Loading...
CCPC Minutes 03/05/2007 S March 5, 2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida March 5, 2007 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 SPECIAL SESSION in Building F of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed Caron Tor Kolflat (Absent) Paul Midney (Absent) Robert Murray Brad Schiffer Russell Tuff Robert Vigliotti ALSO PRESENT: Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review Joseph Schmitt, Community Dev. & Env. Services Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 March 5, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good morning everyone. This is the March 5th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll all rise for the pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. This meeting will be strictly about the Collier County Growth Management Plan amendments that are here for review today. We'll be going into the agenda in detail in a few moments after we finish roll call. ROLL CALL Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat is absent. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is absent. 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: Present. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Tuff? COMMISSIONER TUFF: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, our next scheduled meeting is our regular meeting, which is the 15th of March. Does anybody on this panel know if they're not going to be able to make it to that meeting? Page 2 March 5, 2007 (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Also, just to remind everyone and for the audience, whatever we don't get to today will continue to be heard on the 22nd of March at 8:30 in the morning in this room. Now, as far as today's agenda goes, there's a lot of people here interested in very specific items. We made a determination last Thursday that we would hear the first seven suggested changes to the Growth Management Plan today. I will read those to you so it's very clear. If you're not here -- if you're here for any others that I do not read, we won't be hearing those until the 22nd. CHANGES AND APPROVAL OF AGENDA Today we'll -- well, there is going to be some agenda changes. After I read through the list, I'll explain the changes as well. The first one that was scheduled for today is CP-2005-1. It's approximately a four-acre change to commercial, and it's on the corner of Weber and Golden Gate Boulevard. The second one was 2005-2. It was another commercial application, approximately seven acres on Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson. The third one was another five-acre site for commercial on the corner of Wilson and Immokalee. The fourth one was a five-acre site on the corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Livingston Road for commercial. The fifth one was one on Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara. That's a larger one. It's 115,000 square feet with some dwelling units. The sixth one was a five-acre site joining the David Lawrence Center on Golden Gate Parkway. And the last one that would be heard today is a request for a church at the corner of Immokalee Road and Oaks Boulevard. Page 3 March 5, 2007 If we get through those seven today, those are the only seven that will be heard today. So if you're interested in any of the others, and there are 16 of them coming through at this time, those after that number seven will start to be heard on the 22nd of March. Now, with that in mind, we'll go on to the changes that have occurred. And the first one, the four-acre change to commercial on the corner of Weber and Golden Gate Boulevard. And I'll need staff to just acknowledge the record that this is consistent with what I believe I received. That one has been withdrawn. It will not be heard today. And the staff member who was in charge was Mike Bosi. And Mike, I don't see him here. Is there any debate on that, Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: We received notification from the applicant. The applicant's agent is here, he can confirm that. But I will confirm receipt in e-mail that it's been cancelled and withdrawn from this cycle. That's CP-2005-1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Hernandez is the applicant's representative. If either he or some other member would like to just confirm on the mic that that is the case. I understand you're on crutches. If you can just yell, we can hear it. MR. HERNANDEZ: Yes, sir, it's been withdrawn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The court reporter -- thank you. I was approached by the agent for applicant -- the application number three and number four, the one for Wilson and Immokalee Road and the one for Golden Gate Parkway and Livingston Road. The applicant has asked for a continuance. The applicant's agent has. And that was Mr. Ferguson. I'd like Mr. Ferguson to approach the mic, if he could. MR. FERGUSON: For the record, Tim Ferguson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you repeat what you'd like to see happen with items three and four? MR. FERGUSON: My request for items three and four is they be continued to the next cycle. Page 4 March 5, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, as far as staff's reaction to that, county attorney's reaction, if any. I need to understand from staff's perspective what kind of impact that has and what it means to staff. And the timing as well. MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks, planning manager in the comprehensive planning department. Commissioners, a continuance to the next cycle is viewed by staff as a withdrawal. New data will have to be submitted. The petition will have to be reviewed completely all over again. In our opinion, it would be completely inappropriate for the taxpayers to have to pay for that. That's should be the petitioner's. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Ferguson, are you willing to -- do you want to withdraw then or do you want to continue it today? MR. FERGUSON: Well, in response to that comment, you know, my client's paid $16,800 to have this reviewed. The applications will be substantially the same as they already are. Minor changes to the application. We believe that after two years of wait that we should have the same two years to be able to get this done. I mean, we've had two days since -- we had two days to respond to the staff reports in two years, and we just think that's a lack of due process. And we -- with all due respect, we understand staff's, you know, problems with being able to, you know, get to these. But on the other side we think that it's only, you know, fair and due process to allow us to continue to the next cycle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to start taking apart your comments piece by piece so we can understand how it applies. Now, as far as staff and the county attorney, I'm assuming that the request -- that this becomes a withdraw is something you agree with from staff's perspective? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I do agree with that. I -- because it would have to be reevaluated again, and this isn't like a rezone or Page 5 March 5, 2007 really a quasi judicial thing, so I'm not sure how due process gets involved. This is something that the planning commission and the board, upon the planning commission's recommendation, looks at the PUD in our legislative document, which is our comprehensive plan. And I can certainly understand that conditions change over time and staff would have to have another look and revaluation of it, so I'm in agreement with staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schmidt, Corby Schmidt, member of staff, can you tell me when you sent the staff report to the petitioner? MR. WEEKS: I can answer that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Weeks? MR. SCHMIDT: Or Mr. Weeks. MR. WEEKS: They were sent on Monday, I believe that was the 26th of February. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The same day we received them. MR. WEEKS: You received them that day. We sent ours by e-mail, so instantaneous. One or two I think was sent on Saturday, but most were sent on Monday, which would be exactly one week from today. And I need to be clear, I'm specifically referring to the first seven agenda items. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you said Saturday, you mean the Saturday prior to last Monday, not Saturday two days ago. MR. WEEKS: Correct. MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Chairman, can I offer? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. SCHMITT: If the petitioner does not want to wait till the next cycle, they can continue it for a hearing later in this cycle. Of course we do have subsequent hearings scheduled later in March. But if there is a substantial change to this, and I think the -- I would ask Page 6 March 5, 2007 the petitioner what is going to change and if it's a substantial change, it is in fact a reapplication. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other issue I need to ask the applicant then is are you wanting to withdraw this, or are you still wanting -- think you're going -- you're not going to continue it with this meeting here today, you want to withdraw it? MR. FERGUSON: If there's going to be no continuance, we'll withdraw. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are you speaking on behalf of CP-2005-3 and CP-2005-4? MR. FERGUSON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're withdrawing both three and four. Ms. Student, is that sufficient enough for a withdraw? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I believe it is. I'll ask staff if it's sufficient for their purposes. Are the statements on the record sufficient for staff's purposes to constitute a withdraw, or do we also want to have that followed by something in writing? I think maybe it would be good to also have a letter to follow that up from the applicant's agent. MR. WEEKS: I think it would be preferable to have it in writing from the agent. MR. FERGUSON: Well, we already have an e-mail to you. Is that going to be sufficient? MR. WEEKS: Is that for the same two petitions, three and four? MR. FERGUSON: Yes. MR. WEEKS: That would be sufficient, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So for the public's benefit, what has just now happened, we have three out of the seven that will not be heard today . We will not be talking about Weber and Golden Gate Boulevard, it's been withdrawn. We will not be talking about Wilson and Immokalee Road, it's Page 7 March 5, 2007 been withdrawn. And we will not be talking about Golden Gate Parkway and Livingston Road, that has been withdrawn. Those three applications are no longer on the table, they're off the agenda, they're not at this time applied for as a comprehensive plan amendment. So if you're here for any of those items, we will not be hearing them. And as soon as the room has time to clear, we'll give it a few minutes and we'll continue. Okay, now we can go on with the rest of the agenda. We still have four petitions left. The first one that we will hear is CP-2005-2, and it is for Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson. It's an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan for an additional 60,000 square feet at the intersection of Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson on an approximately seven-acre site. Mr. Weeks, what's the normal way you'd like to proceed in this? I'm assuming you want the applicant's presentation first? Occasionally staff has an overall discussion they want to provide to us. It's your latitude at this point. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. And I would like to make a few general comments before we proceed with specific petitions. And Commissioners, your protocol is that the petitioner would go first in presenting their request, and then staff would present the staff report, and of course questions and dialogue throughout the process. First is just to make sure that everyone is aware, and most particularly the audience, that specifically the purpose of today's hearings are to discuss Growth Management Plan amendments, rezoning for conditional uses or other types of petitions that typically are on your agendas. Secondly, this is the transmittal hearing. Growth Management Plan amendments such as these go through two sets of hearings: Page 8 March 5, 2007 Transmittal hearings before this body and the Board of County Commissioners, to be followed a few months later by adoption hearings by this body and the Board of County Commissioners. But that second set of hearings would be based on the assumption that the petitions are in fact voted to be transmitted to state agencies for review by the Board of County Commissioners. Should the Board of County Commissioners on these petitions not transmit them, then the petitions have been denied, there will be no second set of hearings. Since all of these petitions pertain to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan that we're discussing today, I think it would be appropriate to give a little bit of history to the Golden Gate master plan. First to tell you that the Growth Management Plan was adopted in 1989, and it had county-wide applicability. In 1991 is when the Golden Gate Area Master Plan was adopted. So it contained a specific set of regulations pertaining just to Golden Gate Estates, the rural settlement area, commonly known as the Orange Tree area. And now both Orange Tree and Orange Blossom Ranch PUDs occupy that area, and also Golden Gate City. Prior to the adoption of the Golden Gate Master Plan in 1991, surveys were sent out to property owners. And the reason -- soliciting their input regarding the location of what were known as provisional uses at that time, now known as conditional uses. And those were typically for institutional type uses such as churches, child care centers, treatment facilities such David Lawrence Center, et cetera, and also commercial land uses. There had been concern expressed over time from some Golden Gate Estates residents about the lack of certainty as to where these nonresidential uses could be located. One area of particular concern was along Golden Gate Parkway in the Estates, that being west of Golden Gate City, all the way over to present day Livingston Road. As you know, I believe there are several nonresidential uses in that Page 9 March 5, 2007 area. And there had been concern expressed over time that there was a proliferation of these nonresidential uses, and that was changing the character of the area. Another area though of lesser concern I believe than Golden Gate Parkway, but nevertheless a concern for some residents was along 39th, I believe it would be Street Southwest. That is the road that lies to the east and parallel of Collier Boulevard, opposite Golden Gate City. There's also a handful of conditional uses granted in that area. The results of the survey that were sent out certainly were not unanimous. There were various choices or options provided in that survey. But the majority choice was to have commercial concentrated at certain locations which led to the adoption of the neighborhood centers at specific intersections in Golden Gate Estates, and also specific criteria limiting where conditional uses can be located. Under the county-wide comprehensive plan, or Growth Management Plan, those conditional uses were treated just like elsewhere in the county in the urban area and the rural area in that there was no specific list of criteria to meet. You request the use, the Growth Management Plan would not be a hurdle in any way, you would simply go through the zoning process. Well, now with the adoption of the master plan, based upon the results of the survey, there are specific locational criteria. If you don't meet them, then you are not consistent with the Growth Management Plan; therefore, cannot legally be approved. In 1992, only a year after the adoption of Golden Gate Master Plan, a commercial rezone was requested at one of the neighborhood centers east of Collier Boulevard, County Road 951. Specifically at the Everglades Boulevard/Golden Gate Boulevard intersection. Not only did the Board of County Commissioners deny that rezoning, but they directed staff to initiate an amendment to the Golden Gate Master Plan to remove the neighborhood centers east of 951 that had just been adopted about a year prior. And that subsequently occurred. All the Page 10 March 5, 2007 neighborhood centers east of 951 were removed, with the exception of the northwest (sic) quadrant where the at that time G's Grocery existed. But there were no provision for its expansion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Northeast. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. For whatever I said, northeast. And by the way, the neighborhood centers are where commercial development is located and also conditional uses are allowed there as well. Now, there are other provisions for conditional uses, but the neighborhood centers were one of the few provisions for -- very few provisions for where commercial could be located. Then in 1996 we conducted our last EAR evaluation and appraisal report, which suggested there was a need for additional commercial opportunities in Golden Gate Estates east of 951. The recommendation of this body and of staff and the advisory committee that the board had appointed was to reinstate those neighborhood centers east of 951. However, the Board of County Commissioners chose not to do so, but they did expand the neighborhood center at the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Pine Ridge Road. Then in 2001 to, I believe it was, 2003, a restudy committee, a group of citizens appointed by the County Commissioners to . reevaluate and restudy the Golden Gate Master Plan met numerous times, and ultimately recommended some changes to the Golden Gate Master Plan. Most specifically, number one, to reinstate those neighborhood centers. And that did occur. In phases 2003 and 2004 amendments were adopted to the Golden Gate Master Plan to put those neighborhood centers back at their original locations, in some cases larger than they had originally been. Secondly, to allow for conditional uses immediately adjacent to those neighborhood centers, which had not previously been allowed. And importantly for three petitions that at least were on your agenda, adopted policies or provisions that said no new commercial Page 11 March 5, 2007 zoning shall be approved on Golden Gate Parkway in the Estates that would be west of Golden Gate City between Santa Barbara Boulevard and Livingston Road. And also, with one site specific exception, no new conditional uses in that same corridor. Data and analysis requirements. Done with the Golden Gate Master Plan history now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you go too far, in regards to the reinstatement of the commercial centers east of 951, I was chairman for those two years of the Golden Gate Master Plan study committee. Our recommendations were not to reinstate those commercial centers. Our recommendation was to establish commercial centers where the public, through multiple meetings two to four times a month in very well attended meetings for the most part, especially in the commercial issue, where the public thought that it would be necessary. It had nothing to do, from my understanding of my attendance at those meetings on the committee, specifically with reinstating existing commercial centers. We were looking at it as a clean slate in regards to whether the public wanted to see them, to the extent they wanted to. So it is a little different than just simply reinstating what may have been there in the past. I wanted to give you that clarification. MR. WEEKS: Thank you for that correction. And I don't disagree at all. My bad choice of words. The result was that they were reinstated, but I stand by your correction. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And David, isn't there a study currently going on now for that area east of 951 ? MR. WEEKS: Correct. There's now a study, much broader than just for Golden Gate Master Plan encompassed areas, but there's a Page 12 March 5, 2007 study for all areas east of Collier Boulevard, east of County Road 951, county and state road. Its initial focus was on infrastructure needs, but has evolved to include land uses as well, which I think is very logical, because land use and infrastructure just go hand in hand. It's almost impossible to separate the two. Land uses dictate the needs for infrastructure, infrastructure provides for land uses. It's almost a chicken and the egg in some cases. But at any rate, that study is underway and it is looking at all areas east of 951, including the Golden Gate Estates area, where some of these petitions are located on your agenda today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And when is that study? What is the timing on that? MR. WEEKS: That I don't know. I'll have to see if another staff member can come up and answer that. I know it's underway now, but I don't know when the conclusion is set. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. MR. WEEKS: A few more general comments, Mr. Chairman, and then I need to make one specific correction on the record regarding one of these petitions. Data and analysis, as you've noticed in reviewing the staff reports, was a key issue for many of these petitions. Rule 9J-5 in the Florida Administrative Code specifically requires data and analysis to support comprehensive plan amendments. Rule 9J-5 is the administrative implementation of portions of Chapter 163 of Florida Statutes pertaining to Growth Management Plans, their adoptions, their amendments, so forth. So it's very important to have data and analysis to support an amendment. And as you've heard me say many times over the years regarding commercial requests, the perspective of staff is not to say we're recommending denial of a petition, if that's the case because we believe that the approach is that if you build it they will not come. We Page 13 March 5, 2007 are not saying that. We do not say that. Generally speaking, we would accept that the petitioner, if they're willing to invest a substantial amount of money and time, that they've done their homework and they know that their likelihood of successes is great if they are to develop their commercial enterprise that it will be successful. Really, what that comes down to is viability. Is this location viable. And we are -- generally speaking, you will not find staff challenging that. What we find so often in the data and analysis that is submitted to us in the market studies, the commercial needs analysis, et cetera, is that that is the very point that is being made. Yes, this site is viable. But from our perspective, that's not the key issue. The key issue is, is it the appropriate location, is there a need to amend the comprehensive plan to establish a new commercial provision. We come from a perspective of inventory control in large part. Is there an adequate amount of commercial, either zoning on the ground or comprehensive plan designations, that would allow that commercial zoning to occur and ultimately commercial development to satisfy the needs of the general areas of the county in which we are looking at on the site specific petitions. So there's really two different perspectives here. And as you can see in the staff reports, we on many of these have challenged the appropriateness of the data or the accuracy of the data or the lack of the data to show that yes, there is a need to amend the comprehensive plan to provide an opportunity for additional commercial development. Finally, Commissioners, I need to make one correction and a recommendation. And this may come as a surprise to the petitioner, because I don't believe staff has had any communication with the petitioner. I just found out about this yesterday when I was reading the Naples Daily News and saw that it indicated that all of the Page 14 March 5, 2007 petitions were recommended for denial except for one. And that was news to me. Specifically it is Petition CP-2006-4, which is the petition that was moved from the '06 cycle to the '05 cycle by the Board of County Commissioners. In that staff report, if you can recall reading it, it has the tenor of a denial, and there's even at the very end in the recommendation, though it says staff recommends approval, which is incorrect, our recommendation is denial. We have language that goes on to say, but if the planning commission should choose to recommend approval, then here's the modified language we would recommend. And because this may be a surprise to the petitioner, certainly staff would have no objection if the petitioner so chooses to ask you for a continuance to a meeting later this month to give them some time to prepare. Because I suspect this has caught them totally off guard. Now, the flip side, I would think that the petitioner is ready to defend their petition. They submitted it. They submitted their data analysis. They presumably believe in it and are ready to make their case. But the presumption is they weren't prepared to have to present that case -- or fight for it so hard because they believed they had a recommendation of approval from staff. And at that, Mr. Chairman, I've completed my introductory remarks, and I would suggest that it might be appropriate to ask that petitioner if they would in fact like to have a continuance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, I would under -- the specific recommendation and the sentence in my document says that the CCPC forward Petition 2006 forward to the BCC with a recommendation of approval. Transmit to the DCA. Now, you said it was your recommendation of denial with a caveat on if we did want to approve it what to do. Actually, it's a recommendation of approval with a caveat if we do approve it with what to do. So now you're saying it's a recommendation of denial Page 15 March 5, 2007 with a caveat, only upon approval. MR. WEEKS: That's the correction I'm making, that the staff report incorrectly recommends approval. The staff's intention is that it be for denial. Which actually, yeah, there is one more point I wanted to make, and that leads to it. And that is that as you've seen in almost all of the petitions, at the recommendation section staff has recommended modifications to the petitioner's language. And I want to be clear that when we've recommended denial on these petitions, the reason we provide alternative language is not because that we don't stand by our recommendation of denial, rather, we want to make sure that if you and ultimately the County Commissioners disagree with our recommendation, that you adopt the best language possible. So we've made suggested revisions to the applicant's language to provide for increased clarity, in some cases for brevity, to make it more clear and able to be implemented, if it should be adopted. And in a few cases we have also recommended substantive changes. And I want to be clear on the record, we stand by our recommendations of denial, but again, we just want to make sure that the best language as possible is adopted into the plan, if ultimately that is the decision of the hearing body. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is that the end of your discussion? MR. WEEKS: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, before we go further, the applicant for 2006-4, Mr. Wicker, I notice you're here. I know you're represent by Mr. Arnold. And I don't think he was planning to come this early in the day, as you were last on the agenda. Sir, do you feel like making a decision on this now, or would you rather come back after the next -- sometime later this morning after you concur possibly with Mr. Arnold? You need to use the microphone if you're going to address your Page 16 March 5, 2007 response to that, please. And state your name for the record, please. MR. WICKER: Yes, my name is Les Wicker. I am the pastor of First Congregational Church. David, this does catch us a bit by surprise. And of course when we read the Naples Daily News yesterday that we did have the approval of staff recommendation, we were quite elated and always willing to do what we need to do to make sure that all the T's are crossed and I's are dotted. I would like to defer until Mr. Arnold is here to represent us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Mr. Weeks, I guess that is the only one that would carry this unique circumstance in the balance of to day's agenda? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we will move into the first petition as we had started to. CP-2005-2 F or those wishing to speak on this particular amendment, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. The first petition will be a discussion of Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson. Anybody wishing to speak on this? Yes, sir. MR. WEEKS: Excuse me, Mr. Chair. My apologies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those wishing to speak on behalf of the Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson, concerning that, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All members of the public who are wishing to speak, if you haven't already at some time before you do speak in the next say 20 or 30 minutes, would David please provide one of those little slips that are out on the front table. And then he'll Page 1 7 March 5, 2007 call your name and you'll be able to speak as you are called. And right now we'll hear from the applicant in his presentation. MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Michael Fernandez, president of Planning Development, Incorporated, representing the applicant, Michael Corder, who has asked to have an expansion of the existing neighborhood center, the -- specifically the southwest quadrant. As one of the other petitioners had already iterated, or spoken about earlier today, we submitted our application, like they did, over two years -- about two years ago. The deadline for submittal was April, 2005. We received a copy of the staffreport on Monday, so we haven't had a heck of a lot of time to review the information that we were given. And it seems like that period of time, given that it took two years to get to this point would have been reasonable to ask for a continuance to go forward. Now, I posed that question already to staff and they didn't have a problem with it if we were to ask it, so I'd ask you now if that's an issue with you. But if not, we're prepared to go forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it is an issue with me, Mr. Fernandez. You called me on Friday and your statement to me was that, Mark, I just received the staff report, I'd like a continuance. And I told you that I didn't think that would be fair. The public is coming in earnest to discuss this. You've had this in the works for quite some time. You certainly had communication with the staff. After you talked to me, I guess maybe you didn't think I'd check things out. I got ahold of staff and found out that you were notified of the staff reports the same time this commission was, the Monday prior. And that's been over a week ago, or at least a week ago. I see no reason why you couldn't address the issues in the staff report during the two years you were in process, plus the -- you've had since then to present any argument or prepare for any argument that Page 18 March 5, 2007 you have today, so I will not agree to a continuance on this matter. MR. FERNANDEZ: I'd first like to get a little bit of a perspective on what we're talking about doing today. This is a Growth Management Plan amendment. It's a policy decision, it's not a rezoning of a subject property. It's appropriate to consider larger context. When you start considering larger con -- I'd like to start by considering the larger context and then focus on the specifics of the parcel itself and how it relates to the adjacent parcels. The Golden Gate Estates population now is estimated somewhere, depending on whose numbers you use, between 35 and 40,000 people. That area is anticipated to double in population over a period of time. Estimates range from another 10 years to another 24 years. To give a little bit more perspective to that, the population of the City of Naples plus the population of Marco Island combined is about 41,000. The Naples Daily News reported just this weekend that the population of the City of Bonita Springs is now somewhere between 35 and 40,000 people. So we're looking at a fairly significant population. And that has significant relevance because there is a lack of commercial with that -- designated commercial within that area. What that essentially means is that when somebody wants to avail themselves of commercial services, whether it's office or retail, for groceries or for employment, industrial, what have you, they have to drive on our community roads to get to it. It means that some other area of our community is providing that commercial base for them. And it means that you have more miles of travel to have get to those. Our specific Growth Management Plan amendment is at the heart of this area. It's at the intersection of Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson. That's located five miles to the east of 951, three miles south of Immokalee, and five miles north of 1-75. Page 19 March 5, 2007 There are no provisions for commercial between this intersection and 951. And to get to the commercial centers that do exist you have to travel another mile, mile and a quarter either north or south on 951. Going eastward, the next commercial node is again a neighborhood center, and that's at Everglades. So you're looking at an area with vast distances, relatively vast distances between commercial. In our process over the last two years, one of the items that we had done is submitted a support document for another petition and asked that support document to be utilized also in the evaluation of this petition. That support document is a commercial needs analysis that was done by Fishkind & Associates for the Golden Gate Estates area, specifically for a project located at this intersection. Its application is very relevant to this. And we'll place a copy of that in the record. And we're hoping, and we know that you do not have a copy and we know that staff did not review it for the purposes of this application. And it's -- the final date on it that was -- the final version is October 17th, 2006. But it establishes a significant need of commercial in the Golden Gate Estates area, both in terms of retail and office. Specifically I wanted to address the office issue in that it established a two mile radius around this intersection with a built-out population around 7,200 and a need for approximately 200,000 square feet of office, just within those boundaries. And that comes off a ratio of 28 plus square feet per individual. That relates in terms of usable area or acreage to about 30 acres. So it's basically saying within this select service area, just for this part of the community, just office alone, forget about the retain components, that there's a need for 30 acres. If it's not here, that means people are going to travel further. We have one of the preparers of that information today. Russ Page 20 March 5, 2007 Weyer's here from Fishkind & Associates if you have any general questions -- obviously you don't have the study -- he'll be happy to answer those later. Over the last two years I think we have seen changes in direction, changes in momentum relative to issues of whether there's a commercial need or not. I was chairman of the future land use element EAR in 1996. And at that time the committee was looking at the issue of whether or not there should be commercial out there and how it impacts the rest of our community. We were concerned at that time that there would be a very large population base, as which is materializing much quicker than most people anticipated, and what kind of a burden it would place on the balance of our community. Not only in terms of convenient commercial, but also in terms of employment. When I talk about convenience commercial, we're talking about services that would be utilized by neighborhood areas. We're talking about grocery stores, we're talking about doctors offices, we're talking about facilities and services and goods that don't -- would not likely attract people coming from outside this area into it, but just for those services that are required by the people who live in this immediate area. Went through the Naples Daily News, just touching on this. I'll take a couple of quotes out of the newspaper, a couple of comments out of the newspapers over the years. March 2nd, 2006, Norm Feder, who's our transportation director, noted that Golden Gate Boulevard had an increase of 28 percent in traffic. The year before it was 20. I would tell you right now that those numbers are just hitting 28,000 trips through the intersection at Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevard. At the time Mr. Feder also said that the county was considering a rezone change to expand commercial centers to allow such larger uses Page 21 March 5,2007 as grocery stores that can't fit on a five-acre parcel. This would eliminate having to drive, he says, west for retail or medical services. Fewer trips equals less road building. The comprehensive plan will have to allow for commercial development. What we're -- what -- just to paraphrase what he's saying is that we've got to provide greater capacity on our road network, if we don't have those goods and services being provided within the Golden Gate Estates area. So this is an issue that is very substantive, not just for people within the Golden Gate Estates area but people outside the Golden Gate Estates area. March 16th, 2006, they were talking in that article about the Walgreen's coming to the Estates. And it talked about the size of these parcels. And one of the parcels, the parcel they actually talked about was 4.86 acres, and how, because of the requirements to gentrify or to provide buffers or compatibility that were adopted, 75- foot buffers to residential setbacks, to residential development, 50 percent of which is supposed to be retained vegetation, when possible, twenty-five around the perimetry, that this acreage doesn't represent the same type of development opportunity that you have in the urban areas. So that our analysis shows that -- and that's part of our application, that essentially one acre commercial out of the Estates accommodates about 75 percent of what it would normally accommodate in the urban area. It also speaks to Mr. Feder's quote again talking about accommodating Walgreen's or Publix in the Estates and the need to provide these services to alleviate traffic and the need for roadway expanSion. Naples Daily News, September 27th starts off because many questions proceed asking about retail development's plan in Golden Gate Estates, it's clear that many residents anxiously await the convenience of more shopping opportunities in this rural area. And then they go on to talk about some of those opportunities that may be Page 22 March 5, 2007 coming to pass. Knowing that this application would be coming forth and having submitted it approximately two years ago, we started monitoring what was then going on as far as other applications for development in the immediate area. I attended the neighborhood information meeting for at that time was the Snowy Egret rezone application, which was permitted for a significant range of uses. But the targeted use that was represented was a Walgreen's. And now that parcel has been purchased actually by the national concern, Walgreen's Co. At that time, the staff report was talking about the lack of commercial zoned property in the Estates, and within the Wilson Boulevard/Golden Gate Boulevard neighborhood center subdistrict, as providing ample justification for the package of that proposed amendment at the time. This sentiment that's part of that staff report, which is dated October 10th, 2006, Page 4 of 124, seems to show that there's a shift in how staff is evaluating these projects. And now I'd like to focus a little bit first on what we're calling a neighborhood commercial center. And I would suggest to you that in many respects this is a poor classification of commercial use for such commercial designated areas. End users such as drug stores, gas stations, banks, et cetera, rely on greater population than generally what we call their immediate neighborhood. Especially in a rural area where people have larger lots. People are less likely to walk to a convenient store. And these should probably more appropriately be designated or considered what we call convenience commercial, providing needed services to both the immediate neighborhood and to passby traffic. Such convenience commercial, when well and appropriately disbursed, significantly reduces the trip length for common frequently used goods and services. Page 23 March 5, 2007 As an example, I would show you that in the Snowy Egret PUD that staff came back and made a determination that was appropriate for a 68 percent passby capture rate. That's a very significant capture rate for that project. And they did so because they believe that it's essentially going to be capturing trips that are already on that roadway. When we did our application, we use a standardized number of 49 percent, which means that over half those trips are already on the roadway. So it's capturing trips, it's not just serving the immediate neighborhood. And I think that's an important distinction. Getting a little bit more focused on the actual parcel itself, we note that these basic neighborhood centers are essentially squares that were placed on a map, if you will. Much like the early activity centers that we had which basically went from a central point and said it's a half mile in each direction, and that established what those activity centers are. In some cases these activity centers, like the one at Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevard, are off center. If you'll look in your -- in the text that's actually being amended for the Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard center, it notes that the northeast quadrant has 8.45 acres, the southeast quadrant has 7.15 acres, although it allocates 2.15 to buffers and right-of-way for Golden Gate Boulevard. The northwest quadrant is 4.98. And this quadrant, if amended, would have 11.78 acres. Because of the expanding roadway needs in these areas, these acreages in many cases are less than what you're seeing. In other words, the Walgreen's, for instance, when it came forward, it was a request for right-of-way. So its parcel actual shrunk. The SDP for that Walgreen's has yet to be submitted formally, is my understanding. But you're looking at about 20,000 square feet on what was once a five-acre parcel as it started. So you're starting to see that acreages don't necessarily yield the Page 24 March 5, 2007 same kind of commercial development that you would normally in a commercial project. And I think that's very important to consider. I think it's very important that -- you know, and I think on -- you know, we'll been reading about that this is a retrofit, that this is an overlay of commercial development that these activity centers have essentially done over the residential community. It's a residential base. That's what it started from. And they've been -- these activity areas have been identified and overlayed on those commercial areas. And it's very, very important. And I think that the Growth Management Plan already does a significant job, a well done job, of saying you're going to meet the kind of character that we have in our community. And they do that in forms of increased setbacks, increased greens space, increased preserve areas. What I would suggest to you, when you have this kind of a development, and I think that the pressures and the public interest are so great that you tend to look at it almost as a rezone as opposed to a growth management planning element. And growth management planning is not supposed to have that kind of specificity, usually. It's usually not -- it customarily does not include setbacks and amount of green space and so forth. It customarily has more broad this is generalized commercial, this is residential. The specificity generally comes in the rezone. We're going to make a commitment to you with our particular proj ect, because we think that this area deserves to have that kind of specificity when they're reviewing a proj ect. And our client is willing to commit to submit a rezone application that has a detailed look at what's actually being proposed for this parcel in the interim between the transmittal hearing and the adoption hearing process. That would give you an opportunity to look at specificity relative to setbacks, relative to green space, relative to buffers. And I think that's really appropriate in this particular case. I'm going to put a couple of drawings or graphics now on the Page 25 March 5, 2007 overhead. The first basically shows a conceptual layout of the Walgreen's. And our firm's been fortunate enough to work on a couple of these projects. We're showing basically a rectilinear box with a drive-through on one side. We're showing an access point from Golden Gate Boulevard and a second ingress/egress from Wilson. And that's essentially how we understand it's going to be developed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Fernandez, could you hold for just a moment? If there's anybody from IT listening to this meeting, half of the panels up here on display will not work. Maybe someone could come in and take a quick look. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, make sure the green light is on. Is the green light on? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Down at the bottom? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's not on the screen. MR. FERNANDEZ: It's showing up on the smaller screen. COMMISSIONER CARON: It should be showing up here, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Brad. You're now IT. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I embarrassed myself enough with that problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: The drawing basically shows the southwest quadrant as it is today with that proposed Walgreen's. What I'm showing you -- what I'm going to delineate or what I've delineated here in a little bit darker color is that it currently abuts approximately 600 feet of residential to the west and approximately 300 feet on the south side. So right now the immediate impacts of this commercial center is approximately 900 feet where that immediately abuts commercial. It has approximately -- thank you very much. There it goes -- another 900 feet of right-of-way. I believe it's general accepted planning, good planning, that -- or Page 26 March 5, 2007 accepted planning that it's easier to reconcile changes in zoning between -- or more difficult between parcels when they abut than they are at right-of-ways. So generally speaking, you see a lot of changes, and in most cases you're seeing changes in zoning occur at the right-of-way when that's available to us. What I'm going to show you now is the picture of a proposed center. And we did a conceptual layout of what potentially could be built. This is showing the Walgreen's. It's showing approximately 40 to 45,000 square feet of office, including medical office and the associated parking. It's depicting 50-foot buffers to the neighborhood immediately adjacent to it, or adjacent to the right-of-way. It's showing a combined area of over 150 feet to the south that could be utilized as buffers water management. If our amendment gets approved, the linear footage of commercial to residential will drop from 900 linear feet to only 600. Because now you'll have a singular line where the two meet that is 600 feet long instead of 900 feet long. So now you've got less edge condition where it abuts directly to residential. And the buffers that we would have would be substantially greater, potentially could have greater. The specificity of this proposal then would be coming back to you concurrently. So when you're reviewing the adoption transmittal, you would also be reviewing a PUD in this case and you would be able to make a decision at that time whether or not you wanted it or you don't want it. You get to see both pieces. It's not let's look at it and make that decision of whether or not it's appropriate. You're going to have something that's very specific. Keeping in mind that a growth management amendment that would expand this center does not promise or guarantee commercial at all. It only allows you the opportunity to apply for it. Our client has spoken to the neighboring property owner, and he Page 27 March 5, 2007 would be able to tell you that there's no objection from the immediate neighbor where this immediately abuts his property. Additionally, as he saw the media attention this was getting, he decided to do a little bit of effort on his own, and we'll provide you a copy of a petition just over this weekend for a period of approximately three hours he went to and got permission from a local hardware store on Collier Boulevard, and we have 82 people that signed up that basically said they would support additional commercial. And it talks about specifically the location being Wilson and 951, and it kind of outlines this property. A little crude, but it kind of shows that there was a consideration of this. This is not inconsistent with what I heard when we went to the neighborhood meeting for the Walgreen's where people were saying we want a Publix, we need other services here. And it's only recently I think that we've seen a change in attitude, and I think that's largely because of what the county is pursuing in terms of Vanderbilt Beach Road. I think that there's a significant amount of mistrust and a significant concern that more development leads to more roadways, more impacts. This particular proj ect, as proposed, would not do that. We're looking at servicing just the immediate area. We're talking about services, including medical. I also have a letter here from Robert Tober, Dr. Robert Tober, who talks about the need for medical in this particular part of our community, and specifically this corner. And also there's a -- we have a Dr. McGann here who's also here to speak about his pursuit of putting medical on this particular corner. Right now there's no services in this immediate area. How far is it to go for emergency services or medical care? It's a significant distance. So we believe, and we would be able to accommodate some of that medical, and we would be committing in our rezone for the accommodation. We would design it for the accommodation of Page 28 March 5, 2007 medical, at least in part. So we'll be providing a letter in that regard relative to the need of commercial and specifically medical out here in this area. David, is it appropriate that I give these to you? MR. WEEKS: Yes. MR. FERNANDEZ: Finally, I'd like to address some of the specific issues that were addressed in the county staff report. One, just for clarity, on Page 3 of the staff report where it shows the location of this -- of the proposed expansion of this particular quadrant. The square that you're seeing, or the rectilinear square that is defining what a neighborhood center is, is approximately one-half mile on each side. The actual size of these are a few hundred linear feet. So it's -- keep in mind that these are graphic exaggerations for purposes of graphic discussion. On Page 4, it talks about in summary primary existing land use in the area immediately surrounding the subject property is essentially residential. And it really doesn't deal with I believe what I think is commonly known and understood, that there's -- you have four quadrants here, you have G's on one corner that has an irregular parcel still remaining, as far as what could be developed over there. Difficult to do because it's dimensional requirements. It ignores that we've got a -- the southeast quadrant that's under construction now, 36,000 square feet with an out parcel. And of course the Walgreen's, which we've mentioned a number of times is going -- the parent company now has purchased the property. We anticipate -- or they anticipate, they've had their preap. with county staff, that they'll be going in for their SDP shortly and hopefully gain approval before the end of the year. On Page 6 when it talks about trends in development surrounding the subject property, and it talks about, you know, the acreages of these individual quadrants, I would tell you again that keep in mind, significant portions of the acreages that are utilized or spoken to in the Page 29 March 5, 2007 staff report and in the Growth Management Plan are being consumed for necessary right-of-way, water management, basically public services. And so these acreages are significantly less in many cases than what's actually being talked about. The recent trends are actually, as Mr. Weeks had said, it's gone from residential now, it's been designated for potential commercial. It's now going through a very slow process, this intersection, to turn itself -- to realize that commercial area. It's not that if today you were able to -- if you had commercial available to you today, doctors would be occupying that space, Publix would be moving in, in a center that was capable of handling a Publix. You know, the demand is there for services, and I would tell you that it would be met immediately. However, again, it's a slow process. We submitted our application in 2005. It's been two years. We expect it's probably going to be another year before we get through this process. And of course the rezoning process can take another year. Ifwe do it concurrently, we can probably cut some of that down. So it's a very slow process. The northwest quadrant is also is being reviewed for potential commercial use. Staff, in their analysis, looked at it in terms of what's actually on the ground today. And they're saying well, a significant amount of this area is vacant. In part of their staff report they talk about that there's 16.56 acres vacant, in another part they talk about over 20 acres vacant, which I believe is just an error. It also takes a couple of statements. There's a couple of statements in the staff report about the study for the east of County Road 951. I've spoken to the chairman a couple times. I don't know if he's here yet. But it suggests that may be going forward with the designation of more commercial is premature. We've got limited -- you know, and speaking to him, his sentiment was that no, you don't stop things just for this study . You're Page 30 March 5, 2007 looking at a study, the survey of which, talking to Chuck Mohlke, is not going to be finalized with the results for -- I believe his number was 540 some odd days. And so it's a fairly significant process that they're going through. So you're looking at a period of over a year and a half before we get results of it at that time. What you're looking at in the interim is an area of our community that between 1999 and mid 2005 was developing at over 1,000 units per day. And that's one of the reasons I think you're seeing a change in attitudes out there is that -- and the need for commercial is starting to become more apparent is that there's just a greater and greater population. Very quick growth. It's true now that everything has dropped significantly. Now it's dropped by about 80 percent. Staff is starting to see the numbers come back. But you're seeing that there's a fairly consistent rate of growth that's been going on. Staff said that our analysis overstates the need. Only in terms of looking at it from a neighborhood, but not in terms of passby trips, which staff acknowledges is a significant issue, and in fact say that the analysis that utilized 49 percent was probably understated and it probably would absorb more than that. And we would assume that it would be closer to the 68 percent. So that their conclusions that they come to aren't necessarily consistent with their own analysis. I guess in summary we're saying that we believe that there's a need. Our clients identified that need. He's a resident of Golden Gate Estates himself. He knows numerous parties out there. We have employees that live out there. And we've heard consistently that there is a need for commercial. We also noted, even on the website for the Golden Gate Civic Association, there's a poll that says where commercial should be located. And 50 percent right now of all the ones listed, there's 50 percent of the votes are saying that it should be located at Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson, which is the intersection at this -- that this Page 31 March 5, 2007 compo plan amendment's being proposed for. And we think that what we're proposing to you hopefully will give you a level of comfort to recommend that this goes forward as a transmittal to the Board of County Commissioners with the caveat that you have an opportunity to review a specific rezone when it comes forward for the adoption hearing, so that you can take action on both of them at the same time. With that, I'd be happy to answer any of your questions, and I'd like to reserve the ability to address issues raised by the public or staff in their presentations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're going to hear also from the staff and from the public, but at this time is there any commission member who would want to ask any questions of the applicant? There will be other opportunities, but it's up to the commissioners. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, we'd like to hear from county staff. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, if I may, before Tom actually begins his presentation, a couple points. One is a procedural matter. Michael mentioned submitting a rezone petition in between the transmittal and adoption hearings. And specifically that I think suggestion or perhaps your question that that be brought to you simultaneous with this petition at the adoption hearing. That in all likelihood will not happen. Number one, staffhas a policy of not -- which obviously can be overridden by the Board of County Commissioners or even upper management for that matter. But staff has a policy of not allowing a rezone petition to be distributed for review. Now, we cannot stop someone from submitting a rezone petition, but not allowing it to be submitted for review until after the objections, recommendations and comments report has been received from the Department of Community Affairs on the comprehensive Page 32 March 5, 2007 plan amendment. And the reason for that is because there is the potential that as a result of that ORC report that there could be a need to modify the rezoned petition. As a result, staff could be going down the path of reviewing a petition, only to have to put it on hold while it gets -- again, this is all potential, gets resubmitted and then we begin the review all over again. And it's partly a fairness issue, an equity issue. If other persons have submitted their petitions to the county, rezones, conditional uses, et cetera, in the normal process, then staff should be devoting their time to reviewing those petitions which aren't foreseeably, or doesn't have a great potential to be altered in midstream. Secondly, it's also a matter of timing. Even if the petition were to be distributed after the ORC report is received, for that to be ready to come to you at the same time as the adoption hearing I would say is highly unlikely. Because once that ORC is received from the state, we have 60 days to adopt, which means it's coming to you in less than 60 days. And to expect a rezone petition to be heard less than 60 days after being distributed is just unheard of, even for a fast track. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, David. MR. WEEKS: The second point, Mr. Chairman, is I'd like to pass out the petition of signatures that Mr. Fernandez provided. Pass those down, just to let the commission take a quick look at it. One thing I would like to point out is on the last page -- there are actually two petitions, and the petition on the first I think four pages is very specific to the intersection where the subj ect site is located. The second one is generic, referring to commercial development in Golden Gate Estates. But I don't want to make any particular judgment. I'll pass it down and let you all have a chance to look at it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. GREENWOOD: Tom Greenwood, with comprehensive planning. I was the staff person that reviewed the application. Page 33 March 5, 2007 And I think Michael has basically in his initial comments said that this is a proposed policy change and the policy essentially underlies all the other future steps. And it's an amendment to the future land use map. It's at the south -- generally at the southwest corner of the intersection of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevard. The map that's shown is schematic. It's a general location map. Also looks like its upside down. Very good, thank you, David. It does, though, show the proportion I call it bouge-out of an existing center. And what that change would do to the -- I might also point out that the east and west and south and north lines of the parcels that comprise that center are pretty much opposite each other. In other words, the area is pretty much as shown on that map. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Before he moves that map, can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The point Michael made I think is true, is the graphic scale of that square is really much too large, isn't it? I mean-- MR. GREENWOOD: It is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the fact that you've outlined around that graphic scale really exaggerates the size of this, doesn't it? MR. GREENWOOD: Well, this is a map series that's in the comprehensive plan. And that's the map that we use for location purposes. In the land use element there is specific language on the legal descriptions, and the proposed legal description is to -- I'll just point to page -- the bottom of Page 2. And the effect of this future land use amendment would be to increase the size of that center at the southwest quadrant from 4.86 acres to 11.78 acres, and to add Tract 124 and the north 150 feet of Tract 126. Page 34 March 5, 2007 So it's fairly specific. But again, the map that I showed earlier, and I'm not sure how with well this map reads. There is a map in your report. It's on Page 2. It's an aerial photo from the county appraiser's office. And that shows there are three separate tracts of land that are contiguous, and they abut and surround the existing southwest -- a portion of the southwest quadrant of the neighborhood center. Very briefly, the staff analysis begins on Page 4. And David has already covered in some extent the background. The community planning, the neighborhood planning that went into developing this policy on the future land use map, it sounds like it's been significant over the years and well based within the community and the neighboring area. I did mention on Page 4 the surrounding land use. And within the existing center, and I emphasize existing center, the northeast quadrant is an older commercial property. There is vacant land. It's identified in the staff report. The southwest corner again within the existing neighborhood center boundary is an approved PUD. And that's under construction. The southwest corner, again within the existing boundary of the neighborhood center and approved PUD, that includes a Walgreen's. I don't know if it's been permitted to date, but it nevertheless has been approved. The northwest quadrant of the existing center, again, planned commercial. Nothing approved -- nothing presented, to my knowledge. Page 5, again is the background to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. On Page 6, I mentioned trends in development surrounding the subject three tracts of land and the neighborhood center. And again, my statements are correct, it's single-family residential in all directions surrounding the center, both by existing land use and lots that have been platted. Page 35 March 5, 2007 Commercial development, I covered that briefly. The northeast corner is existing, but the southeast corner is under construction. At the southwest corner, an approved PUD not under construction. Northwest corner: Vacant, not under construction. Yes, there have been trends for development within the existing boundaries. And it has been commercial, and it sounds like it's been commercial, serving the neighborhood. One of the comments, and I think it's significant, is the approval of this amendment -- I refer to it as the bouging out of the center in the southwest portion -- will be precedent setting in that it will not only extend the boundary of the center, but it will also extend the boundaries of properties that are eligible for transitional usage. F or example, between the existing portion of the southwest quadrant of the center and First Street, that is an area that's eligible for transitional uses as approved in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. If this amendment is approved and if the extension is further to the south, the conditional uses that are permitted within the Golden Gate Area Master Plan will be extended to the south as well. It is -- I think it's arguable that if a change to the future land use map is approved that it will be somewhat more difficult to deny future changes, either opposite or directly adjacent to this amendment. And again, I think it's arguable, but once you have what I refer to as jagged boundaries, sometimes they lead to more jagged boundaries. In summary, there's an uncertainty by surrounding -- I should say approval of this request may lead to uncertainly by surrounding residential property owners with a permanency of the boundaries of this center. Negative impacts, and this was pointed out by people who attended the neighborhood information meeting: Noise, lights, smell, traffic. Mr. Fernandez mentioned that I believe 28,000 vehicles are estimated to pass through this intersection at this time. And it's likely to increase. Page 36 March 5, 2007 The real question is, is how large the center becomes if it goes beyond the present boundaries. If it becomes much larger and grows, so to speak, as a cancer, as some of the people in the neighborhood information meeting mentioned, what impact that's going to have on that intersection and traffic bearing capacity. Similar requests from other owners of the other properties immediately surrounding or near the boundaries of the present center. Again, creeping commercial strip development, higher intensity development along both Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard. A greater future difficulty of the county in defending denials of similar amendments to the FLUM for higher intensity nonresidential mixed use developments near this intersection. I've already pointed out in Pages 7 and 8, there is already approved and already on the FLOW maps vacant land already set aside for commercial use. That has not been developed. Orange Tree PUD, which is three miles to the northeast, has significant commercial development up near Immokalee Road. And some additional commercial development approved. Again, the East of 951 study is something that's presently in progress. In summary, there does not appear to be a public need at this time to expand the Wilson Boulevard/Golden Gate Boulevard center. And again, I won't read that, but there is, in staff's estimation, sufficient land already set aside based within the context of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, which seemed to indicate these different neighborhood centers were to serve relatively limited commercial -- convenience commercial uses. Page 8, the neighborhood center subdistrict. Although the subject three tracts of land are not currently part of the neighborhood center subdistrict, the subdistrict clearly is intended as follows per the Growth Management Plan. And I quote, recognizing the need to provide basic goods, services and amenities to the Estates residents, Page 37 March 5, 2007 neighborhood centers have been designated on the Golden Gate area future land use map. The neighborhood center designation does not guarantee that commercial zoning will be granted. The designation only provides the opportunity to request commercial zoning. Commercial demand analysis. And I can point out to you that I think I first reviewed a commercial study that was prepared for a 2006 Growth Management Plan application. I reviewed that I believe for the first time on February 27th. There's no mention of that in the staff report. What we do mention in the staff report is based upon the original application that was submitted to us for this application. Environmental impacts. There do not appear to be any. Nor archeological impacts. Traffic capacity/circulation analysis. Again, that's been prepared by transportation. And their recommendation is that the proj ect is approved with the stipulation that the level of service on Golden Gate Boulevard is an E or better. And Vanderbilt Beach Road extension is completed from Collier Boulevard to Wilson Boulevard prior to the proj ect impacts on the roadway network. We have to point out to you, as you probably know, the extension of Vanderbilt Beach Road is not included in the county's financial feasibility -- feasible capital improvements element. Public facility impacts. Potable water, there's no water provided -- public water provided on-site. There will be a need for a private well. And there's some stipulations by public utilities in the staff report. Sanitary sewer, same thing. No sanitary sewer public sewer is available. And there would need to be a septic tank system of some sort. Drainage. Comply with the 25-year three-day storm standards. Solid waste loss. No adverse impacts to the existing solid waste facilities from the 45,000 square feet project that are anticipated. And I believe the application actually showed a 60,000 square Page 38 March 5, 2007 foot. Michael can -- Fernandez can correct me if I'm wrong on that. But I think it should be 60,000. There's no apparent impact on parks. And again, there was a traffic impact study prepared for the project by the applicant and reviewed by Collier County transportation staff. I think it's -- again, there's -- I guess there's little doubt that because of the growth of the whole Estates area that there will be a need for additional commercial use, similar within the area to serve the residents. I think the real issue is where that commercial use should go and when. Findings and conclusions. They're on Page 11 and 12. The following are findings and conclusions as a result of the reviews and analysis of this request. Number one, the East of 951 study. Due to the East of951 study now underway, this amendment may be premature at this time. Number two, the Golden Gate Area Master Plan restudy committee. They did not recommend a neighborhood center on this subj ect property -- that is, not extending the existing center; rather, they recommended the location and size of the present center. Existing surrounding land uses. And again surrounding the center as is presently shown on the FLUM, the future land use map. It's basically very low density, single-family residential. Trends in development within the center. Yes, there is some infill of the existing center properties, which I think is the intent of that plan is to see some neighborhood serving commercial uses and services. Future land use map for the area immediately surrounding the subject three properties and the center. Estates type development with the exception of the adjoining center designation for the land to the east and north of the subject properties. Permanency of the boundaries. Staff has already pointed that Page 39 March 5, 2007 out. It very well -- this could be, as one of the residents at a neighborhood information meeting pointed out, this could be a cancer where the center continues to grow and change. The availability of undeveloped neighborhood center land. It includes 23.56 acres of undeveloped land within the Wilson Boulevard/Golden Gate Boulevard center. An additional 21.84 acres within the Everglades Boulevard/Golden Gate center. Neighborhood information meeting, last, but not least. There was a request about whether the Walgreen's store would be built. And I think Mr. Fernandez has pointed that out. Someone asked the question, will there be vehicular access on First Street. First Street has along the west side of the street single- family residential. There was some concerns about noise, traffic, lights at night, smells, et cetera. And about the buffer requirements. Bullet point number four. Concerned about this being the beginning of a cancer, quote, unquote, of commercial development and higher intensity development. Which is what some of those present stated that they did not want to happen in the Estates. Several persons stated they do not want more commercial near their homes, and that driving to existing commercial areas poses no problem to them. The applicant pointed out that there is a proposed mixed use development with commercial and housing proposed for the approximate 36 acres on the north side of Golden Gate Boulevard, just to the west of Wilson Boulevard, and that there is an application pending for this development in which he is personally involved. And that's Growth Management Plan Petition CP-2006-2. This statement was made by Mr. Fernandez after a member of the audience raised the subject and asked questions about it. The Environmental Advisory Council does not normally review and did not review this application. Page 40 March 5, 2007 Legal considerations. The staff report has been reviewed and approved by the office of the Collier County attorney. And finally, the staff recommendation and review and analysis provided within the report, staff recommends that the planning commission forward Petition CP-2005-02 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation not to transmit to the Department of Community Affairs. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. We have questions of staff and we're going to then go into public testimony. Rather than taking a break in the middle of that, we'll take a break now and be back here at 10 after 10:00 and resume. Thank you. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're at the end of our break. Our next break, by the way, will be somewhere between 11 :30 and 12:00 for lunch. During the break, I was notified by the petitioner's representative for Petition 2006-4 that they have came to a decision, and rather than make them sit here for the rest of the morning, I let them offer their argument for the record and we can be done with that issue. CP-2006-4 MR. ARNOLD: Good morning. I'm Wayne Arnold for the record, representing Petition CP-2006-4. Obviously we were caught off guard by staff's change and recommendation this morning, and we respectfully request a continuation to your March 22nd hearing to give us time to sit down with staff and potentially provide additional information for them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you certainly have gotten a surprised and unique circumstance, and for that reason, I'll grant the Page 41 March 5, 2007 continuance to the March 22nd meeting. I'd also like to make sure that since you were recommended for approval and now you're recommended for denial, that staff get together with you well in advance of that meeting in order to provide them with any deficiencies or items that you feel are deficient within their package now so it's real clear, and at the next meeting we can finish with them. Is that okay with you, Mr. Weeks? MR. WEEKS : We'll gladly meet with the petitioner and assist them however we can. Something I heard you say I wanted to react to, and that is it's not incumbent upon staff to tell the petitioner how to -- what data they need to submit so that we'll recommend approval of their petition. It's incumbent upon the applicant to submit data and analysis to support their petition. But we will gladly meet with the petitioner and assist them in whatever way we can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will you be able to tell them why you changed your mind? MR. WEEKS: Well, we didn't change our mind. It was an error in the staff report saying approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As long as it's clear. I just don't want at the next meeting to have them come forward and say due to lack of interaction with staff, there's still a question as to what their issues are. As long as it's clear. MR. WEEKS: We'll be glad to meet with them. And secondly, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I believe the Planning Commission itself needs to vote on the continuance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, all those in favor of the continuance -- is there a motion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll make that motion. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. Page 42 March 5, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion by Mr. Murray, seconded by Mr. Vigliotti. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. CP-2005-2 (CONTINUED FROM EARLIER IN THE MEETING CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, we left off with Mr. Greenwood. Any rebuttal or any discussions, questions of staff? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. Tom, what is being developed on the southeast corner of this quadrant? MR. GREENWOOD: I don't have the names of the businesses. It's a commercial PUD. I don't know exactly what's in there. And perhaps Mr. Fernandez or somebody else can identify those businesses. COMMISSIONER CARON: Does anyone here in this room know when the 951 study will be done? MR. COHEN: For the record, Randy Cohen, comprehensive planning department director. I would anticipate -- there's two major components of the East of 951 study. First there's an interactive growth model. The interactive Page 43 March 5, 2007 growth model probably has a timing period of somewhere between nine and 12 months to finality. The purpose behind that is to identify public infrastructures that would occur in conjunction with projected growth. One of those things in part of that study is dealing also with projected land uses. The other component obviously is taking the pulse of the community that's east of951 in doing a market study, which is being undertaken by Frazier and Mohlke. The reason I can't give you a definitive answer with respect to how long that will take, as part of the survey process and as part of the meetings that are transpiring with various divisions and departments with the East of 951 Horizon study group, that's going to form the basis for the survey and when things actually go on out. What we anticipated as taking a shorter period of time is obviously going to take a longer period of time than expected. But we want to get it right, the Board of County Commissioners want to get it right, and I'm sure this body as a whole would want to get it right and get the pulse of this community as well too. So I would say, you know, you're looking at on the onset probably around an 18-month period of time, maybe a little bit longer. COMMISSIONER CARON: Beyond this center, if you go to the east, how many miles is it to the Everglades? MR. GREENWOOD: It's approximately three miles. COMMISSIONER CARON: Three miles. If you go north, what's the first-- MR. GREENWOOD: Again, approximately three miles. COMMISSIONER CARON: And what center is that? MR. GREENWOOD: It's Orange Tree PUD, I believe it is. MR. WEEKS: I believe the first commercial you'd come to in the north or northeast direction would be the Randall Boulevard center. There's two small PUDs there. COMMISSIONER CARON: And that is how far? Page 44 March 5, 2007 MR. WEEKS: I would guess a little over four miles. Or by road traffic is probably four or a little bit over. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got three section lines and half of another, so three and a half? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah, sounds right. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. To the east? MR. GREENWOOD: Everglades. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm sorry, to the west? MR. GREENWOOD: To the west, I don't know how far that is to the closest. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the boulevard is five miles. And then on either -- and once you get to the boulevard, a mile north or south, you have another large center. COMMISSIONER CARON: And to the south? MR. GREENWOOD: I'm not aware of anything to the south at all. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you. MR. GREENWOOD: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You made a point about the transitional area around the center. Could you explain that again? MR. GREENWOOD: Let me just go to the code, the future land use element. It's called a neighborhood center transitional conditional uses. Conditional uses shall be allotted immediately adjacent to designated neighborhood centers, subject to the following criteria. It needs to abut arterial or collector roads serving the center. It's limited to transitional -- it says, transitional uses are compatible with residential and commercial, such as churches, social or fraternal organizations, child care centers, schools, and group care facilities. All conditional uses shall make provisions for shared parking arrangements with adjoining developments. Page 45 March 5, 2007 And there is a conditional use abutting Estates zoning as a requirement ofa 75-foot buffer of native vegetation. Conditional uses adjoining commercial uses within this neighborhood center shall, whenever possible, share parking areas, access and curb cuts with adjoining commercial. So yes, there are some transitional uses, so to speak, that would be permitted on the subject property if it's not changed on the FLUM map. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And is that in the general area of the FLUE, or is that in the Golden Gate map? MR. GREENWOOD: It's in the master plan. It's some of the verbiage. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can you give me that section? MR. GREENWOOD: I don't have the section, but the page that I have it from is Page 42. So -- and I think you can get that on line. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Schiffer, that's within the conditional uses subdistrict in the Golden Gate Master Plan. It's located near the end of the master plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom, I've got a few. On June 6th, 2006 you submitted a supplemental response for information. It's in our package. One of the questions in that -- and let me read them to you. Exhibit G, growth management. A. The Urban Land Institute establishes a trade area for a neighborhood center with a 1.5 mile radius, but not a two-mile radius, as indicated. The applicant's response included a sentence that said, additionally, previously and presented accepted exhibits to staff have utilized similar or non-UI guidelines, including the accepted submittal by our firm for the northwest corner of Wilson and Golden Gate Page 46 March 5, 2007 Boulevard, which exhibits were undertaken by Fishkind & Associates. Does staff customarily allow exhibits provided with other applications to be cross-referenced and used in a current application you're under review for? MR. GREENWOOD: I don't know the history and policy on that. David? David Weeks? MR. WEEKS: We've never received such a request. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that request consistent with 9J-5? MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, under the requirements for data and analysis that you see in all of your plan amendments, it would have been appropriate to submit with the data and analysis for this particular petition any and all information, which includes the information you just cited. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Second question was population, both existing and at full build-out in the trade areas not shown, nor is there a reference to seasonal population. I need to understand the response as you might have understood it that says, the reference LDC standard which is supportive of the proposal is not linked to these items and therefore is not applicable. Is that a true statement or is it accurate or did you follow it up with anything else, or what is your reaction to that? MR. GREENWOOD: I don't recall on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you asked -- in your supplemental response information, you asked -- you had a statement of what appears to be something maybe of noncompliance to which you were looking for an answer. The answer that was given was the one I just read, but there was no follow-up to that answer on your part? MR. GREENWOOD: I don't recall that there was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Item C, the next thing that you responded to, it says number of dwelling units, both existing and at Page 47 March 5, 2007 full build-out in the trade area is not shown. Response: The reference LDC standard which is supportive of the proposal is not linked to these items, and therefore is not applicable. I didn't see any follow-up or anything from staff. Does that mean you were waiting for the follow-up from the petitioner and none was supplied or their response was sufficient that you deemed it was not needed to be followed up? Do you have any input on -- anybody have any input on that? MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, I'll say this much: Going back to a statement I made earlier where it's encumbent upon the applicant to submit the data and analysis to justify their petition, to demonstrate that it's warranted. And staff communications such as the ones you're referencing are in an effort to assist the applicant, to tell them what we . .. see is misSing. However, if at some point in time we did not respond back to their response, I would say that that's not -- should not be construed that we accept what they say as -- that we find what they have stated as acceptable and okay, we agree with your position. It is what it is. It's nonresponsive. So we mayor may not agree with the position that they have taken. Staff -- I guess the point I'm trying to make is that staff is not in the position of being a dentist to try to pull out from the applicant the information that is needed to justify the petition. We do typically make some, but not always, but typically would make some type of comment to the applicant regarding their information that they submitted; we have questions about your study, we have questions about your methodology, so forth, and then the applicant responds in whatever way they so choose, which sometimes on their part is no response. And then we go forward, accept what they submitted, and that's what we're ultimately going to base our recommendation on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Was your recommendation then Page 48 March 5, 2007 based on whatever was submitted in regard to whatever was not submitted in regards to population in the full build-out trade area in the seasonal population of which the applicant apparently didn't feel that was an applicable question? The second question was, the dwelling units both existing and at full build-out in the trade area is not shown. There was no response to that. The third one was household income, both existing at full build-out in the trade area is not shown. It was the same response in that it was not -- the LDC standard which is supportive of the proposal is not linked to these items and therefore is not applicable. The next one is total trade area income, both existing and at full build-out is not shown. Same response. Retail expenditures, both existing and at full build-out is not shown. Same response. Supportable square foot of retail and service space, based on retail expenditures is not shown. Same response. Determination of land use requirement is not shown based on the above methodology. Same response. Determination of supply of existing commercial land uses within the trade area is not shown. Same response. And lastly, comparison of supply of existing commercial land uses to demand has not been shown. Same response. So the record was that the same response of the applicant's determination that it was not linked and therefore not applicable was what staff had received to all those questions. Okay, I wanted to make that clear for the record. Thank you. Are there any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, David, how many public speakers do we have? MR. WEEKS: We have a total of 12. Page 49 March 5, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just so everyone knows, if you haven't signed up and you still want to speak on this, sometime during the discussion, come up and leave alongside with David a sign-up sheet. I ask that you limit your discussion to five minutes, and please don't be redundant. However, it is important that everyone here who wants to speak does so. Sometimes the most effective way to make your point is to simply say that the person ahead of you, you agree with everyone that is stated, if that's the case. I want to assure you, this board has never been disappointed with public input. We have been disappointed with the lack of public input. So the more you can help us move through these items today, the better off everybody will be. With that, David, if you'll call the first speaker. You can use either podium. And would the second speaker called be ready to come up quickly to the podium after the first speaker leaves. MR. COHEN: Dr. Bob McGann, followed by Pat Humphries. DR. McGANN: Good morning. I've been in the urgent care business for about 11 years, after having to quit doing heart surgery because of a ski injury when I was about 49 years old. And we started one, now we're up to two, now we're up to three. Our fourth one is going across from the new hospital down on 951. And we feel there's a need in Golden Gate for an Urgent Care. We staffed our first pediatrician in Bonita and Estero just recently, despite having been told that it was a dumb thing to do from a financial point of view. But it's been well received. And we intend, if this process ends up allowing us to put an Urgent Care Center in Golden Gate, Wilson, next to Walgreen's, we would have a pediatrician there, as well as imaging centers, including CAT scans, MRIs, places that draw blood. So that's really all I have to say. Any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Murray? Page 50 March 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Doctor, how far away are the nearest imaging centers to your proposed location? DR. McGANN: I actually clocked it about a week ago with my wife, and it's about 15 miles. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do you have an idea of how far away any pediatrician's office is from your proposed site? DR. McGANN: Ten miles would be my guess. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Actually, that was my question was how far away those imaging centers are. DR. McGANN: You know, the medical business in Naples is a lot like other businesses such as restaurants. During the season, if you're not established with a doctor, you know, you may be waiting six and eight hours in the emergency room. During the off season it's not nearly as much true. COMMISSIONER CARON: Also, I wonder, have you investigated space on the opposite corner, on the southeast corner? DR. McGANN: I have. And to my knowledge, it's not available. In this talk I've heard about an Orange Blossom. There is a five-acre plot up there, but I talked to the guy one time about six months ago, and I can't even get the guy to answer my calls. So from an Urgent Care point of view, Bob Tober, who has been my partner in some of these ventures, he's going to become our medical director. You know, we don't have unlimited resources, so if, you know, we don't get final approval for this, we'll go somewhere else, such as 41 on the East Trail. So this isn't a make or break deal for us, we just -- we have no doubts from a medical business point of view that the business is there, the services are needed. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just on a personal note, I would like to say that the staff of your Immokalee Urgent Care is among the Page 51 March 5, 2007 finest that I've ever dealt with. DR. McGANN: Well, thank you. COMMISSIONER CARON: They do a superb job. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. COHEN: Pat Humphries, followed by Mark Teaters. MS. HUMPHRIES: Good morning. My name is Pat Humphries. I'm a resident of Golden Gate Estates and was involved in the approval of these shopping centers at the southeast and southwest corners of Wilson and Gold Gate Boulevard as a pass director for the Golden Gate Civic Association. The intersection of Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard is a neighborhood center for the Golden Gate Master Plan, which designates commercial with conditional use on adjacent properties. This proposal doesn't fit that profile. It's simply an expansion of commercial use which defeats the purpose of customer convenience with low impact, traffic noise and intrusion. I am therefore against this expansion. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Teaters, then who's next? MR. COHEN: Fill Mudrak. MR. TEATERS: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Mark Teaters. I am the past president of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association, and a multi year board member. And I'm also on the East of 951 Horizons Infrastructure Study Committee. Let me tell you a little bit about the neighborhood concerns. I live adjacent to this property. I can throw a rock over and hit part of this land from where I live. Some of the neighborhood concerns obviously is no specificity. We don't know -- no one knows what's going to be on this property. There's a fear of the unknown. There's no guarantees. Of course the basic comments that you heard at the neighborhood Page 52 March 5, 2007 meetings was the noise, the lights, the smells, those type of things. Some folks are for quality growth in commercial in the Estates, but within the existing framework of the Golden Gate Master Plan. Let me think. What else do we have here? I think that from my -- from my standpoint in being on the East of951 committee, I think that at this point in time it's premature for us to make a decision on something like this until after this committee has gone through the motions. I know that it is an 18-month study. I also know that we have left it open to be continued on for a period of time as well to get all of the input from the public. So I think that that's important as well. And I think that that's all I have. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mark. Mark, hold on just a moment. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, in the past when they were determining the boundaries for this district, was this land ever considered to be brought in and then considered -- in other words, when you were establishing what parcels would be commercial on that corner, what was the thought process at that time? MR. TEA TERS: Well, I believe the way that that works is that that -- if I'm not mistaken, that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mark, were you on-- MR. TEA TERS: I was not on the original master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You were one of the committee members when I was chairman of that committee. MR. TEATERS: You were, yes. I believe that that property -- unless I'm mistaken, that property could be conditional use, but conditional use would not allow the uses that they're proposing for it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. MR. TEATERS: Any other questions? Page 53 March 5, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, sir, not at this time, thank you. Next speaker, please? MR. MUDRAK: Phil Mudrak, for the record. I'm president of the Fringe Community Ag. community (phonetic), which is in the Northern Belle Meade, which is off of Tenth Street Southeast is our only access at this present time. Which is approximately two to three miles from the said proposal here. Also, I'm also a member of the Golden Gate Civic Association as well. My concerns are that by putting these commercial developments into our unique area, you know, you have City of Naples, Fifth Avenue, you have Venetian Bay, you have Las Vegas, you have all these, South Beach, Miami. They're all unique places, just like Golden Gate Estates. We moved out there so we could have a unique area so we could live, have our horses, have our A TV's, our motorcycles, ride out there and have our country. We don't mind driving five or 10 miles to a grocery store or medical facilities or whatever to get our services. To bring in continuous commercial properties into our unique area will just diminish the -- would just destroy our unique area as it sits right now. You have to excuse me, I'm a little bit nervous. It's been a while since I spoke. I am against this, and I hope that the board here takes into heart the community. I found it quite interesting that the petitioner went to Golden Gate City to the hardware store there to get their petitions instead of coming out to the Estates and talking to their people who really live out there. You know, I question who signed his petitions at that time. And I notice he said that 50 percent of the people were in favor of this. I kind of find that hard to believe. 50 percent are for it. There's 50 percent or more against it. And the amount of development that's going on out there, I think they're taking into consideration that Waterways and Orange Tree out there has most of that development, as the homes in Golden Gate Estates aren't as rapidly developing as Page 54 March 5, 2007 they state. So I hope that you take heart in the residents that live out there, and we'd like to keep our Golden Gate Estates the way it is, versus turning it into a city type area. We like it the way it is, and we hope it stays that way. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker. MR. COHEN: Guido Rizzo, followed by George Gruszewski. MR. GRUSZEWSKI: My name is George Gruszewski. I have lived out -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you spell your last name for the court reporter, please. MR. GRUSZEWSKI: It's G-R-U-S-Z-E-W-S-K-I. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Glad I asked. Thank you. MR. GRUSZEWSKI: I've lived out in Golden Gate for 15 years, and I don't mind traveling four miles to go to the grocery store. At the last Golden Gate Area Civic Association meeting we had over 50 people. We asked the question, who wanted more commercial out here? Not one hand was raised. We just like to keep it the way it is. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. COHEN: Sara Timmons, followed by Peter Gaddy. MS. TIMMONS: I'm Sara Timmons. I've lived out in the Estates since '99. And the reason I moved out there was to get away from development. I like the peace and quiet. I don't mind driving into town, I have to do it regularly. And it really doesn't bother me. I would much rather drive into town or drive five miles to a grocery store or whatever than to have one down the street. Thank you. I hope you all vote against this. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, ma'am. MR. COHEN: Peter Gaddy, followed by Steve Olivera. Page 55 March 5, 2007 MR. GADDY: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, good morning. I'd like to respond briefly to one comment that the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, you'll have to state your name for the record. MR. GADDY: I'm sorry. Peter Gaddy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. GADDY: I'd like to respond briefly to one comment that the petitioner made. He said it was miles between commercial developments in the Estates. Well, I believe that's consistent with the Estates zoning. That's why the people moved out there. It's sort of like going to the beach and complaining that there's too much sand and water. Finally I'd like to recommend that the petition be voted against for the following reasons: One, the ink is not even dry on the master plan. It's too soon to amend it. Third (sic), the traffic impacts that this development would increase cannot be accommodated. Third, it's urban sprawl. And fourth, the existing commercial districts are not built out. I'd like to share with you one of my favorite cartoons. I think probably everyone has seen this one. Of course it's not -- it's Godzilla and he's been renamed to Growthzilla. Now, I have -- I can deal with an occasional panther in my backyard, I can deal with mamma bear and her cubs. But you put this thing in my backyard, it's a pretty formidable opponent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. COHEN: Steve Olivera, followed by Timothy Nance. MR. OLIVERA: Steve Olivera, Chairman, board. Thank you. Mr. Gaddy pretty much summed it up there. My concern is is that participation and access. And most of us weren't given opportunities to participate in any changes in the master plan. I've been a resident of Collier County for 29 years, a landowner Page 56 March 5, 2007 in the Estates for 18 years and a homeowner in the Estates for 14 years. So even the most recent change, especially the 2003 when I guess it was revisited and put in, we found, doing our own consensus, we had submitted 675 petitions here in April of last year that we -- we were unaware of this, and of these changes. We were not allowed to participate. And I guess the consensus is that things just happen without our knowledge. And we do want to preserve and protect our rural environment and would like to use conservation and other considerations for this area. It's unique and it's special. And I think it can contribute more to this county and the nature that we have now, refined. We need some roads. But some of these decisions just need more input and I think thought. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker? MR. COHEN: Timothy Nance, followed by Patrick Leon. MR. NANCE: Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Tim Nance. I'm the current president of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association, and I'd like to address just a few comments. We've lost a lot of the petitions this morning, but I'd like to talk a little bit also in a larger context about the community and the people really that I'm trying to represent today and give you a feeling for what their feeling is about their community. I'd like to really address my remarks primarily for the area in the Estates. East of951 I also serve on the East of951 committee at this time. But I would like the members of the commission here to always consider when dealing with Golden Gate Estates the unique zoning that we have in that area and the role that it can play in our community. It's really one of the few areas that we have that is rural residential. Page 57 March 5, 2007 Rural means a lot of things to a lot of people. In the case of residents in the Estates, it really means where a rural lifestyle is valued and desirable. Rural doesn't mean to them an area that nothing exists in because nothing has happened yet and there's no development occurred. It is really the end goal. It's what we're looking for in our community. And really, it's really the only rural residential area that's likely or has a reasonable chance to survive in rapidly growing Collier County. That's a little scary when you consider that Collier County is the second largest county in the state, and it's clearly the largest one in south Florida. But Golden Gate Estates is a grand community. At build-out it's only projected to have 80,000 residents scattered over approximately 75 square miles East of951. It's an opportunity to be a signature low-density community for Southwest Florida. And it probably will be one of the few non-conservational woodlands left in Collier County when the county is built out. In many ways our rural residential area is defined by what it is not, as well as what it is intended to be. And I hope that each of you considers that you can't always judge and guide this area by urban criteria. In a lot of cases, our rural residential area cannot be improved by man, it can only be diminished by the things that we do, so we have to be very careful. Of course the Golden Gate Master Plan restudy is currently our guiding development plan. It's community based guidance. I think it's good local government. It's current. It's recently completed. And it really does reflect a lot of the values and expectations of the residents. I think it's really been successful. Basically members of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association, most residents I talked to and myself personally object to piecemeal changes to our comprehensive growth plan. I think that Page 58 March 5, 2007 basically commercial growth will destroy Golden Gate Estates and it's incompatible with our rural residential environment. Development is certainly rapid in Collier County, and our county is blessed with world class developers. I think some of the petitioners that you talked to today, certainly Mr. Fernandez and some of the ones that come before you on a regular basis are world class developers. If you want to make a great commercial development, we have the people right here. I don't think you need to go any farther than Collier County to get those people. And the residents of the Estates expect continuous pressure to commercialize our community. I think that this pressure is profit motivated and it's traffic number driven. Every one of these gentlemen can tell you what the traffic counts are, and I don't think there's a developer in Collier County that hasn't seen a parcel of property on a busy road that they haven't thought was perfect for commercial development. That's a shame. If we allow piecemeal approach to commercial development in the Estates, it's going to be death by 1,000 cuts. A little here, a little there. And the developers are very good at marketing; it's their main skill. And they'll tell you that well, we're going to use a very, very sharp knife. It will only hurt a little. And we're going to put a pretty Bandaid on it so you won't really notice it. And we're going to do it real quick. You know you want it. You know you need it. And even if you don't want it now, you'll use it once we put it in. And after you get used to it, you might even find it exciting. Very alluring. It's not necessary to have commercial development on every busy street in Collier County. We have our neighborhood centers, they're mostly currently undeveloped. Representing the Estates Area Civic Association, I ask this commission to protect the integrity of the Golden Gate Master Plan. I think -- I hope we all take a step back and allow our community a Page 59 March 5, 2007 chance to grow and mature in a controlled manner. I urge this Commission to deny piecemeal amendments to the Golden Gate Master Plan and not set a destructive precedent. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, please? MR. COHEN: Patrick Leon, followed by Toni Kinkead. MR. LEON: Good morning. My name is Patrick Leon. I've been a resident of Collier County for over 30 years. My first home I purchased in Willoughy Acres, and at that time it was considered to be out of town, out of the way. When the area started to grow and the privacy became limited, I started searching for other areas and found a place in Golden Gate Estates, which I purchased, and then the following year purchased the property next to me. My concern for the -- or my reasoning was is for the safety and -- let me get back on track here. Excuse me. The rural setting of my home was a dream come true. The wildlife and natural vegetation is everywhere you look. It's a real setting that I desire not to be compromised by small commercial strip malls everywhere you look with imported vegetation at every intersection, our convenient location that a builder wishes to commercialize. I do not mind driving time for essentials, because I chose this way of life on purpose for the tranquility and safety that are provided for me and my family. Away from the congestion and hubbub of the town. It wasn't long ago that the master plan was restudied and confirmed by other Estate residents that they did not want the rural setting to be disturbed. There will be increased traffic volume that will cause a potential for safety issues within the community, and I do not feel that the builders should be able to say what they think that we Page 60 March 5, 2007 need or want. As the representatives of the people, I feel that you should ask and listen to the residents who live here. Most residents picked the area as it is designed and is cherished, the peacefulness of this natural setting. And I ask that you deny this petition. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. COHEN: Toni Kinkead. And that's your last speaker . . coming up, sir. MS. KINKEAD: Hi, I'm Toni Kinkead. I wasn't planning on speaking this morning, but I'm glad I have the opportunity to say I definitely would like you to deny this petition. I am a resident out there since '92, and we had moved out there because we realized we couldn't afford beach front when we came to Florida. And we chose five acres in a natural setting, which is much more of a blessing to us. Just as special as an ocean in, the land that we live on is just as special. We feel very blessed to be on it. I heard several words: Unique, that is what the Estates are. Conservation is so key. We get to enjoy wildlife in a natural setting. I have a 10 and 12-year-old and my husband. I'm here to represent all of us. My children feel very lucky to have grown up in an area where we can feel trusting, they can ride on a street, on a bicycle, not worry about traffic or anything else that we have to concern ourselves about in the city. My husband and I met with Mr. Fernandez at his office, and we appreciated his input, his time for an upcoming proj ect that he will be representing and involved in, and that's at the end of our street -- we live on Third Street Northwest -- is to bring this residential and commercial. So if we deny now some of this stuff in the future, maybe we have a chance to shoot down, I'm sorry, Mr. Fernandez, but what we Page 61 March 5, 2007 already see coming, and that is as I heard, this cancer like spreading throughout this wonderful Estates that we enjoy. And we hope that you hear us clearly, that we definitely do not want this. And we feel like a lot of other people would have been here today had it not been on a work day. But we hope that you hear us, and you know that we represent them as well. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. That is the last speaker? MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Fernandez, you asked for a rebuttal and you can have five minutes, sir. MR. FERNANDEZ: Okay. Thank you very much. Just a few points I'd like to make and reiterate, and that is this is a project that is proposing good planning. And that it's going to give you logical boundaries that are enhanced from what we have now. You currently have 900 linear feet abutting immediately adjacent residential. It's going to cut that down in half. It's going to put that change of use, potential change of use in a more logical location. These are services. Staff said we're going -- there's no doubt in their mind that we're going to need commercial down the road. We're telling you that need is there now. And we're also telling you that this is the appropriate place that it can be located. We talked to David Weeks during the break and we are sure that we can find a methodology so you can have the comfort level of seeing both the rezone or the proposed development at the same time as the Growth Management Plan. This is a two-step process. This is the transmittal hearings. You'll get a second chance to look at this. This is not an approval, this is only allowing us to go forward. And even in the future condition it's not a guarantee of commercial. It only gives you the opportunity to come back for a rezone. From a good planning perspective these are services that this Page 62 March 5, 2007 facility can house that will be serving the immediate neighborhood in this community. There is a lot of traffic goes by here. Those trips right now have to go out into 951 or Immokalee Road to get their services. You have your transportation department, Nick Casalanguida is here, and he can address some of those issues relative to transportation. Again, we think it's a good project. There are some issues brought up by Mr. Strain in regard to our response to staff's initial review. We subsequent to that date received a little from staff finding us sufficient, and also remarking on the issue of economic needs analysis. And again, it was found sufficient. In other words, we made our case and we were able to uphold it. And we stand by that as currently. With that, any other questions, I'd be happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And we're done with the speakers. Presentations. Margie, I don't -- there is no need to close the public hearing on this matter, is there? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No, I think you should on a per item basis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then we will close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Mr. Murray, then Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would offer a motion that CP-2005-2 not be forwarded with an approval for transmittal. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff had his hand up. Mr. Tuffare you seconded the motion? COMMISSIONER TUFF: No, he can second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Discussion. I would like to lead discussion on this, only because I want to get some things clear on the record. Page 63 March 5, 2007 Mr. Murray, I appreciate your motion. I certainly agree with it. I have lived in Golden Gate Estates since 1980. I moved there for the same express purpose that most of the people who spoke moved there for. I was a two-year past president of the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association. I am past chairman of the Golden Gate Master Plan restudy committee, which began around 2001 and finished in 2003. Through that restudy committee, which was supposed to be done every approximately 10 years, Golden Gate Estates residents get the opportunity to reevaluate their area. They can come forward at that time through informal meetings, and we held them at that point at the Golden Gate Estates fire station, and in other cases when we were dealing with the city issues in the Golden Gate City in Golden Gate City. Those meetings were extremely well attended for the most part, especially when the commercial issue came up. And the results of the commercial centers we have now were based on the opinions and statements made by people at those meetings. When we originally started the committee meetings, we had staff encourage us to look for more areas for commercial in Golden Gate Estates. It was their idea that's what people needed. Boy was that wrong. The first meeting that that hit the street, the room was standing room only in the Golden Gate Estates fire station. People objected to the increased commercial in Golden Gate Estates. I see no reason that that needs to be changed by this amendment here today. None whatsoever. Unless there was an overwhelming public support for a change or there was an overwhelming public benefit combined with that support, there is no need for this change today. I am in full support of recommending denial of this to go forward, and I thank you, Commissioners, for the motion and the second. Any other comments from the other commissioners? Ms. Caron? Page 64 March 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. I absolutely will support the motion. However, I think I was actually glad when Mr. Gaddy, I think it was, put up his Growthzilla cartoon. Because I live every day with the Growthzilla that gets foisted on the urban area because you don't want any services. Namely, the Golden Gate overpass, and potentially even this -- the Vanderbilt extension. Which believe me, affects the urban area as much as it will affect the Estates area. You have got to come to grips in your East of 951 study that some form of commercial is necessary in your area for basic services. F or a grocery store, for a pharmacy, for an urgent care center, for a dentist. You shouldn't have to travel for everything into the urban area. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments from the commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion to recommend denial of the transmittal, please signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you. CP- 2005-5 The next item on today's agenda is Petition 2005-5, and it's for the Golden Gate area petition that involves Golden Gate Parkway and Page 65 March 5, 2007 Santa Barbara. It proposes 115,000 square feet of intermediate commercial at that location. And as soon as the room clears a little bit, I'll ask everybody involved to please rise to be sworn in. All those wishing to speak on behalf of this petition, 2005-5, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. SCHWARTZ: Good morning, Commissioners, to the public. Thank you for coming here today. I represent the -- my name is Paul Schwartz. I represent The Colonnade on Santa Barbara. We are a -- the owner of five-acres currently, a little over five acres on the corner of Golden Gate and Santa Barbara. And that is the northwest corner. Northwest corner of Golden Gate and Santa Barbara is a wooded area right now surrounded by residential and surrounded also by a rather busy intersection. This weekend I had the opportunity to drive along 1-75, both in the north and south direction, and I noticed a brand new interchange about to open with signs with cloths covering the words, but the wind was moving those cloths around. And it didn't just say this new exit was Naples, it said Golden Gate. The point I'm trying to make here is that the substantial increase in traffic going both east and west off of this new intersection is going to substantially change everyone's perception of that immediate area. The current road project of widening the Golden Gate/Santa Barbara intersection to the last -- with turn lanes, over about 11 lanes with north and south and east and west lanes combined, making for a much more intensive intersection than anyone thought previously existed on this particular corner. Many lanes that you see in each direction is not what you typically find in a single-family development. Basically what you're looking for is to have the least disruptive flow of traffic as necessary. What we're looking to do with this compo plan amendment is the Page 66 March 5, 2007 following: We've been approached by the residences (sic) that are north of us on Santa Barbara and east of us on Golden Gate with their concerns about backing up their driveways into this rather intense intersection, with their concerns over the immediate demand of how much traffic will be coming off of this new intersection on I 575. Ironically enough, these were the same residential owners that came to us many years ago when we were submitting for a PUD for 35,000 square feet of medical space on this corner, which we have currently approved. These residences (sic) fought that. And they had every right to. And we supplied barriers and buffer zones to a project that was never built at this time. When we were moving forward to building that project, that's when things changed. That's when the area changed. That's when Golden Gate and Santa Barbara is now becoming a much larger intense intersection than I think anybody previously thought. And it's going to increase. That new exit sign that says Golden Gate, it doesn't just say Naples. Cars are going to be getting off at that exit heading into Golden Gate City, and they're going to have a long way to travel for anything that they're looking for. If they head west into Naples, they have at least three or four miles before they reach any type of service. Most interchanges on a highway, you consider them -- you think of them as easy on, easy off. This is far from that at this time. There is no easy off and back easy on. Anyone that gets off of what's now going to be considered the main exit for the Naples downtown area that's looking for any type of service, whether it's a drink after a long drive across Alligator Alley, a restroom facility, is not going to find it off of this exit, as the Golden Gate Area Master Plan currently states. This intersection is the first major intersection heading in the eastbound direction. The compo plan amendment consists of a few different things: Consists of political activities. Sometimes it's influenced by reason, Page 67 March 5, 2007 sometimes it's influenced by popularity, sometimes it's influenced strictly by the parties that are present in this room today. Generally speaking, and we saw it in the first amendment that was here today, you don't hear a lot of people coming and saying yes, let's develop this property. For the most part, people that are for something don't come to public meetings, don't support a developer. People that are against something are very much strongly in their opinion and come to these public meetings and make their statement. In this particular situation there are extenuating circumstances, in my opinion, that justify the approval of a compo plan amendment and the subsequent rezoning of the property. First is based on the proximity to the new intersection, second is based on the change in character of that intersection, and the third is based on the existing uses in the area. When you take all that into consideration, such a change could be accommodated without negatively impacting the remaining Estates district of the Golden Gate Master Plan. I heard valid arguments this morning from many residents in Golden Gate that love where they live. And I think it's a wonderful place. I don't particularly live in that area, however, I grew up in Upstate New York with many acres in my backyard, with Deer running around. I chose to raise my family in more of a neighborhood surroundings, but that's my choice. I think the infrastructure of Golden Gate is perfect. I have maybe friends that live up there, three, five acres of property. I think it's wonderful. However, when you're talking about a first major intersection off of an interstate such as 75, one of the busiest interstates in the entire United States, when you're a half a mile to a mile away from that intersection you're not having those serene settings that I heard about this morning. Whether you want it or not, you don't have it. You're going to have increased traffic. You're going to have many, many people Page 68 March 5, 2007 coming off. What we feel is that this intersection would be the perfect spot for a split between retail and multi-family housing. The multi-family housing we're proposing is 15 units per acre, and those housing units that we're proposing will be built three levels over parking with parking underneath them. And that would be the buffer zone surrounding the current residences that will remain in those areas, both north and east of our property. Our current property, like I said, is 5.11 acres, with the increase that we have the options on two other properties north of us and two other properties to the west of us, increase that to about 18 acres. Those 18 acres are really not suited for residential. Is the corner where we are of 5.11 acres suited for a commercial building such as a doctor's office? Absolutely. And I don't think -- that's not what we're looking to change. What we're looking to do is increase the land that we currently own. We're looking to make a nice community center based on that increase in the land. A, it will help alleviate congestion in Golden Gate City when the people come off the highway, looking to look for a service. They don't need to go past that Golden Gate/Santa Barbara intersection. They can easily come into our facility. I'm not asking for a left turn into the facility. People are used to making U-turns, people are used to go going around the corner to get into someplace. That's the world we live in. I'm not looking for cutouts and curves. I'm not a big developer. I represent a small developer. If it doesn't work, we build a medical facility there, 35,000 feet, and that's what's there currently approved. I don't feel that that is the highest and best use of this property. The highest and best use of this property would be a mixed use of multi-family. I'm not using the word affordable housing. I'm saying multi-family in a nice way. I'm not proposing that we build any low-income housing here. It's certainly not part of what we're planning on doing. We're looking to beautify the area. Page 69 March 5, 2007 At the neighborhood information meeting we presented some beautiful artist sketches of what we're proposing to put there. I don't know if I'm able to show you these sketches, but I will, unless I'm told not to. I didn't prepare myself with any overheads. The multi-family that we're proposing are nice multi-family units. We're not looking to recreate any type of a Section Eight housing. The commercial that we're looking to put up will be a mixture of retail and office space. We're not looking for 115,000 square feet of a Walgreen's. We're not looking to put a gas station on this corner. We're not looking to put warehouse space on this corner. We're looking to put services that are needed in the community, services that will be needed for not only the community, but folks getting off the highway for easy access on and off the highway to continue on their travels. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a moment. Cherie', do you two need to switch? THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. Yes. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that what's happening here? You'll have to give us a minute or two. (Brief recess.) THE COURT REPORTER: I think we're ready right now. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ford, you did that so quickly. Everybody else needs a break. THE COURT REPORTER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. We'll continue on. MR. SCHWARTZ: Thank you. This is an example of something that we would seek to be placed on this corner, public seating area in the front, in the center and this extending north and west from the corner. Behind it we would propose to put the Page 70 March 5, 2007 multi-family. Again, we're looking to beautify this area and not ruin this area. Weare not a developer looking to come in and change the face of Naples or Golden Gate. We are a small developer looking to attempt to create something in the community that's nicer than what's there right now. Commissioners, have any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have staff reports and public too so MR. SCHWARTZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- do the commissioners have any questions of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. MR. SCHWARTZ: Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll have the staff report next. Thank you. MS. MOSCA: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, Michelle Mosca with your comprehensive planning staff. David Weeks provided an overview of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and the past studies including the committee -- the 1-75 committee as well as the Golden Gate Restudy Committee. Mr. Swartz went through and provided you with an overview of the project. What I will do is provide you staff findings and conclusions. And then we also have correspondence that were received. The proposed request, as you've heard David Weeks say, related to Policy 5.23 of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, this policy prohibits commercial development from Livingston Road to Santa Barbara Boulevard, that section of Golden Gate Parkway. This proposal is inconsistent presently with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. The supporting documentation provided by the agent fails to Page 71 March 5, 2007 justify or support a change to this policy. What is being proposed on this corner dramatically changes the character of this area. It is an urban-style development inconsistent with the estates designation. Let me just address briefly any public facility impacts. The only apparent public facility impact is related to roads. And if needed, I'll have transportation address those. The segment of roadway from Green Boulevard to Golden Gate Parkway along Santa Barbara is projected to fail in five years. This project will increase the traffic on that roadway. There are no other public -- no other apparent public facility impacts. The correspondence we received as of March 5th, we have approximately 21 individuals who are in favor of the proposal. We have another 128 individuals who are opposed plus we also have the Golden Gate Civic Association who recently sent a letter and they are also opposed to this particular proj ect. Finally, as noted in the staff report, staff is requesting or recommending that the commission forward this petition to the board with the recommendation not to transmit. With that I'll answer any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any public speakers? MR. WEEKS: I think we have one -- more than one. Hold on. I think we have four, Commissioners. First is Gloria Cooley followed by Suzanne Herman. MS. COOLEY: Good morning. I'm Gloria Cooley and live on 68th Street. I oppose this. I oppose amending the plan as it stands, the Golden Gate Master Plan as it stands. The streets that come out onto Golden Gate Parkway, there are at least over 205 residences there. And we are people who are proud of our neighborhood and we want it to stay as it is. I moved there seven years ago. I moved there specifically for Page 72 March 5, 2007 open space and natural beauty. If you come and visit our neighborhood, if you're not familiar with it, you'll see that we're all very proud and we have -- in my yard alone I have hawk. I have all different kinds of snakes. I have fox. I have opossum. I have raccoon and I love it. I do -- this does not look like my neighborhood I'll tell you right now. It doesn't at all. And I am not in favor of this happening there. This is not the only place for somebody to stop and get a drink either and you know that. Now, the freeway is being opened and we can get into Naples now from 75. And we will deal with that as residents. Someone made a comment once that it was going to cause blight and we were all going to get up and leave. Well, I'll tell you. We're not getting up and leaving. We're staying. We deal with the traffic on Golden Gate Parkway. And if you come and see us -- and I mean from the time I've been there, it's been heavy. So we've widened the road. It's -- the traffic's going to be smoother. We'll have stoplights. We will deal with it, but we will not deal with people making commercial developments and now people traveling into our neighborhood for commercial business. That's different. That's different than relieving the congestion on Pine Ridge Road and Immokalee Road. That is very different. We -- we are -- we are relieving the congestion. We'll deal with it. W e'lllive there. We'll continue to be proud. But I am asking you, let's keep the plan as it is. Why do we have to change it? Progress isn't just the amount of asphalt that you can lay down. Progress isn't just how many fast food restaurants, how many office buildings, how many convenience stores. I'll tell you something. I can go in any direction and be where I want to go in just a few minutes. I am not suffering from lack of services, period. And people -- I just say that just take a moment and think. Sometimes progress is having open space and beauty. I'm also a realtor and I take people often up to Fort Myers because they can get Page 73 March 5, 2007 more for their money. And at the end of a very long day they turn to me and say, You know what, it's just not Naples. And it's not. So we've got something unique and beautiful. Let's try and preserve what we can, what we can. And in this instance we have a plan. Let's stick with it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, please. MR. WEEKS: Suzanne Herman followed by Ed Kant. MS. HERMAN: Good morning. My name is Suzanne Herman and I live at 5881 Golden Gate Parkway. And that is east of Santa Barbara and west of Livingston. And I can see this area of proposed development from my front yard. So what I am presenting is in opposition. And my remarks will focus on three main areas of opposition: congestion, density and the lack of need for the proposed development. First of all, congestion. It has been projected that the Golden Gate Parkway interchange with 1-75 will be the busiest of the four in Collier County. The widening of Golden Gate Parkway was intended to accommodate this traffic flow. To add to the already heavy traffic would seriously impact the homes, churches and daycare centers that currently exist on the parkway. My second issue is density. Current residences in Golden Gate Estates occupy lots of more than an acre each in size. And to propose increased density to 15 residences per acre would change the single- family residential character of the neighborhood. And third has to do with lack of need for the businesses that are proposed. I did a survey of the area surrounding the corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara. And I identified the following places of business within a five-minute drive of that corner: twenty-five restaurants, eight food stores, fourteen beauty salons or barbers, three pharmacies, ten banks, four drycleaners/laundries, fourteen healthcare related offices such as doctors, dentists, clinics, chiropractors and therapists, twelve real estate or related businesses, Page 74 March 5, 2007 five schools and preschools, five veterinarian or pet care establishments, four insurance companies and twenty-seven retail establishments selling a variety of merchandise such as jewelry, shoes, gifts, electronics, tires and telephones. There is also a strip mall of twelve new stores that have not been occupied since their completion. In summary, this proposed change would be detrimental to the neighborhood by adding to the congestion, increasing traffic flow, providing unneeded businesses and destroying the wood area that currently exists on that corner. I thank you for your consideration of this -- of my comments. And I have copies for you if you'd like to read my list again. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I certainly would like your list. And a suggestion, the amount of statistics that you've just come up with, you might want to pass down to places like Fraser & Mohlke and Fishkind and those people. It sure is handy to know that. I -- I don't know how you did it, but that's a great survey. MS. HERMAN: I -- I -- I got into my car and then I walked and I spent a Saturday doing this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'd like a copy if you have an extra. MS. HERMAN: I have plenty for everyone. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker. Mr. Kant. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Kant's followed by the last speaker, Glenn Grant. MR. KANT: Good morning. My name is Edward Kant. I want to preface my remarks, first of all, by saying that I have no financial interest in any property nor do I represent any individual or group. I represent only myself. I feel it necessary to make that comment because several of you know me and know that I was for a number of years on the staff here as transportation director and am currently doing some consulting although most of my work is as adjunct faculty for the University of Florida. Page 75 March 5, 2007 I originally came here today to talk about two proposals one of which was withdrawn which was known, I believe, as the Townsend proposal. It was going to be the first or second one that was going to be heard today. This one is what I consider the other bookend. Unfortunately, I could not make it to the public neighborhood information meeting. So I sent an e-mail. I don't know -- Michelle, I don't know whether the e-mail is part of your record or not for the 100-some people that spoke against it. But in that I -- I indicated that I want the record to reflect that I was opposed to this, but now I'm having the opportunity to re-enforce that with you. We must remember in the words of the philosopher Santayana, Those who forget the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them. And what happened in 2001 on that -- on this particular corner is a lesson in history. There was a proposal prior to the current one -- well, several proposals. It took a few tries but they finally did get a corner that was approved as commercial as the gentleman pointed out. I believe they put some medical or something on there. But it's also the camel's nose under the tent. And Mr. Strain and several of you were probably involved over the years. I know that I was the staff liaison to the interchange beautification committee for lack of a better word. And I know that we were very, very concerned about what was going to happen in that corridor. When I was on staff, I also know the agonies that many people went through in an effort to preserve that particular corridor from Livingston Road to Santa Barbara. And, frankly, as staff I was very disappointed in the board's action in what they did in 2001. Unfortunately, those -- few of us could say anything. But I'm here today to tell you that I am still as opposed because I think that we see what happens at Immokalee Road. We see what happens at Pine Ridge Road. We see what happens at County 951 Collier Boulevard. And there is no real reason for this particular interchange area to see that same domino effect. As the lady just Page 76 March 5, 2007 pointed out, there are a number of businesses. If you drive up 1-75 as you head toward Tampa, I can think immediately of at least two, possibly three interchanges where you get off the interchange. You have to travel for at least a mile before you come to anything, convenience, gasoline, doctors, what-have-you. They're getting few and far between. We have an opportunity to do something very unique here. And that uniqueness is to keep the character that we fought so hard to get for the community not just for Golden Gate Estates and not just for Golden Gate City and not just for the landowners. If you drive down Golden Gate Parkway now heading from Naples toward Golden Gate City, you'll find a plethora of realtor signs. If you look at those signs very carefully, I think you'll find that many of them are residential properties represented by what we would consider commercial realtors. And I see that as a -- sort of a handwriting on the wall. So I would ask that you -- you take into consideration the wishes of the people that have spoken before me, keeping in mind that while a comp plan amendment in and of itself doesn't grant zoning, I could probably count on the fingers of -- one or two fingers the number of times that a future rezone has not been granted once the land use is in place. So that's a very, very important thing that I caution you on. Because what you do today may not affect what happens for the next few years, but it will ultimately affect how that corridor is treated. Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Kant. Next speaker, please. MR. WEEKS: Glenn Grant. And we have another submittal followed by Leeanne, I believe it's Graziani. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Yes, sir. MR. GRANT: I appreciate the opportunity to be here. I'm seeing lots of good things happening today which I -- when I was Page 77 March 5, 2007 going around on the corners around the street to fight against the Townsend, which was pulled, I was doing general research on other things so I put my name in to speak against the Colonnade when I saw something scary four levels high go up. But I just wanted to compliment the commission and compliment this whole process. Because a number of the people were saying that there's no reason for us to speak up because we can't fight city hall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you slow down just a little bit. She's got to type as fast as you speak so... MR. GRANT: I'm sorry. But I have a lot of different points to comment on and I just wanted to -- glad I have to the opportunity to do that. Paradise at what cost has been in the paper a lot. I've -- I've lived in four states. I'm a real estate and a mortgage banker so I've been in a number of different communities. And the reason I moved here 15 years ago is because of the community and because of what it is and what we, I believe, are trying to save it from being. The individual speaking about -- from New York about the Colonnade, there's a number of places around the country where there are exits that have green space and no services especially with this exit has the potential to be a green space or a green corridor with the overpass at Airport Road to get downtown. Meaning you put all the signs on Pine Ridge. Put all the signs on the first exit from the 951, that's where the services are. This would not be a service exit. It would be the exit to get to beautiful downtown Naples. So we split the traffic on Pine Ridge for all the commercial or 951. And everybody who wants to get downtown would go onto Golden Gate. The -- the lack of commercial and the commercial stats, I definitely want a copy of that, that report. There's no need for more commercial. My office is on the corner of Pine Ridge and Livingston. And there are so many square feet going up there it's unbelievable. There are so many vacancies. There's vacancies on Radio Road. Page 78 March 5, 2007 There's vacancies all over the place. So we surely don't need anymore commercial until the impact of what is here now is actually absorbed I don't believe. But she did a really great job with the statistics and I whole heartedly agree with what she's saying. One -- one final comment, Mr. Strain, I appreciate all the things you say and the way that you say it. And I just wanted to kind of tie or get the connection between all the other individuals who spoke about Golden Gate Estates and the pluses about their horses, the animals, the space, the greenery. It's the same thing for us. And we're close to town which makes it really, really unique and prestigious to a point to other individuals who come to look at this area that that space be developed as a residential area with some real quality homes along the drive. And that they know that they can live that close to town, have nice property, highest best use in that area being residential, not high density commercial. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. WEEKS: Leeanne Graziani then followed by Ms. Patricia Spencer who I think will be your last speaker. MS. GRAZIANI: Good morning. My name is Leeanne Graziani. And the particular location that we're talking about is actually the corner where -- where I live. I live right on Santa Barbara Boulevard. I am the -- I guess I would be the fourth driveway north of the intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard. And I've heard a lot this morning in the earlier petition and -- and in this petition about the change in the character of the Golden Gate Estates area. We moved to this area about ten years ago. And between our property and a couple of the adjacent properties that we own as well, we've about ten acres. And we have enjoyed the estates way of life for a number of years. And for about the last five years we've been fighting Collier County with the -- the six-lane widening. Page 79 March 5, 2007 Specifically the property in front of our house was taken last July in order of taking. And we've lost about one-third of the property off the front of our -- front of our land. And, in fact, this morning the road crew is out there trying to start breaking into that third of our property. So I've had to put a stop on that so we can make the necessary arrangements. Because, quite frankly, Collier County even though we as a group of neighbors made a concerted effort, had our six -- no six-Ianing signs up, Collier County went ahead and made the determination that that six-lane widening was needed. And specifically in front of my house, I'll not only have the six lanes heading in a southbound direction, but I'll have the northbound lanes, bike paths and sidewalks as well. So, unfortunately, it's not the developers who change the character of my neighborhood. But specifically it's Collier County that has changed the character of my neighborhood. And when I look at the project that Mr. Swartz has proposed, I'm not sur~ that I'm completely there with the multi-family side of things, but from a commercial standpoint, the commercial services that I utilize currently relate to the CVS plaza which is at the northeast corner of Santa Barbara and Golden Gate Parkway. And for those folks that also use that plaza, it's pretty old. It's pretty rundown. It's not a very nice facility. And I appreciate the number of restaurants that are in that area, but there's one restaurant in that area that I will -- that I will take my family to. So from my standpoint it would be nice to have some nicer services in that area, more upscale facilities that we can use. And for that reason I'm in support of the commercial side, but do still have some remaining reservations on the height of the multi-family. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. MS. GRAZIANI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, please. MR. WEEKS: Patricia Spencer. Page 80 March 5, 2007 MS. SPENCER: Hello. I'm Patricia Spencer. I'm here for the Golden Gate Civic Association and I'm also a member of the Golden Gate MSTU. We have a long history of working with the developer of this property in helping them come to a reasonable solution to commercial zoning and assisting residents to keep a pleasant home atmosphere. We reached a compromise a couple of years ago and this made for a peaceful coexistence between commercial and residential. The same residents requesting this huge increase in density of the zoning are the same people we have been trying to protect for so many years. It pains us to see these property owners trying to inflict the same intensity on what will become the new neighbors if this proposal is accepted. They may have finally reached a price at which they would sell out. This doesn't entitle them to sell out for their neighbors. We request you leave the zoning as it has been negotiated. It made sense a couple of years ago and it still does today. We want the property owners to have the opportunity to use the commercial space they have been allotted. It isn't a reason to further encroach into the rural residential neighborhood. Through the Golden Gate Master Plan the community worked for three years to designate where commercial opportunities should exist in the community. This individual property owner has no right to change the rules strictly, solely to provide greater opportunity of financial returns than should be allowed. The deals have already been made. We should live with those deals. And there's also already so many multiple services available at Pine Ridge exit and 951 exit each within just a few miles of the new exit that we see no need for additional services at the new Golden Gate exit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. David, I bet you have another speaker. MR. WEEKS: Yes, Tim Nance. Page 81 March 5, 2007 MR. NANCE: Commissioners, I'd like to make one more comment on this particular issue. Once again, Tim Nance, from the Golden Gate Estates Area Association. I just wanted to let you know that we do have a very close working relationship with the Golden Gate Area Civic Association. And although there's a -- there's a tremendous amount actually of Golden Gate Estates that is west of 951, we feel like that that part of Golden Gate Estates actually impacts a lot of the quality of life on Golden Gate City itself. And so we respect their opinions and their concerns regarding Golden Gate Estates and that area. But the one thing that I would like to hope to indicate to the commission, to the Planning Commission this afternoon, is the tremendous benefit that Golden Gate Estates and the low-density housing that it represents has on the City of Naples and the surrounding other urban -- part of the urban coastal area. It provides a lot of water shed area and it provides a lot of -- of wilder areas or woodlands that don't have to be provided by public parks or conservation easements or other environment or concerns. These are wild areas that are providing noise buffers in a transition between higher density and lower density. They're actually maintained by residents. They're part of somebody's yard that they pay to take care of. So they do provide a valuable service. I think in the future you'll see a lot of developers contend that Golden Gate Estates without development is a burden on the coastal areas of Collier County. Well, you have a burden right now in Golden Gate Estates of a whole 40,000 residents out of the whole population of Collier County. And I really don't think that they're providing a -- placing a tremendous burden on the coastal part of the county. In fact, they're providing the water shed and protecting the wells that the City of Naples gets its water from. So I hope you'll take that into consideration. Thank you very much. Page 82 March 5, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. David, now do you think we're to the last speaker? MR. WEEKS: That was it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any questions, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question for Michelle. Michelle, one thing that they might be doing here that's good is that Item E says, Access to the projects are not permitted from Collier Boulevard. And then under F, which is this site -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Collier Boulevard? This is -- you sure you got -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This isn't on Collier Boulevard. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Never mind. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other comments, questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll close the public hearing. Mr. Tuff, did you -- COMMISSIONER TUFF: I move that we do not transmit the CP2005-5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're recommending for BCC not to transmit. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll join. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Discussion. I've got an overall statement. We heard in the Estates prior one a discussion that a resident used the word "cancer" related to commercial growth. Look at this one. Started out as a small corner. It started out coming in as a PUD that was amiably worked out with the civic association a couple years ago. And now it's moved Page 83 March 5, 2007 to the neighborhood next to it. Which means the neighborhood next to that would qualify for changes as well. This is exactly the example of cancer that could occur anywhere that we allow it to start. So I fully support the motion not to transmit this. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. I feel compelled to comment in this matter. Looking at the renderings which are quite lovely, I see them on Tenth Street in the city; however, taking into consideration 15 units per acre density, I don't think the city would allow it to be built there either. I'm not sure about that exactly, but it's totally out of character I believe with the area. And I believe that area of green space, area with trees and with critters is unique and should remain unique. I believe that ultimately there will be some changes, but we have a good plan in effect right now and I think this is out of order. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hearing no other comments, we'll call for a vote on the motion. All those in favor signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries to deny transmittal. Okay . We're at a point of discussion, ladies and gentlemen. We have one more issue coming up that can be on today's agenda. That's another petition on Golden Gate Parkway. It could take an hour, hour and a half to discuss. We have an option to either take a break right Page 84 March 5, 2007 now for 15 or so and then come back and go right into it or we could take our lunchtime. What's the preference of the board? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'd feel better if I eat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Never mind. I need to eat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we will-- we will break now for lunch. And is it convenient for the board to be back here at 12:30? Does that work? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. You said no. Okay. Let's resume at -- let's resume at 12:30. That's a little less than an hour and be back here at 12:30. Thank you. (Lunch recess was taken.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everyone, we're back from our lunch. We'll resume the meeting. There were a lot of people who didn't think we'd get through the seven petitions today, but we've done overwhelmingly well. So we have one left. And we will hear that now, CP2005-6. It's the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, a five-acre change approximately to the David Lawrence Center on Golden Gate Parkway. All those wishing to speak on behalf of this petition, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The oath was administered.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll start with the presentation by the petitioner. CP-2005-6 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. With me today David Schimmel with the David Lawrence Center, Margaret Perry, Jeff Perry, Tom Trettis and Jerry Brown with WilsonMiller. Mr. Schimmel will speak after me. We have just a brief presentation. Page 85 March 5, 2007 This is a request to establish the Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict for 16 acres along the north side of Golden Gate Parkway. On the visualizer is the property in question. The district would encompass two existing institutional uses, the David Lawrence Center and the Parkway Community Church of God. These two uses currently exist on eleven of the roughly sixteen acres that will be in the subdistrict. So the net effect is to increase or provide an additional five acres of institutional uses along -- within this property. As your staff report indicates, the David Lawrence Center has been in this location since 1977 and has been in Naples since 1969. The current -- well, I won't say the current, but the anticipated acreage for the David Lawrence Center was ten acres when the proj ect was being built and with the proposed build out. There have been some changes to that ten acres to where it's no longer ten acres or ten usable acres. There have been changes to the water management requirements as well as the native preservation requirements in the county's regulations. And, finally, 2.2 acres were taken for right-of-way for Golden Gate Parkway. So we -- we do not have the acreage we originally anticipated for the ultimate build out of the services to be provided by the David Lawrence Center. In 2002 the David Lawrence Center required the five-acre parcel that we're essentially trying to get institutional uses on that site. The desire is to address the native vegetation requirements and the water management requirements and still have flexibility to address whatever changes may occur in the future as far as new regulations on that five-acre piece so that we could -- we could basically add roughly 17,000 to 20,000 square feet of -- of additional square footage to the overall project. The existing church has been in existence since 1984. Your environmental staff is supporting the petition. Your transportation staff has no obj ections. Staff has raised some concerns regarding the Page 86 March 5, 2007 data and analysis that we provided to support the petition. I think typically we're supposed to prove that there are no other sites available; however, this is a unique situation that you already have the user in the area and the need is there to provide additional mental health services. And Mr. Schimmel will get into that in his brief presentation. So we believe that the -- the data and analysis is there to support moving and including this five-acre parcel and the -- into the use for conditional uses for institutional uses. If there is additional data and analysis needed by this board, we can get it before the Board of County Commissioners hearing in June and bring it back to you-all at the adoption hearing if -- if you deem we need to bring you additional analysis as to the appropriateness to add this five acres for institutional uses. That's the overall presentation of what we're seeking to do. Mr. Schimmel will briefly describe the -- what occurs at the David Lawrence Center and the need for additional square footage to accommodate those uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, before we -- any questions of the -- of Richard at this point? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, what's the right-of-way? It seems like an excessive corner right-of-way. Is that -- is 60th Street going to be extended? Is that what they're trying -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is 60th Street going to be extended up there or why -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That -- that actually addresses the -- the improvements to Golden Gate Parkway. There's kind of like a frontage road now on our side of the street. That's what basically took up the 2.2 acres that we've lost. Page 87 March 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But why does it have that triangular portion on there. What is -- it seems like a huge chunk bit off. MR. PERRY: For the record, Jeff Perry, WilsonMiller. That's actually what's called the throat distance. You're talking about the -- the extension north from the parkway and then it dog-legs back to the left? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. I think my question is the right-of-way actually has a 45. In other words, it looks to me like you're setting up for a major corner. But the question could be answered, is there any discussion of ever extending 60th Street to where it would bisect this property? MR. PERRY: No, 60th Street extends south of the parkway. It does not extend north and there's no intention of extending it north. That -- that road -- 60th -- what would be considered the 60th extension sort of into the property is of an adequate operational length and then it dog-legs back sort of almost reversing back to the left to create that sort of triangle shape. It's just so you don't have the -- the frontage road coming out and intersecting right next to the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. I understand that. It just seemed like somebody was setting up for a big curve, but okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, I had one question. You're-- the crux of your argument is that you had right-of-way taken that you didn't have expect to have taken. That would show up on the original plat or not. Is this -- is the right-of-way that was taken in excess of the original plat or do you have the original plat available? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I -- the -- it is in addition to the original platted right-of-way. The 2.2 acres is in addition. I went back and looked at the plat and this is in addition to the 50 feet that was originally on the site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Next we can Page 88 March 5, 2007 continue then. MR. SCHIMMEL: Good afternoon, Commissioners. David Schimmel with the David Lawrence Center. Commissioner, your question about why such an odd shape, what we were told by the Department of Transportation was that they had to be able to stack up seven cars to be able to get off the parkway and that's why they needed such an extended area because that was one of our future water retention areas. So that's what the Department of Transportation told us. I don't know if that helps or -- or further confuses you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, it just seems like such an excessive and odd right-of-way taking that -- MR. SCHIMMEL: Well, we -- we thought -- we thought so too. The David Lawrence Center is about providing service for Collier County residents. We've been doing that for 38 years. I will be happy to answer any questions about what it is that we do, but I'll -- but I'll just give you a brief overview. Fifteen to sixteen thousand people a year will come to us and need some kind of mental health or substance abuse care. That includes kids, adolescents, adults and the elderly. Over the last 30 years that we've been on this site, we've tried to expand in other locations in the community because that's what's in the best interest of our clients. We have a facility in Immokalee. It makes sense for people in Immokalee who need to access us. We have a facility on Horseshoe Drive that services many people coming from the court system who have drug and alcohol problems. We've needed to expand the Golden Gate location for at least the last five years. We're kind of bursting at the seems because there's some programs we do in Golden Gate that are unique. We operate a crisis stabilization service which is the only service of its kind in the community. And it means that we have law enforcement accessing us, family members coming to us. It's like a psychiatric emergency room. Page 89 March 5, 2007 And we're the only ones in the community that do that. Naples Community Hospital doesn't do that. Physician's Regional doesn't do that. And this location even -- even with the devastating loss of 20 percent of our property is a fabulous location for Collier County residents. With the new 1-75 interchange exiting there we are very accessible. And that's one of the things you want when you offer community mental health services is good accessibility for people who may have a crisis or an emergency. So one of our most important issues is we need to expand those crisis services for the residents of Collier County. I would like to tell you we were a profit-making organization but, unfortunately, we're not a profit-making organization. We're a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit. We work really hard every year to try to break even. Eighty percent of those people who will come to us will need their fee discounted significantly. And that's what's unique about the David Lawrence Center is that we will see people regardless of their ability to pay. So we're really talking about expanding a public service. As this community expands, it's logical that the community mental health services have to expand. And we've been trying to tweak that over the last decade by a variety of ways, by going out and leasing space, by moving to other locations in the county where it makes sense to move to other -- other locations in the county. But on this site for these services, it doesn't make any sense to go anywhere else. As Rich said, and I don't want to be redundant, but we lost 20 percent of our property. We need to be able to retain water and have native vegetation and adequate parking. We've worked closely with our neighbor, the church so that we could do some type of shared parking arrangement. And this not only would fulfill an important community need, it would allow us to do it in a cost-effective method. It's just -- it would just be cost prohibitive for us to move east and try to find 20 acres. And as you've heard today, there are not a lot of residents that would be thrilled with -- with a property zoning that Page 90 March 5, 2007 occurred to the east. So I'd be more than happy to answer any -- any questions if you have them about the David Lawrence Center. The technical details about the engineering I'll leave up to WilsonMiller. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is your intention, then, with the site alongside the church? Will you expand behind the church and then over into that site or swap the parking or something? MR. SCHIMMEL: We have -- our engineers have told us we need to retain about a two-acre -- we need to have about a two-acre lake to meet the requirements to be able to expand on our existing eight acres, the acres that we already have developed. The church is -- is willing to grant us an easement. They're working closely with us so that we could, in fact, have water go from our property to this two-acre retention area. That's our immediate plan is to be able to retain water which we can no longer do on our eight acres. The other immediate thing that that five-acre parcel does for us is it gives us a tremendous amount of native vegetation. Because a lot of our -- most of our native vegetation was destroyed in the DOT taking of the two acres. All of that was heavily wooded particularly that triangular corner that you see. That was all fairly heavily wooded before it was destroyed. So we're trying to be in compliance with the codes. And the only way we can do that is to be able to use that five acres. That's our immediate plan. If we could develop some office space down the road, that would be terrific, but that's not part of our immediate plan. Our most -- our most important plan is to be able to expand the services on our current site that nobody else in town provides and to be able to retain water and satisfy the native vegetation requirements to do that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions at this point? Ms. Caron. Page 91 March 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER CARON: So the 17,000 square foot expansion would be on the current property? MR. SCHIMMEL: Correct. Correct. That would be on the current property. And the five acres would be utilized for water retention and native vegetation. That's our immediate plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you aware that there's a staff suggestion that if we did not agree with staff -- which is recommending denial, we recommended for transmittal -- they're suggesting limit the development and uses on Tract 66 to stormwater management and preservation areas. MR. SCHIMMEL: I'm aware of that recommendation and, you know, we could live with that. We would certainly like the option to not be restricted to that at this point in time. Because our -- our demand for services grow about 5 percent per year. So we know there's only so much we can do on the parkway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the other -- there are two other limitations that they're suggesting. One is limit the development and uses on Tract 59 to church and church-related uses and other institutional uses of the same or less intensity as church use. Does that pose any problem for your plan? Richard. MR. SCHIMMEL: I have to think about that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Actually, what we -- what we would like to do recognizing that we have to do a conditional use for any of the uses that we wanted to put on this property, is we'd like to leave it flexible so we don't have to come back with a comprehensive plan amendment if we decided that we want to put some office space onto the five-acre parcel in the future. We would still have to come through and do a conditional use for the office space on the five-acre piece because we don't plan on doing that right now. So there will be a public hearing process that would be required for us to go through to -- to -- to put anything besides the water management and the native Page 92 March 5, 2007 vegetation on that five-acre piece. We -- the church I don't know that they're -- they're ready to say no other uses on their property at this point. And, again, to change that would require a change to their existing conditional use. So we think the public is protected through that public hearing process to make any changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's kind of why I was asking you about these, Richard. I need to know ahead of time what your thoughts are. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're saying that if this were to pass, that the conditional use process then would dominate whether or not you'd be able to utilize the property like you're intending to use it or like you'd want to use it? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then in your mind does a comp plan amendment provide the right to develop? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yeah. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It gives you the ability to come in and request the conditional use. And you would have to meet the conditional use requirements in order to develop that site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the conditional use requirements, can they be impacted by the attitudes of the neighborhood? Are you looking at strictly the letter of the interpretation? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We would expect that the neighborhood would have a large say in what would happen on that property just like neighborhoods do throughout the Collier County now currently through the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just don't want any argument from you if this were to go through as you've done in the past insisting that because it's a GMP allocation, it's some form of by-right zoning. That's why I'm trying to make it very clear, Richard, that we don't Page 93 March 5, 2007 want to go there. The other thing that they list on here is limit the development and uses on Tracts 43 and 50 to the existing David Lawrence Center use and to the amount of building expansion that could have occurred on those two tracts had 2.2 acres not been conveyed for right-of-way. This is all in the staff report. Have you not read this? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I've -- we have it. And I -- and I guess I didn't make it clear that we would prefer not to have those staff stipulations. That we would like it approved as we submitted it because we frankly don't know what changes will occur within the comprehensive plan that may not allow us to achieve the proposed expansions on just that one parcel, that we might need to go -- actually go over to the five-acre parcel subject to the conditional use criteria to accomplish the -- the expansions we had originally planned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Question of staff. I guess, David, you might be the one most familiar with it. The conditional use criteria -- and I can't remember it from the Golden Gate Master Plan for this section -- that would have -- what would have been allowed on Parcel 66 had this application not come before us today? That area was specially treated for conditional uses I thought or some -- there were some particulars about it; do you recall? MR. WEEKS: Correct. Prior to the present provision of the master plan that prohibits any new conditional uses, the master plan allowed infill conditional uses. There had to be a conditional use on each side, abutting each side of the subject property. So that it truly was an infill piece. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In this particular -- 66 has on the east side a bridge center or something or is it vacant? MR. WEEKS: No. No. There's a property to the -- adjacent to the east. It does not have a conditional use on it. So this property would not have qualified alone. Tract 66 would have had to have been combined with the parcel adjacent to the east to get to that point Page 94 March 5, 2007 where they were -- had conditional uses on each side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was trying to find out. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions of Richard? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I put on the visualizer. That -- that's the original plan with all the proposed expansions which we will not be able to achieve under the current configuration or loss of configuration on the site. And that is -- so we will -- we will not achieve the full planned expansions under staff's limitations of the comp plan amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is this what's been approved? This has not been approved as a conditional use? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It has not, no. No. But we would come -- you know, obviously we would come through and do our site development plan for the David Lawrence property should the comprehensive plan amendment go through. But this is -- this is -- this was what we had hoped to achieve had we not lost the 2.2 acres and had not had the native vegetation requirements adopted subsequent to the acquisition of the original ten acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, I guess the next up is our staff. Thank you. MS. MOSCA: For the record Michelle Mosca with the Comprehensive Planning Department. What I'll do is similar to the last petition, I'll just jump right to the findings and conclusions. As mentioned by Rich, there does not appear to be any public facilities impact nor does there appear to be any environmental impacts as a result of this proposal. The project is, however, inconsistent with the conditional uses subdistrict text that prohibits new commercial development along the parkway between Livingston Page 95 March 5, 2007 Road and Santa Barbara. The supporting documentation that was provided to justify this request does not do that. It does not justify or support a change to that conditional uses subdistrict text, again, prohibiting new conditional uses. Finally, approval of this subdistrict may lead to additional requests for conditional uses or the expansion of the 15-plus conditional uses already developed along the parkway. What I'd also like to address the correspondence received as of March 5th. Staff received four letters in favor of this proposal. One letter in favor of passive uses on that adjacent five-acre property. Specifically mentioned was the water management. And, finally, staff received 107 individuals who were opposed to the petition based on the existing text in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, again, that prohibits conditional use development. And then, finally, as noted in the staff report, the staff is recommending that this commission does not recommend transmittal of this petition to the Board of County Commissioners. And as Commissioner Strain referenced, we do have an alternative just in the event that this commission recommends approval to transmit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Yeah. I just had a question on-- when we got -- I saw the surveys. They had boxes they could just check that said, I'm opposed to all of these. Do you believe that this one in particular, you know, some of them didn't specifically link that out. So they checked for the Townsend and the Livingston. You left that one blank. But to me I was wondering if that was a -- you felt that was an objective asking. If that had been asked on its own whether that would be okay or not. And I -- MS. MOSCA: When I provided the correspondence to the Planning Commission, I -- I -- I separated those petitions out and listed them as commercial -- in opposition of commercial only. I as staff can't make that determination that those other individuals perhaps would have been in favor of the petition. That's why I didn't list them Page 96 March 5, 2007 out that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michelle, do you know of any records with either the sheriff's department or code enforcement of any reported problems or complaints about the existing David Lawrence Center? MS. MOSCA: Commissioner Strain, I'm not aware of any. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other conditional uses from Santa Barbara to Livingston Road of institutional nature like this? MS. MOSCA: No, there are not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is unique in that regard? MS. MOSCA: This is unique. And what I would have preferred seeing in the documentation, the justification for this particular request is somewhat of a needs analysis. Because I think here with -- staff recognizes that this is a unique public service. But absent that information, I could not recommend approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you know what you just said is a resounding theme we've heard so far this morning. Why is it that the applicants have not -- and it's seem universal -- have submitted and supplied the adequate information needed to prove their cases? What do you think -- why has that seemed to be an issue this time? I haven't noticed it so much before. MS. MOSCA: Well, I would say that there's some confusion as to what is sufficiency. We go through -- with the comp plan amendment we go through a period it's call sufficiency review. Sufficiency review means that the application is complete for staff to review. If the petitioner submits documentation that they deem justifies their position for a recommendation of approval of sobeit, staff reviews that information. If, in fact, they do not provide information, we request additional justification. And in this instance I recall the first submittal submitted justification for the expansion of the existing facilities based on the right-of-way taking and that they Page 97 March 5, 2007 weren't able to develop consistent with their site development plan as Rich had stated previously. I did request because there were also additional institutional uses being requested on the adjacent site, the five-acre site from the church, I had requested justification for those uses. The applicant agent then submits that justification to me and I review it accordingly. And I think that's where the confusion is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if they -- if they submit a justification for the expansion if it were to be on the -- on the property of the current existing center and they're asking for up to 20,000 or something, 17,000 square feet, whatever it is and they need this five acres to see that expansion materialize based on our codes and regulations that are in place now, whether that 20,000 or 17,000 is on the center's current site or on the five-acre site, if the justification was supplied that justified an additional 17,000 or whatever, as long as it's within the site, why does it -- why would you need more? I'm trying to understand the philosophy of staff so I can better understand what your denial's about. MS. MOSCA: Well, we have an existing provision, the Golden Gate Area Master Plan that states no new conditional uses along the parkway. What the agent must do is justify a need to change that provision in the plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The data they supplied to justify the need for more square footage for their main -- main facility, isn't the equivalent data that you're suggesting they need to change the plan? Why else would they -- MS. MOSCA: Yes. And they did not -- they did not supply that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I thought you said they had supplied it for the original center. MS. MOSCA: They supplied information that stated as a result of the right-of-way taking, two point, I think it was two acres, were taken from the site. So they could not meet the water management or preservation requirements. Page 98 March 5, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MS. MOSCA: That was it for the expansion area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I thought you had said that the expansion itself was justified by its square footage? MS. MOSCA: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they supplied nothing to say that we need more square footage because the statistics in the area say we have these many patients and these many patients justify more in square footage. MS. MOSCA: That's correct. MR. COHEN: Commissioner, if I may, and what we were looking for, the gentleman from David Lawrence actually spoke that he could provide you with additional information if -- if necessary. And I think that's the type of information we were looking for. And then I think the other thing we were looking for from them to provide is a before and after scenario. I know Mr. Yovanovich-- Y ovanovich put on on the visualizer, you know, what they planned on doing and what was being taken away. Well, one of the questions that we had, well, if that land has actually been taken away, what was your before scenario and how many square feet could you build and what would those uses have been. And based on afterwards what was taken away in the amount of square footage and what would the additional site allow you to do. Those are the two things I see us missing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have another question of the applicant, but we'll finish with Michelle first. Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Michelle-- MS. MOSCA: Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: -- when did you request from the applicant this information that you were missing? MS. MOSCA: The justification for the additional institutional uses? Page 99 March 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. MS. MOSCA: That was -- let me take a look if I have the exact date. It was during their sufficiency review. I don't -- thank you. Agent helped me out, May 3rd, a response letter from Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson dated June 12th provided the additional information for the institutional uses. Now, again, I need to make the distinction. The justification for the expansion such as a needs analysis when we start talking about the number of beds per population needed was not supplied to me during that time frame. I didn't ask for it. I felt as though we're all professionals. The petitioner must submit the justification to request the change to the plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They submitted what they thought was a justification. It just wasn't enough in your eyes to meet the -- MS. MOSCA: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- meet your reasoning -- MS. MOSCA: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- your understanding of what justification would be needed for this? MS. MOSCA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So somehow they had to figure out what you needed and provide that? MS. MOSCA: Well, they're asking for the request. So based on that request, they should know what analysis is needed based on 9J5 Florida Administrative Code to require -- which requires the specific data analysis to justify a change to the plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it seems like I think they tried to do that and you didn't find it sufficient. And I'm not saying you're right or wrong. I'm just trying to understand. They submitted the information they thought was justified pursuant to 9J5. You reviewed it. You didn't feel it was. MS. MOSCA: That's correct. Page 100 March 5, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How are they to know then what to do? If -- if you don't feel it was, but they do and they're as professional as you would be, how would they know then how to react to you if you don't tell them? MS. MOSCA: Well, I -- I guess I would say the same thing to the agent. If I look through the application and it doesn't warrant a change to the existing conditions in the plan, I would think to myself what would justify a change, just simply the two acres that have been taken as a result of right-of-way and I can no longer build or would I need to justify my position based on a need, a community need versus a population, other sites within the community so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I'm just trying to figure out how someone would understand all this. I know Richard's a practicing land-use attorney. He probably has more clients than anybody else. He's wrong most of the time, but I'm still trying to find out ifhe could have understood what to do when the first submittal that he gave to you was not accepted by you. And I -- like I said, I'm not trying to fault -- find fault with what you did. MS. MOSCA: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just trying to understand better ways of communication. Because I heard another applicant today tell me that if they're deficient, they don't know how they're deficient because they're not told how they're deficient. They're just simply said, You're deficient. You've got to figure out how to fix it. That's fine because it takes the burden off staff to have to explain it. And that's probably good for the taxpayers because we're not -- you're not being -- we're not paying you then to do their application. But at the same time, I'm wondering how clear it becomes to them on what they can do. MS. MOSCA: Well, if -- if then -- if we start looking at trying to justify each and every petition that comes in, we then as -- as public planners become advocates for the developers. And myself, and I don't know if I can speak for other professional planners, I don't feel Page 101 March 5, 2007 that that is our responsibility to justify a request to change the plan. I -- I feel as though it is the professional submitting the application.' That's where the responsibility lies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Michelle, I appreciate the nuance in that. However, in an ordinary course of dealing with people, let me ask you this then. If a petitioner then were to contact you and said, Listen, I sent my June 3rd letter, whatever it was. Did you find it acceptable? Did we resolve all the issues? You wouldn't have a reluctance to say, No. We're not happy with some things. Or would you just say , We have your letter and that's it? That's an important question I think. MS. MOSCA: It is. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because the nuance is, yes, you are professionals. But, you know, I've seen pictures where they show railroad tracks that went like this instead of like this. And so I think it's an important question to resolve. MS. MOSCA: Again, during that one-month period, the sufficiency period, we look at the petition. Did they provide the necessary data analysis for staff to review the petition? And that's all you receive within that time frame. And then we move forward with our substantive review. We start looking at public facility impacts, compatibility impacts. You name it, we start looking at it that period. I understand what you're saying. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. You're talking process. MS. MOSCA: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But -- but -- but the -- it has to be more than process. No? I mean, I recognize you're not -- you're not required to go in deeper than -- but the predicate here is whether or not the requirements that are established by you in your letter to them are of sufficiency in clarity for them to appreciate them completely. That's why I gave you that analogy. Page 102 March 5, 2007 MS. MOSCA: I understand. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I'm not criticizing you because language is imperfect. Okay. Now, we do recognize that sometimes individuals may choose to avoid answering a question and answer a question that wasn't asked. I understand those nuances. But I'm just trying to find out whether or not if a petitioner then were to contact you once more and say, Listen, I sent you in what I thought was correct. Do you find it sufficient? Would you have -- would you give them the opportunity to know your decision? MS. MOSCA: Not at that point. Eventually I guess if we had that time line where, for example, the staff report came out and I had identified any shortcomings. And the agent then said to me, Well, we didn't provide a needs analysis. But, for example, Mr. Schimmel came up and explained, well, this is -- this is -- this is the population. This is the percentage that the population is expected to grow and the needs based on that, I believe we would have addressed that during that time line perhaps. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's an extension of the process. In other words, you're -- you're -- at the time you receive a letter, you're saying that's sufficient for what -- that's what they believe. And the next time period -- somewhere in that time line further you're going to go into an analytical mode and determine whether -- that's what you're telling me? MS. MOSCA: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I understand your process a little bit more. I just would hope that in consideration somewhere along the line before it becomes too late that -- that there is an opportunity once more. I recognize it's a burden on you, but it seems reasonable. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, I'd like --like to stress a couple points. First of all -- and Michelle is just trying to make that distinction which I think you grasp -- but I want to emphasize the Page 103 March 5, 2007 point. Sufficiency is just that. That process is the application sufficient for review. If the application says there's 20 things to submit, did you submit 20 or did you submit less than 20? If you submitted less than 20, you're not sufficient. We notified the applicant. And in the letter -- excuse me. I'm getting ahead of myself. We notified them with insufficiencies that we found. The applicant then has a chance to respond to provide those missing items. This is not the quality review. This is the quantity review. Did you submit a market study, not is it a good one or not does it justify your request? Just did you submit one. If you did, then ultimately we get all 20 of those items, we notify the applicant that -- that the petition is sufficient or if they choose not to submit. If we've told them you only submitted 18 and we need 20, and they say, You know what, I'm done. I -- I think your request is unreasonable. I disagree with you. I'm not going to submit. That's your choice. We'll go forward. In the letter that we sent to the applicant stating Your petition has been deemed sufficient, we specifically note the point, this is for a sufficiency determine -- determination only, not a substantive review. That's going to occur next. Then we make that substantive review. We write our staff report and we come to the hearing. We do not view it as our position to go back to the applicant and say, You should have submitted more. It is their application. The burden is on them to submit the information to make their case, to demonstrate why the amendment should be approved. It is not staffs role and it should not be staffs role to notify the applicant, We think you should have submitted A, Band C. Your petition. You make your case. That's not our job to tell you how to make your case. It's our job to review what you submitted to see if you've made your case. I will -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you have the twenty requirements and they submitted eighteen with a statement saying they don't feel the other two are necessary, could they still have gotten a sufficiency letter? Page 104 March 5, 2007 MR. WEEKS: Yes. Because we cannot hold them hostage. We cannot say, We're never going to take your petition forward. You just sit dormant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm trying to understand. Because that -- that references a lot of things in my mind right now. So someone could just refuse to answer you. You'd still have the issue them a sufficiency letter because they have a right to move forward? MR. WEEKS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the idea they got a sufficiency letter doesn't say they're sufficient. It just says they've given you the best answers they could and they're allowed to go forward? MR. WEEKS: Right. We -- we -- and typically we would acknowledge or tell them, you know, in the communications back and forth with them typically we -- and it's happened in this petition cycle where we would say , We never did received such and such. Do you wish us to go forward or are you going to submit that? And specifically one or two it was environmental data. And eventually -- and not this petition, no. And -- and their initial response was no. We're done. Go forward. But they reluctantly I would say did finally -- finally submit that. But absolutely. If they say we're done, we can't hold them hostage. We take the petition forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That explains the reaction to an earlier amendment. Thank you. Mr. Tuff, did you have a question and then I think Mr. Vigliotti you may have had one. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. Mine was answered. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Now, hearing that the needs are increasing and there'll be more and more and would that -- how much of an effect on your findings and conclusions? Would that change the weight of your recommendation greatly or a little bit or a whole lot? It sounded like a whole lot. MS. MOSCA: Well, perhaps it may, in fact, justify the need for Page 105 March 5, 2007 the expansion of the David Lawrence facility. However, does that justify the need for additional institutional uses on that adjacent five-acre site? I would say no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the additional five-acre site -- I'm sorry -- could be utilized for other improve -- other needs for the site that aren't necessarily institution such as stormwater preservation and! or parking? MS. MOSCA: We didn't -- I -- I don't -- I don't believe my recommendation stated parking. It was just for the water management and preservation to recapture that loss due to the right-of-way taken. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Michelle, does the word -- excuse me -- no further conditional uses, does that mean no expansion of an existing conditional use? MS. MOSCA: Along the -- well, yes, it does, but let me -- let me clarify. If a property -- there's a conditional use. If a property is able -- if a proj ect is able to expand on the conditional use site then, yes, they can expand, but expansion onto adj acent sites are not allowed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Michelle. David, are there any public speakers? MR. WEEKS: Yes, there are. We have two, Gloria Cooley followed by Bill Poteet. That's all we have, two. MS. COOLEY: Hi. I'm Gloria Cooley and I live on 68th Street. The David Lawrence Center does provide a service to the -- the community and I cannot argue that. I have no problem with them taking that adjacent tract and doing the water shed and the preservation at all. Where I have a problem and where I ask you not to approve this is I'm just reading from the agenda. And it says, To create the Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict to allow for the expansion and continued operation of the David Lawrence Center and the Church of Page 106 March 5, 2007 God and to allow additional institutional and related uses for property located on the north side of Golden Gate Parkway specifically the Tracts 43, 50, 59 and 66. That just seems too -- to me what does that say? I mean what does that say? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's a broad statement. MS. COOLEY: It's just too broad and I have a problem with that. And if David Lawrence needs to expand and if those tracts need to be part of that expansion, then I would like to see what is proposed before you give it away. And you said earlier that if they -- if you give it away now, then they have the conditional use but they have to come up and they have to petition how they're going to use it. But I -- just saying that, Well, okay. Fine. We're going to give this to you and you can have any kind of use that you want, I don't like that. It just doesn't make sense to me. So -- and maybe that is what will happen at some point, but without knowing what's going to happen, I don't think -- I say don't do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker, please. MR. POTEET: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Bill Poteet and I'm here on behalf of the Golden Gate Area Civic Association. And our organization discussed this issue too and came up with similar conclusions that we favor the idea of David Lawrence being -- having the ability to expand. They've been in our community over 20 years. They've been a valuable asset to our community and they've been a good neighbor. And so for their idea to come in and expand, it's logical. Our community's grown in leaps and bounds over the last 20 years. And they really haven't expanded much over the past 20 years. So for them to expand now and in the future is to be expected. But to change it to a different use other than David Lawrence we would oppose as an organization. But if David Lawrence is going to use it for their own Page 107 March 5, 2007 facilities, then we're very much in favor of it for them. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. David, is that the last of the speakers? MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions before we close the public hearing from the county -- from the Planning Commission? Hearing none -- Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just I need to understand. Maybe I missed it in there. Maybe you can expand on some of these other uses that are -- that you anticipated doing? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, this is -- this is -- we anticipate expanding the David Lawrence Center on our property and the church continue its use. But let me -- let me -- it's not an open-ended list of uses that can go on the property. And this is what's in the subdistrict. It's churches and other places of worship, group care facilities, David Lawrence Center, nursing home and assisted living facilities, essential services, private schools, day care. Those are through the conditional use process. Now, if you want to do either a library, governmental office, medical office with group care -- with the group care facility or a civic or cultural use, you have to go through the PUD process. So those were the list. That's the universe of what we can ask for to go on this 16 acres. It's not totally open-ended. Now, the notice in the newspaper I can see how people would be concerned. It was very broad, but the request is not a very broad request. I can assure you. And as far as the data and analysis goes, if I had heard the word "needs analysis," we could have flooded the county with plenty of information to show the needs analysis. That didn't come through to us clearly on the justification for the use. We attempted to answer that in good faith. We got a letter of sufficiency. We thought we'd answered it. There was no further communication until we got the staff report. Page 108 March 5, 2007 Again, as I said, we'd be happy to provide a needs analysis between now and the Board of County Commissioners hearing to show the need for the expansion if you need more than just Mr. Schimmel discussing this. But, again, we are asking you to approve our request. And if you need to limit our uses to just -- just the uses of the David Lawrence Center, we don't have an issue with that. We would hope that it would not be limited on the five acres to just water management and native preservation, but we're not -- we don't want this thing to go down because -- because of hoping to preserve our ability in the future to address that concern if regulations change agaIn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But there was -- there was a point that was made. Commissioner Schiffer indicated or questioned Michelle and asked if expanded uses were considered new uses. And she said yes. I thought she did anyway. And if that were to be true, then I'm confused then by this whole thing. Because I would see it as an outgrowth. I would say, okay, you need more space. Now, if you can open up another building with another function, I can see that's -- that's in a different thing. But are you talking about expanding in the sense of I have 20 customers today and I want 25 tomorrow? MR. SCHIMMEL: We're only talking about expanding what we're currently doing. We would not be talking about developing new unrelated services. We simply need the ability to handle more customers. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I thought it was. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, did you have a comment? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. Bob, Michelle's answer really wasn't that they couldn't expand on the grounds. Is that she considered the additional site and expanded into that as expanding. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, sometimes I don't hear Page 109 March 5, 2007 correctly. I apologize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. I'm sorry. Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are you ready for a motion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I'm -- I have questions, but I think did you have questions? COMMISSIONER CARON: Go ahead. No. I was just going to explain with Brad. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, let me read something to you that has been in three cases now. It wasn't read before, but it does help understand staffs position I think. It's talking about consistency with the GMP and some commitments that apparently were made to the DOT. And it says, Additionally, a commitment was made by the County to the Florida Department of Transportation in consideration of the approved and construction of the 1-75 interchange, keep the Golden Gate Parkway corridor green and not allow the proliferation of commercial and conditional uses. Now, I'm not against your conditional use. I'm trying to figure out a way to get there that meets all the needs. The lady that came up here and expressed concerns over Parcel 66, I think by allowing intense development on 66, we would certainly be challenging that commitment we made to the FDOT about retaining the greening of that corridor. On the other hand, your initial parcel had the ability at one time to expand and I still think you have the right to expand. And using the church and shared parking and water management and preservation over on that Parcel 66, it should give you the square footage. But I'd like you to consider qualifying the square footage. On staffs limitation No.3, they say, Limit the development and uses on Tracts 43 and 50 to the existing David Lawrence Center use and to the amount of building expansion that could have occurred on those two tracts had 2.2 acres not been conveyed for right-of-way. I would like to add the language to that that not -- where building expansion that could have occurred under the land development code Page 110 March 5, 2007 at the time. That way you have the right to expand on that original center location to the outline of what occurred and what the LDC allowed at the time the center went in before the 2.2 acres was taken. And then the new code that requires the additional preservation and water management could all be accommodated on the Parcel 66. And you would not, therefore, have to disturb Parcel 66 thus keeping the corridor green as we committed to the DOT. Does that seem-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I'm -- let me express my concern. My -- my concern is is that it's not just the 2.2 acres that prohibits us from putting any more square footage on the site. It's the 2.2 acres and the native vegetation requirement and the water management district requirements that didn't exist at the time we acquired the site. So when you say and no LDC code in effect, are you talking back when we bought the original property or are you talking in 2002/2003 whenever the take occurred? Because that limiting language would not allow us to -- to -- to go ahead and build on the site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was talking about the site itself of 43 and 50 at the time the take occurred. Up until that point, you could have expanded on that site. Now you can't because of preservation and water management. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you were allowed to defer those preservation and water management to Tract 66 and thus in essence preserving Tract 66 in some manner of open space, then that would give you the right to expand on 43 and 50 as staffs suggesting, but probably in a manner that would give you the room you need to do it there. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I believe that -- that does that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, in order to make sure that isn't going to take away something else that's needed, if we were to get past this transmittal hearing by both us and the Board of County Commissioners before the adoption, could you explore that and do Page 111 March 5, 2007 two things: Come back with a needs analysis and then come back with -- not a site plan that's locked in, but one that would theoretically work? So we know that when you come back in for a conditional use, there's something viable there and not something that's going to take more away from the neighborhood? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure. Yes. We can do all those things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I needed to understand. Any other questions of -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I would just --let me ask Rich. Rich, do you think one solution for the David Lawrence expansion would be to move the church over onto 66 and then them use Lot 59 or no? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Move in the opposite direction you're gOIng. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's for sure. That's why I want to make sure he's okay with that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. We -- we -- we have worked with the church. And they have been great. Because we are going to need an easement to construct some facilities to get the water over to that -- that other tract. So they've been -- we've been working together to -- to see that this occurs. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, my concern there might be more creative solutions. You're going to be pretty well land bound even though you're moving your -- your -- your preservation over. You're moving your water over. You're going to end up becoming more and more dense in buildings on the one site as opposed to spreading it over more area. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. We -- we will. And -- but, we're bound and trying to make sure we can go ahead and do the proposed expansions on the site we already have. And we'll come back at the adoption with a -- with a conceptual site plan showing you, I guess, what we can fit on the existing site as well as how we can lay Page 112 March 5, 2007 it out on if we were to put some structures on the five-acre piece just for purposes of showing how we can make sure we preserve the character of the neighborhood by keeping those structures close to the street. If that's not acceptable at the adoption hearing, then we obviously could back that off. And I thought that's what you wanted as far as a conceptual site plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not -- not involving Parcel 66 because the intent of the commitment made to the DOT says no more conditional uses and a continuation of the green corridor. Well, I can understand their philosophy if we were to approve conditional uses that took green areas and converted them into more buildings. But if 66 is left for water management and open space, it doesn't do that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And what I was suggesting is if we can't, we thought we would get another 17 to 20,000 square feet on the existing parcel. Ifwe come back with a site plan, it shows 12,000 square feet and we need to put 8,000 over on the other piece, you're still at the same intensity, if you will, that was originally contemplated on that piece. I don't know the final numbers is what I'm trying to say. We're going to look at that and we'll come back and report it. And my understanding is is you don't want to increase the intensity, therefore not meeting the commitments to the DOT. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not averse to seeing this go forward so we can explore the possibilities. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's where I -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's all we're suggesting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm suggesting to you things that for me personally I think would be beneficial to see. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the board may have other ideas. Ms. Caron. Page 113 March 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I really think that under the staffs recommendation they -- they put three limitations if we wanted to recommend this for transmittal none of which seemed to be unreasonable and would certainly protect the neighborhood and would allow expansion on your current site, would keep that Tract 66 just stormwater management and preserves. And the church is the church. And I -- I just think those three limitations are -- are what we should be looking at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Michelle, on the limitation of the last one though, you're saying on tracts -- all the expansion, the development has to be on Tracts 53 or 43 and 50, but -- but you're going to allow them to do, although that doesn't say that, is move preservation, move water management, move everything. Will it allow them to move parking? What can they move over onto 66 which is a separate site? MS. MOSCA: Under -- under the staff recommendation actually Tract 66 would be limited to stormwater management and preservation areas. And the other two tracts would be limited to the expansion of the existing uses on their sites only. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But these are independent sites. There's no unity of title, there's no -- but I guess there'll be easements and stuff. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My only suggestion was it might be worth exploring to see what they can come back with and see how it fits. If it doesn't fit, we can always take a close look at our position at the adoption. Go ahead, Michelle. MS. MOSCA: I do have a point of clarification. Within the subdistrict text there are a list of other nonrelated uses, government offices, civic and cultural facilities and so forth. Are those to be considered as well or are we limiting the use as expansion only to uses Page 114 March 5, 2007 related to David Lawrence and the church? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In their presentation whatever they do on that existing site has to work with what they have there. I wasn't too concerned. I was more concerned about square footage and not disturbing Parcel 66. That was my thoughts and-- MS. MOSCA: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think they've heard enough flavor of where this board may be thinking that they'll have to come back with a creative site plan in order to get through the adoption process if it -- if it gets through today. Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make -- make a recommendation for approval at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein had already indicated he'd like to make a motion. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Oh, I'm sorry. Good. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. I move that CP 2005-6 be -- be transmitted with the limitations that Donna had said. And would you give them back to me, Donna. COMMISSIONER CARON: Limit the development and uses on Tract 66 to stormwater management and preservation areas. Limit the development and uses on Tract 59 to church, church-related uses and other institutional uses of the same or less intensity as church use. And, finally, limit the development and uses on Tracts 43 and 50 to the existing David Lawrence Center uses and to the amount of building expansion that could have occurred on those two tracts had 2.2 acres not been conveyed for right-of-way. And, finally, as has been requested by the chairman, a needs analysis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any discussion? Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Is there a second? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry. Is there a second? Mr. Page 115 March 5, 2007 Vigliotti, did you want to second that? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER TUFF: My only hesitation if I heard it right was on the -- where on Lot 66 where they said they may need to have -- because they lost it and it won't work out. We've just eliminated that. They won't be able to put their extra 5,000 square feet they could have had or maybe I misunderstood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, limit --let me just explain. Those 2.2 acres that they lost would have had to encompass to some degree some sort of water management and preservation. That's taken away now. We're giving them back a full 2.2 acres to play with because we're going to put all the water management onto the other -- on to Tract 66; correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Almost. Water management on the site of ten acres would have taken about an acre to an acre and a half. So actually they're not getting back the whole -- they're not getting back 2.2 acres. They still got a little bit of -- they only need about -- for a ten-acre site, they don't quite need that much, but Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And a concern I have with the motion as it is is that the use of these three sites to create a wooded area and everything, we're going to kind of mess that up. Because we're going to force them to really take the two sites that they're on and really strip them of a lot of vegetation to get the building areas. When I think the three sites could be much more creatively planned using the vegetation that's there, buffering the neighbors with that vegetation than, you know, if you're taking all the vegetation off of the David Lawrence site and making them put buildings on it, that's not going to achieve what you're looking for. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the consensus of the board, in spite of the differences we have, is that this is something that's Page 116 March 5, 2007 unique. It serves a good public service. And, therefore, it should at least go to the next level of scrutiny. And I think that the motion makes it incumbent upon the applicant that they better come back with a plan that's well thought out and tries to meet the needs of what we described here today. And that gets it past transmittal, but they don't necessarily go past adoption if they haven't met that criteria. Mr. Schiffer then Mr. Murray then -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the motion states no buildings on 66. No parking on 66. No playgrounds on 66. I mean, you really tied their hands to putting all their structural development on the two sites which is going to create a really urban area there. That's not going to achieve what you want. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll withdraw my second based upon that. I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr.-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, what I think would be best -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys are moving too fast here. Mr. Schiffer, let's finish discussion before you withdrew -- could you just hold your withdrawal until we finish discussion? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm a little concerned too. And I'm not really clear. I mean, I'm -- I'm concerned. You indicated that if we would agree to it even with these -- these how shall we say modifications, that they can come back and they can show us something. Are we then constrained? Could we not -- would we be in the position where we'd have to live with what we initiated? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the question I was going to ask of David Weeks. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, okay. Because that's imperative for me quite frankly before I can vote or think of voting so... Page 11 7 March 5, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, if this transmittal were to go forward with the stipulations as outlined, does that still provide -- does that provide any flexibility in the adoption phase in regards to say that stipulation where it talks about Tract 66 needing to be tweaked slightly to allow something that just wouldn't fit anywhere else, but it wasn't objectionable to the neighborhood or to overall planning? Could that still be done even though in transmittal the language that was transmitted is as strict as it's written here? MR. WEEKS: Yes. What we will be required to do at adoption is to identify to the Department of Community Affairs, once we send the adoption packages up, any changes that have occurred since transmittal. So we'll have to bring it to their attention that we've made an adjustment of some sort or revision of some kind. I guess the real question is how will DCA view those changes. And our experience is that DCA views these types of petitions of such a small size and small magnitude of the change as really a local issue. And I would be very surprised if they had any concerns over -- over a provision such as we're discussing here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the latitude is there for us -- for the applicant if he feels he has to use 66 even though we've expressed some concerns here that we're going to go along these limitations. If he comes back with a plan that he does show it being used, I guess he's taking -- it's a crap shoot for him whether or not we will then accept it or not. Mr. Tuff. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Ifwe took that sentence of 66 off, that thing would fly and pass. And I think with it there, it's causing a lot of grief that maybe the DCA or the state -- it may raise a bunch of red flags we don't really want or need too. If we just took that off, I think we all understand and it would go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And, Mark, I don't think it's a Page 118 March 5, 2007 good idea to send the planners off saying ignore something that we vote on. I mean, I think we either give them the latitude -- maybe if we really want to, can't we let them continue this, come back at our last meeting with the conceptual plan and then we could judge it from that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN : You mean continue this same transmission -- transmittal hearing to another? We're -- we're -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, but I don't think you can say you can't put a building on 66 and, oh, by the way, go design buildings on 66 and if we like it, we like it. I mean, what is that saying to people? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We -- we can't get that done in two weeks, so we'd prefer to go forward and come back at the adoption hearing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. This is going to come back. If they want to build anything, they're going to go through a public hearing again. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. Rich will be claiming that he has the right, but we'll be reminding him of his earlier words so... COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the way the motion stands, and this is for Mr. Vigliotti's consideration, is that the motion was made by Mr. Adelstein with the three limiting conditions as recommended by staff. Those include the restrictions on 66 and the rest. Mr. Vigliotti, you originally seconded it. You brought the question up as whether or not you still wanted to remain as a second. Do you still want to remain as a second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. I'd like to see a site plan for 66 if we can, even if it's a rough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's not the question. Right now the motion that Mr. Adelstein made left the 66 like it is barely -- Page 119 March 5, 2007 strictly for stormwater management and preservation area. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you disagree with that then you -- and you being the second and you want to withdraw your motion or do you want to leave it in place? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I've moved. He seconded. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to leave the second in place. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Leave the second in place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the motion's been made and seconded for recommendation for transmittal limited to staffs three bullet items that are found on page 10 and 11 in our book. Any other discussion on this? Any clarity needed? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'd like just -- you know, again, try to fight to allow them to do other things on 66. There's other ways of storm management other than -- you know, they're going to have to cut down trees. They're going to end up -- you guys are going to think you're saving trees, but you're going to make the David Lawrence solid building. You're going to have ponds. You're going to be cutting down the trees to make ponds because nobody's going to bother to do any kind of clever stormwater management on the urban sites. And what did you achieve? You have a forest with a pond in it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't completely disagree with you. I'd rather see the flexibility somewhat left in so that if there was a way to produce a plan that better protected natural vegetation and buffers to the surrounding homeowners and to the parkway, they could do it rather than have to use 100 percent water management there and end up clearing the entire five-acre tract. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the way to do that is to Page 120 March 5, 2007 move it forward with approval without the staffs limitation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And see what they come back with for a site plan and if we disagree with that they've got time and -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We've got a bunch of shots at them down the road. And the neighbors can become more involved down the road and it can become pretty specific as to what's happening. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think -- any -- any further discussion before we -- we'll call for -- Mr. Weeks. MR. WEEKS: Just quickly. And hearing Ms. Caron read off the limitations she had noted a fourth one and that was to provide a needs -- applicant to provide a needs analysis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WEEKS: So it would be that in addition to staffs three? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mark, I want to bring up one more question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to see a site plan for the entire piece including 66. Now, they won't do it unless we -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, they don't have the time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. No. Between now and the adoption hearing -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We can -- we can do it by adoption. I didn't want to continue two weeks because I couldn't get it done in two weeks. Certainly at adoption we can have the site plan. And we would agree with Mr. Schiffer that if the restrictions weren't imposed until the adoption hearing, if you don't like the site plan we bring back to you -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's the way I would go. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to see a site plan personally then as I said before. Page 121 March 5, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're saying using 66-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- as more of a preservation than stormwater management? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Right. So they can have some flexibility to lay it out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're back full circle again. Now, do you want to keep your motion in place? Do you want to keep your second in place on a motion that you now apparently don't support? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I want to see the site plan with as much as flexibility. So then if I have to withdraw, I will withdraw. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The second has withdrawn his support for the motion. Mr. Adelstein, do you want to leave your motion as it is or do you want to amend your motion. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I want to leave my motion the way it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second to the motion the way it stands? COMMISSIONER CARON: I will second the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron has seconded the motion the way it stands with the limitations as noted by staff and the additional one for a needs study. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion as it stands please signify by saying -- well, raising your hand and saying aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two. All those opposed same sign. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Page 122 March 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So 5 to 2. Motion failed. Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'd like to make a motion to forward 2005-6 to the commission with a recommendation for approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Recommendation to transmit. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: With approval. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would add that other -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's get a second first. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I said I second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You second it? Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And make sure to add that piece that Mr. Weeks has indicated that we had wanted anyway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The needs study? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The needs study as a minimum. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can I question the need? The needs study is to approve it as a need for mental health in Collier? Obviously you guys haven't been in a car lately. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, and David started this whole thing off with his speech about it's not the staffs job to find success, that people are going to spend money to build buildings. And doing it would be successes and outcome. The mental health, especially the nonprofit, is going to really succeed in that. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have a question. Michelle, would you be convinced that there is a need now after hearing from the applicant? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you need -- well, I guess the question is: Do you need the needs study to support your position inO Page 123 March 5, 2007 regards to approval if it were to go forward by 9J5? MS. MOSCA: Yes. MR. WEEKS: We need empirical data. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought. MR. WEEKS: We need something in writing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I got it. Twenty pieces. Twenty pIeces. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll accept some to that to my motion then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the needs study is in. The motion is rather simple to recommend transmittal. It's been seconded by Mr. Murray. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye and raising your hand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Donna, did you vote either way? I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CARON: No. I voted with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I didn't see you. I didn't see you raise your -- okay. Unanimous. We got it. Thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Have fun tonight, Rich. COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, I thought you were going to end up with a hell of a lot more. There goes that slippery slope that everybody's trying to avoid. Page 124 March 5, 2007 CONTINUE THEIS MEETING TO MARCH 22, 2007 AT 8:30 A.M. AT CDES ROOMS 609-610 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That is the last agenda item that we announced on our Thursday meeting of last week that we would hear today. So in deference to the public and anybody else that was watching, I don't want to go beyond this for the sake that someone else may have wanted to be here for the next one. So with that is there a motion to continue this meeting to March 22nd at 8:30 in the morning in these chambers? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: March when? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Murray. Second-- oh, David. MR. WEEKS: Wrong location. We'll be at Community Development Services Building on North Horseshoe Drive. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Really? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Really? MR. WEEKS: In the conference room March 22nd. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because we made a -- we tried to find dates we're meeting in here because there's two people on this board that have problems hearing and that other room doesn't work well for them. MR. WEEKS: The only availability for March 22nd and 29 is that Development Services Center on North Horseshoe Drive, Room 609, 610. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That certainly seems strange from what I thought we were told; but if that's what it is, that's what it is. So the continuation then will be for March 22nd at 8:30 at Developmental Services Building. There is a motion to adjourn then based on -- to continue. Mr. Murray made the motion seconded by-- Page 125 March 5, 2007 COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Mr. Adelstein. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER TUFF: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1 :40 p.m. ***** COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on or as corrected , as presented TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING, INC., BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM AND CAROLYN J. FORD, RPR. Page 126