over there.
MR. LORENZ: Yes. This is -- I'm calling it potential habitat
because it would be occupied habitat if we could actually verify
where an actual nest or cavity trees are. So I'm making that
distinction appropriately. I have to make sure my staff keeps me
straight here on the actual terms.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: The staff report indicates a
rural fringe sending land on the bottom of that slide. Is that because
you don't have enough space?
MR. LORENZ: Yes, that's correct. The rural fringe is the
bottom of -- the southern portion of Section 24, all of this land is in
sending lands.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you.
MR. LORENZ: If you want me to go back to the other, the
larger view I can. I can flip back to that one if you want to see the
rest of it.
MR. WEEKS: Let's make sure we're clear. All of Section 24 is
presently designated neutral. As Bill already pointed out, to the
north, east and west is Golden Gate Estates. But the entire section to
the south of Section 24 is designated sending presently.
MR. LORENZ: Yes, all of this area here is in sending,
currently designated as sending.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have Golden Gate Estates to the
north, east and the west. You have got subdivisions in this Section
24 that are similar to Golden Gate Estates, the smaller lots
unfortunately. How did they get that way if they are not zoned the
Estates? So is Section 24 zoned Estates?
MR. WEEKS: No, Section 24 is zoned A, rural agricultural.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How did you get 1.2 acre parcels
Page 170
~-_.----.'"_."- _.","n,_e" '_.__"'T"'" .,_.. ~. '_""_.'__M'~."'~,"_"~"____~_
November 2, 2006
divided up in ag?
MR. WEEKS: Those are legal nonconforming lots.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They were never part of Golden Gate
Estates?
MR. WEEKS: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So somehow they got approved in the
past? Under what -- just out of curiosity, how did they ever --
MR. WEEKS: The requirement for 5 -acre parcel sizes for
agriculturally zoned land came about in 1974.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So these happened prior to that?
MR. WEEKS: Prior to that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wow. Okay, thank you.
MR. LORENZ: Those figures show at least the county
information that we utilized to make our recommendation, just to
clean it up even further to make very clear what our recommendation
IS.
As noted before, the proposed -- currently, as David has said,
the whole section is current designated as neutral with that 70 percent
vegetation retention standard that's different from other neutral lands.
When we came to you for transmittal and the information from
simply the study, when we were looking at that study versus the rest
of the sending lands, you recommended that this whole section be
sending. And that's what the board transmitted with the proviso that
staff go back and try to get some permission from property owners.
When we got the permission from the property owners and Mac
went out and did his site visits, we came back and just took a whole
nother look at the -- at the section in terms of, his, kind of, boots
were on the ground and driving through the subdivision and the
areas, just led us to believe the degree of fragmentation that currently
exists in Section 25. The other areas that really have already been
cleared, the nursery or the golf course, and there is no point in
identifying those as sending lands.
Page 171
---~' ."---- . _'U_H~"_'"",,' ._-~,. -_._.__..-"--"~.__..,-
November 2, 2006
The only argument you could make is if you ever took those
sending lands and restored them, you could get up to four TDRs. But
currently their potential, their existing potential habitat just isn't
there.
So we just re-evaluated what our original recommendation was
and what you are seeing here now is the proposed, is staffs
recommendation whereby we are saying that 350 acres of Section 25
be proposed as sending. And as earlier noted, that the majority of
that area is in RCW cavity habitat.
What you see on this slide here, and I'll just come down a little
bit, is also there is this one little section, portion in here that is still
intact habitat so we're recommending that as sending, and it does
abut sending to the south of the section.
The rest of the section, staff is recommending then would be --
remain as neutral designation. And we're also recommending, staff is
recommending that within that neutral designation that it have the
same vegetation retention standards as other neutral designations in
the rural fringe mixed use district. So we would back down from the
70 percent to the 60 percent.
MR. WEEKS: Let me interject here. Commissioners, back to
your staff report. We started on Page 9, the reference to the future
land use development, there is an error which I made. It starts on the
bottom of Page 7 and carries over to Page 8. Point Bill just made,
the last point, was that staff was recommending that the native
vegetation retention standards be the same as for other sending and
neutral lands. The sending lands would be 80 percent, for neutral
lands 60 percent. That is not what your staff report says. Your staff
report says 70 percent for each. And that was an error. It was a
misunderstanding on my part.
So again, staffs recommendation would be that the vegetation
retention standards be the same as for any other neutral and sending
lands properties.
Page 1 72
---".-'~'-'~"'-~-"-' . -_._~"'-~ ~".~,,"- '.-,0- ..__,.._"..m ...._,_."~~-_._-
November 2, 2006
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha.
MR. WEEKS: The simple of it is, for your staff report, both of
those paragraphs Band C, bottom of Page 7 carrying over to Page 8,
just strike, eliminate all of that highlighting. There simply is no
change.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Bill, are you ready for
questions?
MR. LORENZ: Just two other points. One is just in terms of
looking at the habitat percentages within the sending land
designations, now you can see that whereas before the whole section
is about 62 or 65 percent RCW habitat, now our proposed sending
lands are comprised -- 99 percent are RCW habitat. As you can see
visually from the slide, it's mostly cavity habitat. The neutral lands,
proposed neutral lands that the staff is proposing does have some
RCW habitat on them. They are made up now of about 14 percent
RCW habitat. So we think that that's a good compromise, more
efficiently trying to match the designations with the amount of
habitat that we find in the designation.
Let me just note to you that the environmental advisory council
met yesterday. They considered this proposal and they have
recommendations that vary from staffs recommendation. So I'll
point out -- one is spatially and one deals with the vegetation
retention requirement. The EAC recommended that this area here
that I'm outlining with the cursor and this area here that's outlined
there that has the habitat map on those areas, they recommended that
those be sending lands as well.
So again, I'll just point it out right, this area here and this area
here.
Secondly they recommended that the neutral lands designation
keep its existing vegetation retention requirement of 70 percent.
That will make it different from the rest of the neutral lands within
the rural fringe mixed use district. Their rationale was, since it does
Page 173
,,---"'.""-'-'. ,-"",_..,-"~,-~..,- -_..,.~_.,.,--
November 2, 2006
have RCW habitat in those areas and that this is important for RCW,
that they saw that that be retained as 70 percent.
So those are the two recommendations the EAC has made that
vary from staffs recommendations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Weeks.
MR. WEEKS: Two more points. One is that this entire section
being designated neutral today is within the county water and sewer
service district, which means eventually the county would serve that
area. If all or some portion of Section 24 changes to sending lands,
then those sending lands would no longer be eligible for water and
sewer, they would be removed from the service area.
And the other thing is, just to let you know, we do have a couple
of speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Questions of Mr. Lorenz?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Maybe. What is that, a square
mile, isn't it, that area? Section 24 is a square mile?
MR. WEEKS: Little over. A typical section is 640 acres. I
believe this is 655.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Okay. And you want, what, 70
percent, you said you want to save? Was it 70?
MR. WEEKS: 70 percent is the native vegetation retention
standard on the neutral.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought I heard 350 acres that
you wanted to --
MR. LORENZ: Yes, 53 percent of the whole section.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Fifty-three, okay. Because that
was running around in my head, that 70 percent couldn't be correct.
What was the basis -- did they elaborate, the EAC, on the basis
for wanting to include those other parcels?
MR. LORENZ: These?
Page 174
"__"~"__"""""___""_'__~'*___""_'_""_~.'___~~'_k"~ ,._.~',_____ .' .-._.-._".~ .,."'"",,"n_"_'''''''.''''''_o. - ~,.....,--~._---
November 2, 2006
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yes, those two.
MR. LORENZ: They do have cavity habitat that's mapped in
those areas, and that the current pattern of -- currently there is not a
large amount of development through single home sites on those
areas presently.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, okay. I guess I'm a little
curious why would you then not have included it?
MR. LORENZ: The -- and I probably won't be able to do the
numbers for you in my head.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's okay. I couldn't do them
either.
MR. LORENZ: In the sending lands there are some, I'm going
to call them, guaranteed minimum clearing standards, that almost
works out, Mac, to almost an acre -- little more than half an acre,
which would kick in if you have a single family home.
So even with the sending lands designation of single family
home for some of these lots up here, smaller sized lots, they are
going to be allowed to clear for their homes. So you are already
going to encroach into the habitat for these homes as a result of that
minimum guarantee -- that guaranteed clearing standard.
So now you are talking about having these areas still develop
with some minimum clearing that, once they would all develop out,
the fragmentation for that habitat is going to be significant enough
for staff to say, we don't think that the sending lands should be
applied to the smaller subdivided lots. That's the staffs rationale.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: All right. That being the case,
you said there were habitat trees there, there were places?
MR. LORENZ: This was mapped out as potential cavity
habitat.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think you are saying to me
and this is what I need, because there is a compromise here that we
have homes potentially being built and they have the right to clear,
Page 175
,.___-"'.-'O-'M-..-.-.-..---____._..___.__.'_.__.__.. 'M .-'>'''..........--,- --..., "-.''''--
November 2, 2006
but is there a restriction still that if there is a tree that is possible to be
habituated, that they are not supposed to cut that tree down?
MR. LORENZ: That's correct. There are U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service guidelines and standards that it would be considered
a take --
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Okay.
MR. LORENZ: -- of the bird if you cut them, the cavity tree
down. Also there are some standards, and the details I would
probably have Mac discuss them with you, in terms of how close you
can build a house to an active cavity tree and what's -- there are some
additional land use types of restrictions that would also be placed in
terms of what activities can occur near those cavity trees. To our
knowledge we know of no active cavity tree in those particular
subdivided lots.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I could have sworn you
said something before. Okay, that's what precipitated my question. I
could have sworn that you indicated you found -- never mind.
MR. LORENZ: Well--
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I thought you said that.
MR. LORENZ: -- we found, we observed a bird and we heard
others but we did not observe an actual cavity tree or nesting tree.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My mistake then. I misheard
you. But the impact, if it were to remain neutral in any event there is
still -- those restrictions still apply if they were a cavity tree?
MR. LORENZ: That's correct. The cavity tree would be
protected through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: So we basically have, we have
effectively protected the animal as long as there is some evidence
that the animal had been, would be -- if they were the trees.
MR. LORENZ: The way I would characterize that would be is
that in the sending land designations, in that large area that is in the
center that we've identified as the largest contiguous area for RCW
Page 176
-".,--"-,"",'-",...^~~_._-"'''-~''"-'- ...--.,.'".,'..... I" .. 'T ,.......';.'"...".~..,","-
November 2, 2006
cavity habitat, that we will have really reduced the fragmentation of
that particular section to provide the greatest amount of habitat in one
location. And I think that, that would be the way I would
characterize the protection strategy for Section 25 -- also -- Section
24.
Also because they are -- because those are sending lands
through the TDR program, those areas can acquire TDRs through
restoration and management programs such that that area can also,
through the TDR program, that habitat can be improved and restored.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of Bill?
Bill, the impact on this change is -- I want to understand it
because I think we sort of understand the impact to property owners
and making sure they are covered by some method of the TDR
process. Did I hear you say originally this was a receiving area?
MR. LORENZ: When we were going through the rural fringe
advisory committee and we began looking at various maps and
having different staff proposals, at one particular point this was an
area that was targeted as a potential receiving area, based upon some
information that we had. It was never -- it was not -- it was not a
board-supported receiving area, I don't believe. I think it was just
part of the process that we were going through.
So -- but yes, it was -- it was possibly considered as a receiving
area then when we looked at it, we had more RCW habitat on it than
originally thought. And so when it actually came to the public
hearing process to the board, the compromise was neutral with the
further study.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a long answer but the answer is
yes, right? It was one time, you guys were looking at it as a
receiving area. It was never adopted as a receiving area?
MR. LORENZ: No. We were looking at it as a receiving area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. That's all I'm trying to get at.
Page 177
'~_""_",,"<.'_"'~'_"'__"__~.""''''''''___'__''_9_'''._''..-_ "'___.'~____ ,...'-'-.No"',.'-..__..."......w.'.~.~.. .._.""."..,..._..._".wn.~_...__,_.__,,_..,.,,__
November 2, 2006
Neutral area. Then at some point it became a neutral area or did it
not become a neutral area? How did that happen? It wasn't a neutral
area at one time?
MR. LORENZ: Well, it's a neutral area now. The board
adopted it as -- the board adopted it as a neutral area.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the building ability--
MR. LORENZ: The proposal was for sending.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a neutral area now. The prop'osal is
to go to a sending area. When it was possibly a receiving area it had
the potential of being developed at whatever the maximum
development rate is in receiving areas, two units per acre. When it
went to a neutral area the development maximum potential density
was what?
MR. LORENZ: One for five.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One for five. And now as a sending
area the maximum development potential would be --
MR. WEEKS: Be one per 40.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In 1999 when the Governor's order
came down, before the rural fringe got put into place, what was the
development potential of the property at the time if someone
purchased it?
MR. WEEKS: At the time the final order was in effect it was
one dwelling unit per -- partial dwelling in regards to that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you had a parcel of land that was
50 acres you could only build one dwelling unit for that 50 acres.
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What happened to the idea that there
was always a minimum base density of one to 5 acres? I thought the
agricultural area could have a one per 5 acres.
MR. WEEKS: Prior to the final order, that's correct. The rural
agricultural designation allowed one dwelling per 5 acres.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was asking, prior to the
Page 178
""""""'-~'>"'-~-~-'~'-"-"-""'"---"""-_. "-"'".,..."..,-""",.....".-.",",""...," . ",'._.,.'''_''__n.''______,.,._,____
November 2, 2006
Governor's order in 1999 what was the density allowed on that
property?
MR. WEEKS: I misunderstood. Prior to final order it was one
per five.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it was one per five. At one
point staff thought it might be receiving, which would have increased
it. Then it went back to neutral today, which is one per five. And
now we're looking at making it go to sending at one to 40.
If the property owners in there were to benefit from the TDR
processes based on density, what density would they be able to
benefit from through the transfer of TDRs?
MR. WEEKS: It would depend on how many bonus credits
they qualify for.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's talk about the base.
MR. WEEKS: The base is one for five.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so --
MR. WEEKS: Or -- excuse me, or in the cases of legally
non-conforming parcels, it's one unit per parcel of land.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If someone bought this property prior
to the Governor's order, the best they could get is one per five. And
right now the best they could get in a neutral area is one per five.
And if you were to convert it to a sending area they could build at
one per four, but they could back into the TDR process at one per
five.
MR. WEEKS: Or greater--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or greater. But I'm talking base. I'm
trying to equate the value to the property owner versus what they
may have purchased when they originally bought the land many,
many years ago. Okay. Well, that explains that. That was the only
issue I think I had to clarify, thank you.
Any other questions of Bill?
Mr. Midney.
Page 179
~",--,",",,,,,,,",,,,.,,,,,,,,~",,",,",-~._..,--~-_._~'~'-,,.." _._~,. . ~ - ......"..",,-,
November 2, 2006
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm just interested to know how
many TDRs have been exchanged so far in the rural fringe?
MR. WEEKS: I don't know. We have that. I could get it for
you quickly.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Do you have a rough guess?
MR. WEEKS: No, I just don't know. It's on our website and it's
readily available. I just don't know.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Would you say that the program
is working, from what you can observe?
MR. WEEKS: Yes. Once the bonus credits were adopted by
the board last year we've seen a lot of activity, a lot.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How much sending area was created
by the original TDR program, rural fringe program, do you know?
MR. WEEKS: I'm thinking somewhere in the neighborhood of
20 something thousand acres, that's just a rough guesstimate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how many acres would be in this
sending area?
MR. WEEKS: 350.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if the rural fringe created 20,000
acres.
MR. WEEKS: Rough guess.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Real rough guess of 20,000 acres, and
we're looking at adding 350. Does that include the Collier
preservation land?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, it does.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is 65 acres?
MR. WEEKS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So actually, less than 300 acres is what
we're looking at adding to the 20,000 that already exists.
MR. WEEKS: As far as TDR eligibility, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of Bill?
Page 180
<___U'-""'_~'. ."--"...","","."'.,...."~----~.~ ..,---~
November 2, 2006
Okay, do we -- that's it? If there are no other speakers from staff we'll
go into public speakers.
MR. WEEKS: First up is Mr. John Cowan, and your second
and final speaker is Nancy Payton because Brad Cornell has left.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Sir, you'll have to make sure
you use the speaker when you speak.
MR. COW AN: I am not speaking yet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no, I know. But you are standing
away from it. So many people have done that today that our court
reporter gets frustrated so fast I want to make sure.
MR. COW AN: They haven't been discussing Section 24 for the
seven years that I have, so. Are we ready to go?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
MR. COW AN: My name is John Cowan, C-O-W-A-N. I'm a
Licensed Real Estate Broker, live in Naples, participated in the real
estate business here for 42 years.
And one of my primary activities has been acquisition of land
for investment purposes, holding it for appreciation and paying taxes
which are deductible.
Along in those 42 years I became interested in Section 24
because I foresaw a big potential to build an enclave of single family
homes that were deep, deep, deep in the woods, and that would be
very valuable as in when the bridge, the inevitable bridge got built on
the eastern end of Golden Gate Parkway to the western end of
Brandon Boulevard. That bridge has been in the works for, I don't
know, 15 years. It will eventually come because you now have 217
families in Section 24 alone and twice that many in the outlying area.
You'll get a bridge. It will be demanded.
I liked the central section of Section 24 because it was deeply
wooded, very high and dry ground, and it was all slash pines which is
beautiful, beautiful land. Which, with the bridge would be ten
minutes from Coastland Center. You just wouldn't find anything like
Page 181
._-~---".~",- .'.. . '.'.._','.' '_''''~~''_'_'''"H'"_'' "-"-'--"_."-,,-,~_..._-,,",,~----,~~-,"--_._---
November 2, 2006
that. It would become very, very valuable. I bought it, accumulating
102 acres over a period of four or five years, which I have held,
almost all of it, for at least nine to 11 years.
Take away the conservation land, west swamp, the east swamp,
and I own all of the woodpeckers habitat except for a minor two
tracts at the north end up against the canal. Mr. Tisaud's and Mr.
Bowden's property, they are piggybacking on my enclave, my
ambition. I never spent a penny out there that wasn't on five-acre,
sold. Clear expectation in the purchase of the 102 acres was that I
would be committed to build 20 home sites. And you can all easily
understand that 5 acres around my home is going to get me plenty of
privacy. I will be living deep in the forest ten minutes from
Coastland Center.
What happened in 2002. It's been explained but these people
have to dance around a little bit because two days before it went to
the board it was changed from receiving to sending. And I became
very exercised and hired lawyers and so on and so forth.
Let me make one thing perfectly clear. I understand as much as
anybody in this room does about red-cockaded woodpeckers, and I
like them. And I'm the first person to say that my densely wooded
high, dry highly mature slash pine forest is an absolute paradise for a
red-cockaded woodpeckers. He would just drool to get at those trees
that I own.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you an environmentalist? Mr.
Cowan, you seem to be making an argument for preservation, is that
where you are headed? I'm just curious.
MR. COW AN: I'm facing facts, as you are required to do
yourselves. The undercanopy is strewn with mattresses, bed springs,
washing machines, dishwashers, refrigerators, batteries from
automobiles, pieces of pickup trucks. It's hard to get your A TV
around. The entire area is crisscrossed by ATV trails. And as I
observed the rain has stopped, I know there is at least five to 15
Page 182
-,----_."_._.._...,.,,,._...._--_.._--..~-".._. .--.,.-.-.--..-. ,-... -.,.....-.".....-..-... --~,...,_..,---~.,----
November 2,2006
A TV s buzzing around on my trails as we speak here. It would drive
a red-cockaded woodpecker nuts, the din, the noise out there, not to
mention the stench from the highly decayed box springs and
mattresses.
The undercanopy is no good. The linkage is no good.
Red-cockaded woodpeckers like to live in lands that are linked to
other suitable lands. This is a very highly commercial area. You
have a golf course on one side, two major, major flower nurseries up
in the northwest and northeast corner, and all this development along
Della Drive. Not to mention the A TV s from the 217 families that
live in Section 24 plus all of the friends that they can bring from all
over Lee and Collier County to go and run their noisy machines on
my property.
There have been six separate surveys, I brought three of them
with me, Passarella, Law Engineering and Biomes. They have
crisscrossed the A TV s, climbing over the mattresses on this property.
Six survey teams have gone out there to look and see if there is any
cavity, abandoned or not, any nest, any egg, any red-cockaded
woodpeckers that are alive. Not one, not one, not on my land, ever,
these six say are there. I don't see how they all got around. I've been
out there over 20 times myself. I've never seen one, or a cavity, no
nest. Ideal location as far as the trees themselves are concerned. No
question about that.
I bought the land with expectations I would put 20 homesteads
on that land. It was assured to me that was the zoning and it would
stay the zoning forever. There have been four reiterations. First, we
went from receiving to sending and back to neutral. And then the
current redesignation. I'm the only guy that is going to really be hurt
by this whole thing. A minor scrap from Tisaud and Bowden, who
are piggybacking on my enclave.
Obviously when you reduce the density you are going to reduce
the value of the land. My land, which is currently neutral land is
Page 183
~-_..."_.~.,.~._-~---- ---"_."~. ""~"'<>'-"""""'-'~'''''''~
November 2, 2006
worth $40,000 an acre. It's going to be reduced, probably in January,
to $25,000 an acre and I'll lose one and a half million dollars. Just a
flat total blank haircut, that's it, that's all you can look at it as.
How many trees will be saved? We've worked out, and David
and Bill told you about this, it was worked out as a compromise that I
would agree through my lawyers, Pickworth, in writing, and we did
this and it's still in an extant agreement, 90 percent of the trees would
be retained. It's my aim and ambition. The only thing that makes it
valuable is the trees. I want the trees to stay there. 90 percent of the
trees, not the 70 percent not the 60 percent. 90 percent of the trees in
writing were to be retained and are to be retained.
The difference between six homesteads, which is the current, the
designation after you make it sending and the current neutral, 20
homesteads is about 10 percent of that is 50 trees. You are talking
about saving for the woodpeckers 50 trees. And I would like to do
that but I can't and realize this one and a half million dollars in value
with my property.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Cowan, you want to get to a point
where you are wrapping it up, because we usually allow five
minutes. I've allowed you ten. So you can go a little bit longer, but
try to get to your conclusion.
MR. COW AN: I'm wrapping up. Thanks for the warning.
Where would you get those, actually when you net out the six
minus -- the 20 homesteads minus six, you are only talking 35 trees,
which could easily be taken from the land on that west corridor, there
were about 300 trees that the woodpeckers lost yesterday on the
redesignation. Why don't you get those 35 trees from that or
alternatively take them from the 93,000, 93,000 acres in the North
Belle Meade Overlay.
That just doesn't make sense that you would penalize me one
and a half million dollars to save those 35 trees when they can so
easily be gotten elsewhere.
Page 184
.,~~.___.""A"""_"'_ ......,.."........ _"~;iI "" -,__.. ';'_H"'~' "-_._..
November 2, 2006
The big point, and this is the point of contention that was
brought out yesterday by the people who voted against this
redesignation, is that while all people are created equal, unfortunately
all TDRs are not created equal. My land is worth $40,000 an acre as
it sits today. It's going down, obviously. Dr. Hussey's land in the
southeast corner of Belle Meade is worth about $500 an acre.
$40,000 mine versus $500 his. But we both get the same TDR.
That's not very good for me, you know. You say the law requires
that I be compensated. Fine, I've given up a $5,000 Armani suit and
you are handing me a pair of shoelaces. That's not too good for me.
I'm not very happy about it.
I think that I'm being discriminated against. There are only two
really important phrases that turn Collier County lawyers on, one is
endangered species, and the other is discrimination. I think I'm being
discriminated against just for the sake of those 35 trees. And frankly,
I don't have any alternative to go out and fight this.
How long will the fight last? These lawyers are slobbering all
over themselves, wiping off there chins, they would love to get into
this. Will it go another four years? Quite possibly. I'm suggesting
that possibly the TDR program will die of its own weight. It's
already been used, abused, manipulated, it's dogeared, it's torn, it's
ready to jump in the dumpsters all of its own free will and volition
just out of frustration and despair. If you wait another four years it's
just going to get to the day when the whole thing collapses around its
only weight.
The day after that happens all of the third undeveloped Section
24 will be flattened. And that is going to be a very, very sad day for
the red-cockaded woodpeckers that you and I are committed to help
and I'm trying to help. Just remember. It's in your hands whether that
day arrives or not.
Thanks very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There may be some questions. Mr.
Page 185
'"---~-"'"-"-."""'^'""--"~"",^-"-,..~~.''''''''-- _M'__"__~_,_,_"_",,,,,_",,_,
November 2, 2006
Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Mr. Cowan.
MR. COWAN: Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Sir, did you receive a letter
from Collier County requesting permission to go on your land to
evaluate it?
MR. COW AN: You're absolutely correct. I did receive that
letter.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And did you respond to that
letter in the affirmative?
MR. COW AN: I did not. I put it in the file with approximately
ten or 12 other letters I receive from the county every week, and most
of which I admit and I'm sorry, Bill, I do not understand what they
are talking about, about the EAB and the EAC and the development
and the redevelopment and the resurvey. And I'm sorry, I threw it in
the wastebasket.
How many other people of the 176 people threw it in the
wastebasket? The answer, I'll tell you --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No.
MR. COWAN: -- exactly 169. There were seven responses.
I'll pay Bill the 39 cents.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Cowan, that's okay. You don't
have to worry about that.
MR. COW AN: All right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need to get on with the meeting.
Are there any other questions of Mr. Cowan?
Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Cowan, just to go back.
What you intended to do was develop this into 5-acre parcels; is that
right?
MR. COW AN: For 14 years, yes, sir, I stayed. That's the
intention.
Page 186
"---"....."...'...__..,.._~,_.,,_._,._.._~,~._--'" "'~.,..",;.,,---,--"'"-"' -".._,.,,........._._---,_.-
November 2, 2006
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And you would do it by
essentially carrying the grid street system through your property or
would you do it --
MR. COW AN: I don't need the bridge.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, I meant the grid system. I
mean, were you intending to do this much as a PUD, a private drive
and that many homes within it or was your intent to carry your road
grid that is kind of being laid out?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what he's trying to ask you, Mr.
Cowan, were you going to create your own village with your own
road system through it with 5-acre parcels of your road system or you
were going to do the straight line roads that Golden Gate's noted for,
big long, lining up in a row.
MR. COW AN: This would be winding horse trails. There is a
condominium barn in the center with horses and a few cattle, and
each of the 20 owners will participate in that. No winding trails. Not
necessarily following the ATV trails that are out there now. Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Cowan.
MR. COW AN: But they certainly laid the groundwork.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. David, our next speaker is,
did you say Ms. Payton?
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
MS. PAYTON: Nancy Payton representing the Florida Wildlife
Federation. We're here to support the redesignation of Section 24 to
sending. We support the recommendation by the EAC to also
include the parcels on the western section because it's known to be
next to occupied habitat. It may be occupied habitat, we don't know
for sure. But it is red-cockaded woodpecker habitat and it is next to
conservation land. So we supported those parcels on the left side, the
west side be designated sending.
And we also supported the 70 percent designation because of
the observation of the red-cockaded woodpecker and hearing
Page 187
_ >',_______,.,_,,_..._~._.,.".~,,_~,.._,.,_'O'..,._~~'"_..,~__,_.~ '~...,..'..~--"'-'''"""''-...,.,., ._.~_M'__.~_~
November 2, 2006
red-cockaded woodpeckers. And also from conversations we have
had from Geza Wass de Czege, who did the county study, Southern
Biomes, and who also did some of the studies for Mr. Cowan.
I want to remind and stress a point that Bill said, that this is a
habitat driven study and the comprehensive plan, the North Belle
Meade Overlay, says that red-cockaded woodpecker nesting and
foraging habitat shall be mapped and protected from land use
activities.
I have been involved in the planning for North Belle Meade for
many years. It never was designated receiving. There was
discussions about its appropriateness as a receiving area, but based
on the science and the information that was received, it was
designated sending. And you can see from the documentation that
staff attached to your back page, last page, that Section 24 has very
high environmental values.
Back in 2002, it was transmitted as sending land. There was
enough data and analysis at that time to support that designation as
sending. There was quite a bit of discussion about that being
transmitted as sending, primarily by Mr. Cowan's attorney, at that
time, Mr. Pickworth.
At the adoption hearing the county commissioners placed it as
neutral with 70 percent, and instructed a study to be done to reaffirm
or check that the designation was correct. That's what resulted in the
Southern Biomes study the county had done, and then some
additional work that the county staff has done at the county
commission's suggestion or request.
I have a variety of different points I wanted to bring out.
Also this is the area where a panther recently was documented
preying on a goat. That farmer has been educated about how to
properly restrain his livestock and protect his livestock. But that
does help bolster this sending land designation because there has
been at least one panther documented in the area.
Page 188
____~~"~_...~._____'.4__'_ 'w_."'.___....._.._,.'''.''..''"'
November 2, 2006
Back in 2002 landowners were aware, including Mr. Cowan,
that this neutral designation was possibly temporary. And Mr.
Cowan had five years to build those homes under the neutral
designation and he hasn't moved yet. So there was an opportunity to
live out his dream in the past five years and possibly he had another
year until this gets resolved. But there was an opportunity for him to
do that and there has been.
The majority of the land that you see up there that is proposed to
go to sending designation is either owned by Mr. Cowan or by
Hideout Golf Course. So there isn't this issue of folks didn't get
notification or didn't know about it because the Hideout Golf Course,
their attorney Rich Y ovanovich, and their consultant Andy
Woodruff, has been monitoring this and involved in this. So there
isn't the issue of people not knowing.
And those that are in the small parcels, they are not being
included in the redesignation to sending. The only ones in question
would be on the western side.
But then again, this is an issue that has had high profile over
four years, a lot of coverage in the newspaper, a lot of discussion.
Also they received a letter from the county wanting to go on their
property to look for RCW s, and if it was a concern to them, I think it
would have raised a red flag and they would have called the name
and the number that was on that letter to find out more, if it was
something that was of interest or concern to them.
And I do think there is some responsibility on a landowner,
particularly when you buy in an area that has high environmental
values. I think I have -- oh, regarding sending lands. The TDR
program is a way to restore, to bring back habitat, get those
mattresses and batteries and other items that are on Mr. Cowan's land
out of there and also to provide a way to compensate him for limited
use of his property in terms of building houses.
My understanding is that the TDR program is doing very well,
Page 189
----~..~~_..-_.._.. ~,."-_..""..- H._'__'..___....,._...'.w,,"..~^~ .... _m"._
November 2, 2006
that there are significant chunks of land coming forward. If they
haven't already come forward, I heard they were on their way. So it
is a program that is doing well, particularly with the incentive TDRs.
Lastly, about the water and sewer in the neutral lands. Again,
these people in Section 24 neutral knew that this neutral designation
may be a temporary designation. So to make plans on a temporary
designation would be inappropriate.
And in summary, we support the refinement of the lines in
Section 24 for sending. We do support the EAC recommendation for
the western parcels and for 70 percent vegetation retention because it
is known to be RCW habitat.
And I think I got all of my points, and thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any questions?
Mr. Midney, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm not sure if this is for Nancy
Payton or maybe for staff --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before Ms. Payton steps out, I want to
find out -- Mr. Schiffer, did you have a specific question?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nancy, yes. Nancy, what
problem would the woodpecker have with living with Mr. Cowan's
dream? Somehow I look at that and I think that that might put
private people who would be maybe better stewards than certainly
what is happening now?
MS. PAYTON: No. Because I point to northern Golden Gate
Estates where there is fragmentation of habitat and the very issues
with the other parcels that are being excluded because they tend to
want to remove trees to clear for their horses, or for some other type
of activity, a little bit of nursery activity. It's very hard to control
maintaining and managing habitat on 5-acre parcels. It's too
fragmented. It's too difficult.
I never knew about that proposal until now and he could have
implemented it in the past five years.
Page 190
-~."--~,~,_...._,.,".~--~---_.,-~ ,..,--,._-,.-,. '"C,........,___"'_''''..,'
November 2, 2006
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But what ifhe clustered his--
which is why the cluster project exists -- if he clustered his buildings
a little tighter. He's made a promise of 90 percent open space.
MS. PAYTON: I'm not going to act on a promise. There is
nothing written. Weare dealing with comprehensive plan
amendments. I'm not comfortable with that. I am not even sure you
can cluster in a neutral area. Maybe we can get a clarification of
that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The bottom line is that humans
and red-cockaded woodpeckers can't live together?
MS. PAYTON: They can under certain circumstances. But I
don't think 5-acre parcels is going to do it. And that's one of the
reasons why all those little parcels have been carved out because of
the fragmentation of the habitat.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, did you think your
question is for Ms. Payton or for staff?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Ms. Payton.
Mr. Midney.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I was just wondering if the
population of woodpeckers would really be viable if, first of all, Mr.
Cowan's point that the land was sort of isolated from other cockaded
woodpecker populations and all the off-road vehicles on there.
MR. HATCHER: Mac Hatcher with Environmental Services.
The guidelines for red-cockaded woodpecker habitat is a minimum of
75 acres. And typically in South Florida it's probably more like 150
to 200 acres. So 350 acres is probably adequate to support a colony.
There is connection with potential habitat to the south, and they don't
have a problem moving across small areas that are open. So we think
there is potential.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And the off-road vehicles, if it's
Page 191
- -~">_.~".,,,. "._"_.."..--,.._--_.-._-._,,,.;,,~._-._-,_....._-~.._- ""'-'''.-'',,'.'''' I_'N_~'_"'''".
November 2, 2006
totally infested with those can they make it?
MR. HATCHER: Well, that would depend upon the extent.
The off-road vehicles used currently is not removing trees. And as
long as they are not damaging the trees I don't see riding A TV s as a
problem. It's, you know, hunting and damaging the trees that would
be a problem.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And my next question is, we
heard figures of the land being worth $40,000 an acre. Now if Mr.
Cowan got the maximum four TDRs for each parcel, what would the
land be worth, how much are the TDRs worth now?
MR. WEEKS: We can't answer that. It's a case-by-case basis.
The only specific price established by the county commission was a
minimum $25,000 per credit. It's strictly a buyer-seller transaction
and it varies.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And we don't know?
MR. WEEKS: No. Again, we have information in the office
but I do know this much from a conversation with other staff, each
submittal is different. You have one TDR credit selling for one value
over here and for a very different value at another location.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Would you be the expert on
the woodpecker in the room?
Let me ask you the same question I asked Nancy. Do you think
there is any way a project environmentally sensitive could be
designed where people and the woodpecker could live in harmony,
maybe enhance each other?
MR. HA TCHER: I know that there are developments that are
smaller than 5 acres that are in RCW habitat that is occupied in other
areas.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I may be wrong, and that's
the reason I asked the question on the grid versus, you know, internal
drives, because I don't think he intends to break it up into 5 acres. I
Page 192
""",,,,'---',,".'~-'''''-'''''-''-'''~'~''~--'--''~''-^''- ".~.,..,.""<."--_.,, _ h'~__
November 2, 2006
think he's trying to drive his density based on one unit per 5 acres.
So is there a way you think they could be better stewards of the
woodpecker than just letting it reign free with all terrain vehicles and
junk?
MR. HA TCHER: The possibility exists. Typically speaking,
though, most people would want to clear more trees than would be
good for the woodpeckers.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we could put restrictions.
We could even get approval per tree.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mac, before you leave, do you know
how much Collier Conservation paid for that 65 acres, per acre?
MR. HATCHER: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bill, do you know? I mean, I'm trying
to understand the value of the acreage out there, number one.
MR. LORENZ: Not offhand. But I could check with Alex,
she's right next door.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to be meeting again in two
weeks so we can find out by that time.
The ATVs, I know it's hard for me to live with ATVs in Golden
Gate Estates. The Sheriffs department has become very close to me
out there. I don't know how a woodpecker would survive with
A TV s. That noise, that constant drone of those engines revving up
and jumping over dirt mounds and running over dead trees, is that
conducive to red-cockaded woodpeckers?
MR. HA TCHER: I don't have enough experience to really
comment on that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the other thing I wanted to
point out, that the areas that you're exempting from this sending area,
which are the areas that have been developed, according to the
documents submitted by staff is 1.2-acre parcels. That's a different
animal than a 5-acres parcel. Am I correct in that, they are 1.2 acres
Page 193
" ....~~,,- "''''''_''m~'w' "----"-~--<>._..,"_.-
November 2, 2006
according to the staff report?
MR. HA TCHER: The analysis that I did was on 1.2-acre and
smaller. Actually, most of the lots are .5 acres. There are a few lots
that are slightly over 1 acre.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says there are 244 private parcels,
214 lots in Section 24 less than 1.2 acres. So the majority of those
parcels that you are exempting are little tiny slivers that were
occurred prior to '74.
MR. HA TCHER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As a possible solution I know that staff
has -- this is now a neutral area with a 70 percent designation. What
if you were to use it as a neutral area with a 90 percent designation,
then you are still limited to one per 5 acres and you are supplying
what one particular property owner actually said they would do, is
leave 90 percent preservation.
Is that a possible outcome that would be suitable? Has anybody
thought of looking at that?
MR. WEEKS: One significant difference is that the property is
designated as sending lands. We think there is a much higher
likelihood there will be zero development of the property because
you are limited to one unit for 40 acres per parcel.
It's still possible that those individual parcels of land could be
developed with a single family home. But the larger the property, I
think the less likely it is that someone would limit themselves to one
dwelling unit.
So our hope would be that those properties would not be
developed and instead they participate in the TDR program.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If they did participate in the TDR
program on the premise they are doing something for the
environment by setting this land aside. A TV s are like a disease in
this county and if you don't barbwire up the property with gates, and
people that are monitoring all the time, they're going to do no good
Page 194
~.,__.~,~.".._M.".".."_..,._,,_.....n_...,..,.._____ " " ,"'n_~,"="_" "'...,;_......",
November 2, 2006
for anybody. They will just run in there and destroy the property
again.
So how would you utilize this, how would you salvage this
property? 2Say someone wanted to get the most TDRs they could
and they would go in and restore the A TV tracks that would be run
over the following week by more ATVs, how would you prevent that
from happening? How would you protect the property? I'm just
curious how -- where the reasoning is.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Vote yes on Tuesday.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's another -- see, that's why I was
concerned about the per acre price. Because if Conservation Collier
paid what we were told was the going rate per acreage there, why
don't we -- why don't they just buyout the rest of this anyway at that
acreage rate?
MR. LORENZ: To answer your question, at least carrying the
information from Nancy who contacted Alex Sulecki, it was
$2,115,000 for 65 acres.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. I don't have any calculator.
You guys -- 2,115,000 divided by 65.
MS. PATTERSON: One hundred and twelve.
MR. LORENZ: 112,000.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David has a calculator.
MR. WEEKS: That's about 32,500 per acre.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't know what the TDR--
minimum TDR price is 25,000, and you can get four TDRs
maximum by doing restoration and everything else per homesite
parcel. So that means you get four per five acres. So you are
looking at 100,000 after you fully restored and expended the cost for
that.
So the price for the TDR is nowhere near the value of the
property paid by Conservation Collier right next door.
So I'm wondering how does that work out to be fair to the
Page 195
""""'-''''''~''''~''--'''~--''''' ,.,,--' '-'-._"'''--'''.~_._..__.._.
November 2,2006
property owner?
MR. WEEKS: I stress the point that the 25,000 is the floor. It's
strictly a negotiated process. So the value mayor may not be great
than that 25,000.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And does staffhave any evidence of
what the price of TDRs is currently going for?
MR. WEEKS: No. Like what I said earlier, it fluctuates so
greatly, that to give you even an average would be misleading.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you had any TDR sales?
MR. WEEKS: Oh, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are those sales calculated in some
format that we could get those before the next meeting two weeks
from today?
MR. WEEKS: Certainly, they're available on the website.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And would staff be able to, between
now and the next two weeks, take a look at the possibility of
retaining this as neutral with a 90 percent preservation requirement
and how that would impact possibly the red-cockaded woodpeckers?
Any ideas from the commission, thoughts, comments?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We'll make a decision at the
next meeting?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we're going to -- the next
meeting is supposed to be the final meeting for the EAR, so if we're
going to have to take a position on the entire document, we'll
probably do it a section at a time.
We've gone over most of the sections of the document. I think
there are several left to do. And this would -- if we could just finish
up this part of this discussion at that meeting, if that works for
everybody.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I just want to be clear, Mark,
with the area. You are talking 90 percent of the 350 acres or are you
talking about 90 percent of the total section?
Page 196
._--_.,~.~-"_._--,_. ',--. ~ ..".
November 2, 2006
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Currently the proposal is it's neutral
now with a 70 percent preservation requirement. Just apply 90
percent reservation requirement to the neutral lands as opposed to
converting it to sending. That's just a suggestion. I'm not saying that
is still the right way to go, because we're lacking information from
staff.
I certainly would like to know the value of the TDRs. The fact
that Conservation Collier paid as much as they did for land that is
now going to be preservation land, I have to wonder if they drove the
price up. And if they did, the other property owners in the area
should be getting an equitable price. Then maybe there is something
to be concerned with there. And I would certainly like to get a
further analysis from staff.
And I would like to get staffs understanding of the interaction
of this property and the relationship to the A TV s and everything else,
and how red-cockaded woodpeckers would survive there if it was
converted to sending and it was just left like it is. I don't think A TV s
are conducive to anything but destruction. So I'm not sure what good
it would be to have that left like it is.
MR. WEEKS: One point I would like to make, Commissioner,
is because these are privately owned lands, regardless of what
designation they have, it's up to the landowner him or herself to
control activity on that land, be it A TV or otherwise.
The only way that would change is if the maximum TDR bonus
credits were utilized, because the fourth and final credit is if you
convey the property to a governmental entity that will manage that
property. Which means you are taking it out of private ownership
and into public.
But even then, even if the county or some other entity owns it, a
public entity, it's still the same issue. The landowner would have to
be the one that restricts that activity.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What if the county did get it? Say they
Page 197
~,-,_.._---~-,", -'---'-"--'>~''''-'--'"''--'---''"'-'-'' ""~"",~",-"",-,""",,-~.,..-,,.,..,.- """ __~'"_''''' .."""._-"'-",'0.'-_"---
November 2, 2006
were deeded the property to get that bonus TDR, are you telling me
that the county is going out and wiring off and protecting all of the
sending lands that they receive?
MR. LORENZ: In Conservation Collier we do have the
railhead scrub property, which is in North Naples, and we are
developing a land management plan and a program to eliminate
illegal A TV use on that property, because that has been a problem.
So you do have to develop some security issues. And closer
into the urban area it's a lot easier to secure than further out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My question doesn't involve the urban
area. We're talking sending lands in the TDR rural fringe area. Are
you, actively as receivers of land that is sending and receiving it for
TDR credits, how are you protecting that land from destruction?
David, didn't you say you get an additional TDR bonus to
convert the land --
MR. WEEKS: That's correct. To date, to my knowledge there
have been no properties conveyed to the county through that
program.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I still go back over that,
though. In order to get the value on this property for the property
owner, he maximizes the TDRs, he gives it to the county. How is the
county protecting these lands?
MR. LORENZ: The conveyance doesn't have to be the county.
The county doesn't have accept it for conveyance -- it could be
another public agency.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You still don't understand the point of
my question. If the land is given how is it protected, period?
MR. SCHMITT: I know what you're asking. What is the county
doing to ensure that that land stays in preservation and is protected; is
that what you are asking?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I must not be making myself
clear, and I'm trying. Let me try it again. You have land that this
Page 198
------,,,...,,....._._~.,,,"~.~~.__..,,..__.~.._." -" .,-,~.,--." 1-" .._w,......'__.,'~...~,."
November 2, 2006
someone is going to cash in in the TDR bonuses.
MR. SCHMITT: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're going to get four or whatever
they can get. They take that land, they can give it to an agency as
prescribed by the bonus requirement. How is the land prevented from
having ATVs and others dump trash and run ATVs and destroy that
property. How is it prevented once it's owned by some agency and
the property owner walks away and collects his TDR bonus?
MR. SCHMITT: From a government standpoint it's still private
property or they may have put it in conservation and given it to some
other agency or they could possibly even give it to Conservation
Collier.
If it becomes county property then we, in essence, have to come
up with the management plan for it. But the only way I would ever
protect it, to answer your question, is through code enforcement or --
because I do not have separate park rangers or other type of law
enforcement officials out there to protect that land.
MR. LORENZ: We understand -- again, this is a conveyance to
the county, but the Crew lands are being managed by Fish and
Wildlife conservation officers.
MR. SCHMITT: Right.
MR. LORENZ: If the conveyance were to Picayune Strand then
those agencies would be managing the land and they have would
have their wildlife enforcement entities out there. That would be part
of the requirement of the agency who is receiving that conveyance of
land that they need to provide a land management plan that protects
the land, and that's part of the conveyance.
MR. SCHMITT: Did I answer your question?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, you have danced around
it, and I appreciate the effort but no one has told me what they are
going to do to stop ATVs from going continually on that land. You
have a guy drive by an isolated area like this, who is really out in
Page 199
---'-~-"----'-"--------"----'^--' ~~.~~"",."..~"~..-"....-_.._..,-"."._........._,-( "'...._'"M_
November 2, 2006
Picayune Strand trying to protect it. He drives in town once a month,
looks around, says, yep, there's tracks there. I don't see anybody.
I'm going to go home.
I don't see how that's effectively protecting sending lands. And
if we haven't got a plan in place, I'm wondering what good it is to
have this additional bonus and create all these protected sending
lands that aren't really protected.
MR. SCHMITT: I mean, that's an excellent point. Quite
frankly, as Bill said, our preference has been to give it to one of the
state or federal agencies because their land managers have police
authority.
If it becomes county land, unless we create an organization,
park rangers or other type of activities like I used to have in the
federal government when I managed land under the Corps, and we
don't have that except for parks and rec., it becomes either the
Sheriffs office or code enforcement.
We do not have anybody else with enforcement-type powers to
do what you are looking for. That would have to be something
probably that would have to go forward as a separate request for
some type of organization to do land management and law
enforcement in these areas, somebody from Fish and Wildlife.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I can say that the Crew lands are
being protected, there are no A TV s on the Crew lands. So I think
right now it's sort of like in it's infancy, but at least we're getting a
start. And in the future I think that the mechanisms will be put in
place so that these lands will be protected. Right now they are not
but I think that someday they will be.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments on this issue?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I just wanted to say that right now
the protection for this land is the same as it would be if it got turned
over to the county, and that's the sheriff and code enforcement. And
Page 200
-.- -,_.._."--~,~---"",,,..~_._.,-,," -- ~"""~'-"--"~-
November 2, 2006
he is more than -- capable of calling on the sheriff and code
enforcement if people are dumping on his property. So there is no
reason for that to happen. Please get control of your property.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wasn't worried about control.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I understand what the greater
issue is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the pleasure of the board in
moving forward with this? Do you want to finish?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I would like to. I would think
you need to have the analysis of the alternative brought forward.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, please by then, any of the TDRs
that have been sold and how the program is going so far. I think
that's important to understand the value of this property and how it
should be handled.
With that, any further comments from the panel?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: David, you said before that it's
on the website. I, honestly, haven't found it. I may not be a master.
Could you just send the link out to all of us and then we don't have to
ask you that question all the time.
MR. WEEKS: Be glad to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We had earlier decided that this was
going to be the end of the EAR discussion for today. I don't see how
we can change that because we're going to finish this discussion two
weeks from today. Is that okay with everybody?
Okay. Is there a motion to adjourn the meeting?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Meeting is adjourned.
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4: 10 p.m.
Page 201
'''____^"_.",..,,_.,,"'',.> M'~"'"..T_.'~'.,_'__"'" '----'-.---
November 2,2006
*****
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
MARK P. STRAIN, Chairman
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE NOTTINGHAM AND
ELIZABETH BROOKS.
Page 202
__.~~O -,-,~."".",."""~,".,_.....".="",-",",,...._.,,_.,, ~.._-