Loading...
CCPC Minutes 03/29/2007 GMP March 29, 2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida March 29,2007 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 Community Development and Environmental Services Bldg, Room 609/610,2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed Caron Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Robert Murray Brad Schiffer Russell Tuff (Absent) Robert Vigliotti ALSO PRESENT: Randy Cohen, Comprehensive Planning Dept. Director David Weeks, Planning Manager Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 March 29, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good morning. We are finally underway. The March 29th continuation of the Growth Management Plan amendments. If you'll all please rise for the pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Midney and Mr. Tuff are not here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Midney and Mr. Tuff are not here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. First item I want to make a note of is when we had scheduled this meeting and last week's meeting, we had done so and picked the times a month or two ago so that other room, the BCC meeting room, was available. And that was for a multitude of reasons: The convenience of hearing for some of our March 29, 2007 fellow commissioners who have a difficult time hearing in this room, for the court reporter for convenience, and also for the fact that the television for the public so they can see what's going on, as the GMP amendments are basically the basis for where trouble starts in Collier County, ifthere is trouble, or positive issues if they so arise. We ended up in this room last meeting and this meeting. I've now been told that apparently the other room is vacant. I don't know what caused us to be in this room, but if any members of staff are aware of the reasons why, I surely would appreciate knowing how we got switched when we were purposely scheduled for that other room and now we're here today. Mr. Cohen, do you have any comments? MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. Normally what transpires is we do two things with regard to any particular meeting: We check with the county manager's office and we also check with the commissioners' office as well to see if a meeting room is previously booked. When we arranged for this particular date at that time, that meeting room was booked and it was told basically it was unavailable. Evidently whoever had that particular meeting room reserved for that particular day decided evidently that they didn't need it. We weren't informed of that. If we had been, we would have notified you accordingly. But we had no idea that it was available. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm not going to dwell on the subject. I'm just going to let you know that when we first picked dates these two dates were picked because of the availability of that room, and then afterwards it apparently changed and now it's changed so it's available again. I don't know how it happened. I'm just letting you know that it's not convenient for public, nor is it convenience for this board under the conditions we have here. So in the future we're going to strive to meet in that room, and we Page 3 March 29, 2007 may have to delay meetings until that room is available. And that's something staffs going to have to work with. MR. COHEN: Yes, sir, and that's duly noted. PETITION: CP-2006-04 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the first petition for today's meeting is Petition 2006-4. It's the amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan for a piece of property for a church along Immokalee Road at Oaks Boulevard. Would all those wishing to speak on behalf of this application, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And Mr. Arnold, I guess you're representing the petitioner? MR. ARNOLD: I am. Good morning. Thank you. For the record, I'm Wayne Arnold with Q. Grady Minor and Associates. And I have with me Reverend Wicker with the First Congregational Church, and a couple of the other elders of the church are here as well. And this item was continued last meeting to today because we had been asked to provide some additional data and analysis to support the project, or the proposed amendment. And we did so. And the continuance allowed staffto review that information. And they have since modified their recommendation, which I think that's what Corby's handing out to you, a modified staff report that indicates that they are now recommending to transmit the proposed amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. And with that, just to explain a little bit more about the site. I know you have the backup material. And this is two and a half acres, it's on Immokalee Road. It's across from Valewood Drive. Page 4 March 29, 2007 And the church acquired the property a little over a year ago, and they had the intent to establish their new church here. I think they were misled a little by the prior owner in terms of what they could do with it. So they were thrust into an amendment process to establish a church or the ability to locate a church through conditional use on the site. So we filed the '06 amendment. And because transportation staff is looking to have a new north-south corridor to relieve some of the Oaks Boulevard traffic, County Commissioners allowed this amendment to go back to the '05 cycle so it could progress in a more timely manner consistent with the needs for this new road alignment that they're trying to establish. So we have been working with the transportation staff and looking at a potential 45-foot wide road corridor along our eastern property line that would align with Valewood Drive. Having said that, that's certainly one of the scenarios that we're in, and it's something that certainly changes the character of the site. We're on six-lane Immokalee Road and we'll have a two-lane bypass road on the eastern property line, as it looks. Secondly, in this particular case we have a site that is in transition. The criteria that's in your Golden Gate Estates Master Plan allows for transitional conditional uses, and you'll see sort of a subtle change in the staff report taking this out of a transitional conditional use and putting it as an exception to the conditional use criteria and allowing this specific site to qualify for a conditional use. It makes little difference to us. It allows us to go forward with a conditional use if you all and the Board of County Commissioners ultimately support this. We did demonstrate to staff, in addition to having the road dialogue with the county, we've been in the process oflooking at other sites for some time. And for a number of reasons those alternate sites Page 5 March 29, 2007 have not materialized. And we also looked at other available sites. (At which time, Mr. Midney enters the room.) MR. ARNOLD: And I don't know all the information you all were given, but I have some handouts where we looked at this corridor. And it is unique. You have a mile stretch of Golden Gate Estates property on otherwise urban residential land use category that could allow churches. So a mile east or west you theoretically could establish a church by conditional use in most of those districts. But because of the prevalence ofPUD zoning in our county, when you look at what's left in terms ofland available for potential church sites in North Naples, which is where the parishioners live for this church facility, there really are very, very few available sites that would give them an opportunity to establish their church. So we have been working with staff. We've also worked with the Oaks Boulevard community. And I've attended a couple of those meetings. The church has met previously with them. And they are supportive, it's my understanding. I don't think there's anybody here in opposition to it, but they are supportive of the church use. And they were very adamant that they don't want child care, they don't want schools, but they are supportive of a church use on the subject property. And we've been working along those lines. And you'll see that the text was modified last time to only permit church and religious facilities, as opposed to any of the other conditional uses, such as fraternal organizations and schools and day care centers and things of that nature. So the request has been substantially pared down to only the narrow use of church on this site. I think we've demonstrated that there aren't an unlimited number of sites in this area. And it is in transition, and we're working with your transportation staff to try to establish a new roadway corridor that puts this really a three-sided piece of property with roads. So there are constraints and not really conducive Page 6 March 29, 2007 to future residential development on this site. I don't have a lengthy presentation. I think the change makes sense. It's fairly limited in scope, and obviously staff has rethought their position and is now supportive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any questions at this time of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Arnold. Do we have a staff report? MR. SCHMIDT: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Corby Schmidt. This was a continuance on a request. There was data and analysis provided to staff during the last few weeks. It was provided to commissioners. You have had copies of that in your possession for some time. And based on that new information, staff has amended our recommendation, so that is what the handout was to you. The scope of the project is no longer any conditional use, it is not characterized as being located in a transitional area, so the staff has relocated the entry in the text to another subsection instead of -- and you'll see it on your pages of your update sheets. Instead of the transitional conditional use subsection, the conditional use's subdistrict, the entry has been simply moved to subsection E, but it still reads as proposed: Conditional use for a church or place of worship as allowed in the Estates zoning district is allowed for this tract. Unless there are questions, I think you've had this information in front of you long enough where I don't need to hash over it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I have a question. Back to E. I understand the change here for the church. Why are you adding two additional changes here? MR. SCHMIDT: The language itself that you see, numbers one Page 7 March 29, 2007 and two -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. SCHMIDT: -- have always existed in this subsection. They're -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, so they're not -- you're not changing the wording in those? MR. SCHMIDT: No wording change. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just the numbers change. MR. SCHMIDT: They were not numbered at all in your current verSIOn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, I -- having been on the master plan committee, this area was dealt with when we reviewed that area a couple of years ago. One of the concerns was opening it up to conditional uses. And I'm glad for the suggestion staffs made on E. I think that does a much better job on defining it for the purpose it was intended to. And I know from the experience I had with the residents there, their concerns were opening it up to non-uses, uses not quite like this. It was more commercial uses. So this is a good addition. I'm glad staff suggested putting it there instead of up in the transitional conditional use section. Thank you. Are there any questions of staff at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any public speakers on this matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a recommendation from the planning commission? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would recommend that -- I would make a motion that we recommend -- or forward to the DCA Page 8 March 29, 2007 with a recommendation that CP-2006-04, First Congregational Church of Naples GPM amendment be, as I said, forwarded to DCA with transmittal. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Murray, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Is there any discussion? Mr. Weeks? MR. WEEKS: For the record, would that be per staffs -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, per staff. Sorry, I left that out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good catch. Any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you. You guys had to continue two or three times to get here for the 15 minutes you did, but I think it was well worth it for you. MS. ARNOLD: It was worth it. Thank you all very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Page 9 March 29, 2007 PETITION: CP-2005-10 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next item is 2005-10. It's a request to change a future land use element for the Naples Big Cypress Commerce Center Subdistrict to allow an additional 88,000 square foot of general and heavy commercial uses. It's on the u.s. 41 Trail East. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this application, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we start, I have to announce that I have a perceived conflict with this, and I'm going to be filing a Form 8B with the court reporter before we leave today. This Growth Management Plan amendment is located across the roadway from a project that I receive income from. In order to avoid the perception of a conflict, I will abstain from voting on the issue. This plan amendment may have an impact on a development that I work with. So with that, I'll be abstaining from this one on the vote. I will be participating in the meeting. Mr. White, it's all yours. MR. WHITE: Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the planning commission. Patrick White, firm of Porter, Write, Morris and Arthur, here today representing the applicant, Basik Development, LLC, formerly known as Vanguard Funding. With me today we have Mr. Keith Basik, who's one of the managing members of the LLC, as well as Mr. Robin Meyer, Mr. Ron Nino and Mr. Reed Jarvi to make the substantive planning and transportation presentations. Due to a recent return from health leave, Mr. Nino is kind of not fully back in at full speed, and so we've asked Mr. Meyer to take the lead on this project so that Mr. Nino can focus on the other matter Page 10 March 29, 2007 you're likely to consider today. Looking at the history of the project and at the scope of change to this application will provide you some overview first to help orient. You've obviously considered, many of you, this project previously, almost three years ago. And at this point in time, given the fact that it did not get recommended for adoption by the BCC and was asked to come back through the process, we're here before you again with a slightly altered application, one that we believe, given the week's continuance you've granted us -- and I want to again thank you for that, I appreciate it -- hopefully we'll be able to get all of your questions answered today. We're going to give you the opportunity to consider the changes that have been made and hopefully get to a place where we'll have a favorable recommendation for transmittal. Realizing that that just puts this project in a place where it affords the DCA the opportunity to consider whether in fact it is consistent with the plan to have the Regional Planning Council look at it, et cetera. The present request is one that is a minor modification of a prior similar GMP small-scale amendment from the 2002 cycle. It was heard in 2003, originally, in May. We do have a time line that we can run you through, if you'd care to. But I think that the historical analysis of the procedural process is probably not as germane in detail as is the overriding effect of what happened. This planning commission, on essentially a similar prior application, found it at the transmittal stage to be a 4-4 vote. It did, however, have a favorable vote from the BCC to go forward for transmittal. It's key to note that the DCA found no ORC comments. There were no objections. In particular, no concerns about data and analysis. It then came back, as many of you may know, for consideration by the BCC for adoption, and it did not succeed. Was recommended for Page 11 March 29, 2007 approval, but denied the vote on a 2-3. So that it was then again considered by the BCC under a reconsideration motion request, and that motion failed as well. But the commentary in those last two BCC discussions focused on issues that I believe may be of concern to the commission today, and certainly are of concern to the board, and we're prepared to respond to those. But at this point, there really aren't any specific modifications to the request itself except as to some of the actual text. And that is only specific with reference to words in the introductory portion of the subdistrict language itself under Policy 1.2(A)(2). And it may be helpful, if you've got the staff report. On my printed copy it's at the top of Page 3. And it's a minor change of wording, but it reflects I think a concept that's key to what this planning effort is. And that is, in the third line that starts with the sentence above, the intent of the subdistrict is to allow for the expansion of the -- and the words are, the flea market. The concept that's being put forward here is one that since the last application has evolved into more of a marketplace. What even the name of the project reflects is a recognition that it is in that rural fringe area, and that it is a transition from the Big Cypress Preserve conservation type of lands to the east and the urban Naples area to the west. And we believe accordingly is an appropriately positioned place for a rural activity center type combination of commercial uses. Hence the name is descriptive and also reflective of the underlying land use planning. There's a further recognition by the applicants and owners that this is in many ways a portal or gateway to folks arriving from the east on u.s. 41, and that correspondingly must have a presence and an appearance that is worthy of and appropriate for that kind of facility and set of uses. Page 12 March 29, 2007 The proposed mix of uses in the rural fringe mixed use district, in an essentially mixed use subdistrict, is in itself a mixture of uses that are proposed to be largely commercial in nature, but also allows for other types of uses. It is transitional in the sense that as you move further west there is a land use designation of rural industrial. And so we believe that it is sound land planning to have an increasing level of intensity as you're moving westward on 41 so that that entrance gateway feature presence is one that isn't a stark and sudden -- to go from essentially rural -- well, from preserve to rural residential to industrial is something that I think this project helps to make the transition by putting some proposed commercial uses between the two. Obviously all of these concepts will be dealt with in detail by our expert planners. And to that end, if there are any questions that you may have that Mr. Meyer can't address, Mr. Nino is certainly available to assist in that regard. One of the things that was of concern at the BCC, at least initially, I think as well perhaps at the planning commission in the prior application, was that certain amounts of lands were being taken out of the receiving lands category, and to that extent would potentially undermine what was then the beginning steps of a TDR and sending and receiving lands process. There were commitments made at various stages in regards to addressing those concerns. As I had mentioned a moment ago, we're prepared to address those, as we anticipate they're coming out, but at this point they're not something we're going to specifically address by asking for a text change. The present proposal is a slight increase from the prior request of 75,000 -- maximum 75,000 square feet for commercial. We're proposing an increase of slightly more than 13,000 square feet. Additionally, there's a removal of the maximum of 5,000 square foot per building. The rationale for that is that it is a goal objective Page 13 March 29, 2007 policy type of provision that's no longer necessary, given that there has since been the enactment in the LDC of a series of architectural standards that will more appropriately, at zoning and site planning, address what that provision was originally intended to capture. Similarly, we're looking to remove the 25,000 square foot requirement of non -- and I'm going to have to say flea market, because that's what the text said, but marketplace type uses. We believe that these could be more readily determined by the more traditional site planning limitations and regulations, and would be difficult to be able to implement as GMP text. It's probably worth noting at this point where we are on the development cycle time line. We're effectively at step two. Step one is the formulation of the business plan that Basik Development has sought to bring forward, probably since early 2002. So there's a five-year history to this project where the vision of the landowners have been sought to be implemented. Here at step two, the actual small-scale transmittal, we're hoping to have the favor of your recommendation simply to get to the next step, which is to have an adoption of these proposed changes. That step obviously insulates in the sense that you also have to have a planned unit development rezoning approval, and subsequent to that, all of the necessary site planning occur before any of the proposed and discussed uses would ever become real. One of the key things I think that has changed since the prior application is that there is a more acute concern about traffic impacts. We're not hesitant about discussing those, and in fact Mr. Jarvi will make his presentation in that regard. But I think it's key to understand that the way that the GMP itself is internally structured, that in the capital improvements element in Policy 1.1.2 and in the future land use element, the FLUE, Policy 5.1, there are specific provisions that connect that step two to steps four and five, in the sense that they afford someone who is looking to do Page 14 March 29,2007 sound land use planning in coordination with transportation planning to propose a series of stipulations or conditions that would operate a specific mitigation to address the impacts that would occur from the proposed development and to ensure that they cannot, will not and never will occur unless there's adequate capacity consistent with the rules. So the point today is that we have anticipated those concerns, we believe that we have an appropriate response for them that will help the internal consistency of the Growth Management Plan to function as the board has sought to have it operate, and have it staff implemented. The last area I want to address with you before turning it over to Mr. Meyer is the neighborhood concerns. We're aware of those. This proj ect has had, unlike the last time, a neighborhood information meeting. Those neighborhood issues, some of them are long-standing, others of them are far more recent and in effect new. But they're all essentially consistent with what all development projects have as impacts. And there are appropriate ways, we believe, to address those concerns. Some of them are appropriate to be addressed in a broad goals, objectives, policy-making way as part of the text of our GMP amendment. Others of them are more appropriate and would be addressed and considered at the time in the subsequent steps of rezoning or site planning. And I'll give you a specific example, just to kind of set the conceptual stage. Concerns most recently were raised about what I call a dark sky issue. This being a rural area, there are folks who enjoy seeing the stars. Many of us probably remember seeing them as kids. Urban lighting conditions are something that have eliminated that in many areas. Certainly one of the advantages of living in a rural residential area. But there are plenty of technical and operational solutions in terms of hours that such lighting may be on, the types of fixtures and Page 15 March 29,2007 bulbs that are utilized that even those advocates of dark sky will look at and say these are things that can be appropriately addressed, that the impacts can be accounted for in a meaningful manner. And if you just give me a moment to look over my notes. The only thing I'd add at this point is that if I'll be afforded an opportunity at the end to kind of sum up and to positively address any of the neighborhood concerns or subsequent questions from any of the planning commissioners. At this point I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Meyer, unless there are any overriding questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions ofMr. White? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Okay, thank you. MR. WHITE: Thank you. MR. MEYER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. For the record, my name is Robin Meyer. I'm with V annesse- Day lor. Today what I'd like to do is address the comments in the staff report. I think there's two main issues that staff has raised. One is the quality of our analysis for future housing and economic need for this project. The other one would be compatibility with the rural mixed use -- rural fringe mixed use district regarding the need to be a commercial use located in a rural village. Just to kind of set the stage for the staffs inadequacy discussion, they're citing Rule 9J-5 of the state law. I'll start by saying what we used to make our projections was the county's demographic study of 2003, the U.S. Census Data of 2000, Collier County PUD monitoring report, and the ULI's Dollars and Cents of Shopping. All well accepted documents. I'll leave it at that. With regards to the land use issue, staff in the report clearly states that there are land uses identified within this area that were analyzed as part of their overall review, and identified on the land use map. Page 16 March 29, 2007 And this area abutting our property owned by the Basiks is one of those areas. And then I would like to refer you to Page 6 of the staff report where they summarize the section that refers to the rural fringe mixed use district. And that last sentence included, the present designation on the subject site allows development consistent with the surrounding development patterns, both existing and proposed. This is what we're proposing. And I would contend that our proposal is consistent based on this. And I will go in some detail to further substantiate that. I'm not going to belabor the commercial needs analysis. I'm going to go into it a little bit. Staff report states that we use all housing units in the two surrounding census tracts. This is the three-mile -- I'll get back on the microphone. This is the three-mile radius. Within this area, there are a half dozen major PUDs, other major development. We used the actual development within these PUDs that's approved, and used the monitoring report. We did not just grab all the houses off there. As far as our household expendable income data, we used the county's average. We did not try and adjust for this area. There's different types of housing. We felt that a county average, that should be good enough for a comprehensive plan change. And the final summation, what we came up with was nearly a requirement for a million square feet. Not quite at million, but nearly a million square feet of retail in this area. We're asking for 88,000. I fail to see that we haven't more than justified that there is a need in this area for the commercial uses. And so just to keep this short, I'd just like to go through the staffs findings and provide our analysis, and then I have a few more points I'd like to make and then I'll get out of here and let things move on. The first one is regarding the information analysis. And I think -- I think we've more than proved -- and if you read the staff report and Page 17 March 29, 2007 really look at those numbers, if you want to check them. We went back and checked them. We did find some mistakes, but we actually found the mistakes made the numbers better, not worse, so we didn't really want to get into that. The second one talks about the lack of specificity. I guess you could say that, but again, when you're 10 percent of the demands shown, I don't really think it needs to be beaten to death. I think there's definitely a demand in this area. We were able to show that in 2002. And most definitely this area has grown tremendously since 2002. So the demand's done nothing but increase and shall continue to increase, which is what we projected. The third one, the data fails to consider noncommercial development on this property. Actually, we did. Again, the property owners of this property own the abutting property to the north. They are developing that property. They looked at it very carefully as to what would be compatible with the type of use they're proposing. We reviewed it in detail and really felt that -- and the bottom line -- that commercial would be the only use. And it's a use that we're able to corral, as it were. Because on the far boundary of this property, the proposed property, we have Trinity Boulevard; we have u.s. 41 on the other boundary. We just have one open boundary to residential to the north. And that, at the neighborhood information meeting, the owners committed to put a wall, berm, more landscaping than required by code to ensure that there would not be any impacts to any residential development to the north. The fourth point gets back to the designation on the subject site allows -- the same statement I made before -- allows development consistent with the surrounding development patterns, both existing and proposed. We agreed. That's what we're proposing and we think it's a good way to go. The next one is, the proposed subdistrict is inconsistent with the Page 18 March 29, 2007 rural fringe mixed use district, specifically the commerciallocational requirement. We again respectfully disagree. We feel that this is the legitimate expansion of an existing identified commercial area and should be approved as such. Then the staff report refers to the 25-acre -- 2,500-acre rural village. This is a -- again, a totally different section of the land use management plan, the Growth Management Plan. Doesn't apply. We agree that there's ample opportunity in this area for these, but quite frankly at this point in time there have been none proposed. The next one is the existence of the existing C-4 and 5 is not a justification. Again, we agree, it's not a justification. But the existing development that is occurring and acting as a buffer in a combatable part of that development we feel is a reasonable justification. The next one has to do with traffic, so I'm going to let Mr. Jarvi take care of that one, because he's the expert on traffic. And the final issue raised by the staff report is the County Road/951 study. And the staff report talks about the potential for that study to give better numbers to staff and to the officials of the county to make a decision. I think we've already proven that there is a huge demand here. There's nothing being built. Yes, that study may be -- show something, but it's probably going to show what we've already shown. These owners have been after this for five years now. They need some relief. They need to be able to move on. And just to close out this whole section, I would like to go back to the fact that we're talking about substantially the same process and request that was approved by staff. It was approved initially by the commission. And DCA reviewed it, and it was found consistent. And as I've said, if you look at 2002 to today, 2007, substantial development has occurred. Most of it, almost all of it is residential. So ifthere is anything but more demand, I can't really, you know, tell Page 19 March 29, 2007 you what it's going to be. But it's very obvious. The neighborhood information meeting, I think Patrick did a pretty good job of summing that up. I would say that our proposal -- we're asking for 88,000 square feet. That's based on 9,000 square feet of commercial space per acre of this site. We have 9.7 acres. We have an acre and a half lake in the middle. Weare using part of this site as overflow parking for the marketplace next door. The owners are talking to Collier EMS about a station. Weare going to be required, if approved, to provide substantial buffering. More than likely we're going to be required to do some acceleration lanes on u.s. 41, turning lanes on Trinity Boulevard. In the end, as this commission is well aware, what we actually get to build will probably be substantially less. But our request is based on the gross acreage, and I just want to make that -- put that on the record as something that should be considered. It's not going to be a huge project. We're limiting this to 35 feet. We've agreed regarding the lighting that we will do everything as required by code, and if -- to get this approved even make it more beneficial or compatible to surrounding uses, which at this point in time there are none. The only other thing I was asked to address, we did receive an e-mail from some property owners. They raised a number of issues. I think it's worthwhile to address them. I'm not sure that they're deal killers for us. The first one they make is that -- and this -- see if I have their names here. Stadler. Mr. and Mrs. Stadler. They make the point that there is existing shopping seven miles away. We use the three-mile circle because that's the normal market area you're looking for for this type of use. If the county starts creating shopping areas seven plus miles away from thousands of units, all's we're going to do is, contrary to all the other arguments in this letter, which is affect the environment in a Page 20 March 29, 2007 negative manner. You're creating more pollution, more mileage, more vehicles on the road. So we'd say that that's not a good idea. I think this is a good idea to provide localized commercial services. They also talk about high profile buildings. Again, we're limiting it to 35 feet. It's not going to be a big -- Endangered species. This site is already impacted that we've done the environmental. There are no the endangered species. They do talk about an eagle a mile away. I'm sure this commission is very familiar that the protection for eagles is in the hundreds of feet, not miles. And then they talk about critical water quality. Obviously we'll be dealing with the water runoff. We're going to have potable water, we're not using wells, so we're not going to affect the aquifer in that manner. With that, I think that's enough. I'll be happy to answer any questions or we'll move on to Reed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of -- Mr. Murray, then Mr. Midney. You're first, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Good morning, Mr. Meyer. MR. MEYER: Morning. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a number of thoughts on this, and I may not eventuate into real questions that we can put our teeth into, but perhaps so. I'm looking at the letter of April 21, 2005 from Vanasse-Daylor. And one of the comments in the second paragraph was an emerging rural activity center. And I know that that's probably an attempt to try and portray that theirs is a commercial place to come to. But it occurred to me, isn't that ordinary -- in land planning, wouldn't we want to have an activity center in an area where there's intersection, where traffic and where the people can be served from four corners, if you will, from destinations or locations elsewhere? That occurred to me. Page 21 March 29, 2007 Also, if we're urbanizing, and that's what apparently we want to do here, because you're saying we need to have it in three miles, shouldn't we go away from the rural? Shouldn't we try to change this fringe and make it from a rural to an urban area, rather than try to squeeze in commercial activity into a fringe where people have actually paid money to -- with the intent of living in darkness at night and living quietly? I mean, I'm posing rhetorical questions to you, I recognize they're not true interrogatories, but these are the kind of things. Now, you said that lighting will do everything by code. You know, everything according to code. Code does not help people with the lighting, with ambient light. It doesn't do that. And so that doesn't impress me. That doesn't make me feel good. And there is a question of compatibility with rural villages. There isn't -- I agree, nobody has come forward yet, but have we not planned for a rural village over there in that general area? I think we have, and I can confirm that with staff. And I just -- I'll just comment, I guess maybe these are a series of comments, and I apologize, they were supposed to be questions. But it seems to me that the Estates people drive long distances to obtain their services and supplies and they don't seem to have a problem with it. I just wonder where we're breaking into here. I recognize that change may be inevitable, but is it the right time? Finally, and you said you'd turn it over to Reed Jarvi, but I do have a real concern with regard to transportation. Are we ready yet to take a 60,65 mile an hour roadway, even with a decellane, and intensify, as you say, create an activity center? Are we ready to do that? How far away are the plans for expansion of that road? Has the FDOT got it anywhere on the radar as far as considering that an urban area that requires expansion of their roadway? MR. MEYER: I'll let Reed answer that. No, it's a long ways off. But there are some other efforts going Page 22 March 29,2007 on that would address it in a shorter time frame. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. And I'll make the last comment. And the other part of it that distresses me is that it indicated in here a unified plan of development is required. And you're talking about making the architectural theme the flea market style. I know that Mr. White indicated that that might change because that wouldn't necessarily be appropriate. But unless I see a document change that reflects that, I'm still going to go with the idea that you folks are going to have a common architectural theme which would be that of the flea market. According to Mr. Stadler or Ms. Stadler, there's a stadium-like structure being erected there. I apologize, I wasn't attacking, but those are the things that are in my mind, and I'll finish with that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Could you talk a little bit about the TDR issues that were there in the past and how you've resolved them now? MR. MEYER: The discussions before the Board of County Commissioners really bogged down over the TDR issues. I've read the record. It appears to me that it was a new concept at that time, and the board was very protective ofTDRs and wanted to make sure that this development addressed them. What we have got, and I can pass it out, is this project shall include nine gap housing units, the application of transfer of development rights, TDR provisions of the Land Development Code at the time of approval of a rezone application. And so we would propose adding this to the conditions. As Patrick said, we tried to address everything we can. I think we have. Obviously it's up to you to determine that. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Are you going to purchase TDRs? MR. MEYER: Yes. That's my understanding. Page 23 March 29, 2007 MR. NINO: If required. MR. MEYER: If required, yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And the second question that I had was about the flea market. What percentage of development is going to be flea market of the commercial development? MR. MEYER: Are you talking about on our proposed site? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Um-hum. MR. MEYER: Our proposed site we are talking consistently, but we are not -- it is not a flea market next door. I want to go back on the record. The reason Patrick asked to have that changed is that the basics are making a very, very strong -- trying to make a very strong point that that was the term used when they initiated this project. They are now calling it a marketplace. It is not a flea market in the traditional sense, it will not be a flea market in the traditional sense. I'll have to let them explain exactly what their concept is, because I have to admit, I don't know exactly what it is, so I'm not going to go further on that one. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions at this time? Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Murray, Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me see Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: May I add some historical response here? Ron Nino, for the record, with Vanasse and Daylor. We need to appreciate, and staff acknowledged first time they dealt with our application, that legally there is no requirement for TDRs on a project ofless than 40 acres in size. The issue ofTDRs came up because the applicant, in order to further their goals, made an offer in response to concerns by Commissioner Coletta that the integrity of the TDR program or the sending lands would be jeopardized if we took some of the receiving lands and set them aside for potential commercial development. Page 24 March 29, 2007 We offered to donate four TDRs to the county. And that set up some lights. And then quite frankly, we changed our minds and offered to buy eight TDRs, but to use them as a marketable item, which is the way the TDR program works. You don't buy TDRs and give them to the county, you use them for your own personal purposes. The bottom line is that the substance -- the notion that this property ought to be commercial at some point in time in the future is -- was not an argument with the planning commission, the staff and the board of commissioners. It all got hung up in this business of TDRs. Nothing has changed since then. If anything, we know that there's been substantial residential growth. Renaissance, Fiddler's Creek, Pointe South is pretty well built out. We know those things have happened. Yes, this is a -- I wouldn't call it an activity center, per se, Commissioner Murray. I would suggest that however we do have an emerging rural commercial activity center. The fact of the matter is that 87,000 square feet of commercial retail space is under construction immediately adjacent to this property. And in fact part of the property, the water management requirement for the commerce center, was approved as part of an SDP. F or three and a half acres, not one and a half acres -- I'm sorry, two and a half acres of this site is now water management function related to the commerce center. So in part this property is taking on commercial characteristics. I simply wanted to bring back that historical concern that you had with the TDRs. And I hope in the process I've answered Commissioner Midney and Commissioner Murray's concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One of the concerns I share too is that you're requiring this to be common architectural style with the Page 25 March 29, 2007 building next door. How big is the building next door? MR. NINO: 87,500. MR. MEYER: 87,000 square foot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in essence this is requesting the ability to double the size of that. So we have like a -- we can have what appears to be a 160,000 square foot building down there? MR. MEYER: It will not be connected. And in conference while Mr. Nino was speaking, I was told that it would just be 10 percent of this site would be in uses relating to the marketplace. Maximum of 10 percent. And the rest would be commercial, standard commercial type uses to serve the surrounding area. MR. NINO: Understand-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Nino, you can't speak from the audience, you'll have to come up front. MR. NINO: The subdistrict-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Nino, please wait till you get to the speaker. MR. NINO: I thought I was loud enough. Again, for the record, Ron Nino. Appreciate that the subdistrict and staff has agreed on the previous go-around and haven't said anything to the contrary. As a matter of fact, they massaged our standards, as you'll note in the staff report. The thrust ofthe uses will be C-4 and C-5 on this property. Plain and simple, C-4 and C-5. Not related necessarily to the commerce center. The conditions of the subdistrict is that we will get to enjoy the uses that are allowed in C-4 and C-5 at a subsequent rezoning stage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But again, what does common architectural theme means? I think it -- at least it means lookalike, right? Page 26 March 29, 2007 MR. MEYER: I think we're going to have Mr. Basik address that. They have a definite concept in mind, and I think it's best to have them speak to that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The second thing is there's a lot of words in here to protect the view off of 41, yet there's nothing to protect the view off of Trinity. Is that something we'll catch at the next stage of this during the PUD phase, or -- MR. MEYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then for staff, when they mentioned height, and it doesn't describe whether it's actual or zoned, does it automatically default to zoned? MR. MEYER: We're proposing 35 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: As the zoned height? MR. MEYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Not the actual height. MR. MEYER: Well, the actual allowable height within -- for this development would be 35 feet is what we're proposing. I believe the C-4 and C-5 allows up to 60 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Zoned. MR. MEYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, just touching on that quote, unquote, flea market. My recollection of it is it's an enclosed multi shop with entertainment in a band shell type of thing. That was my recollection of the statements. And it will draw people on weekends and other days of consequence with advertising. And I'm just wondering, the types of commercial enterprise that -- and especially the C-5 categories, what types have you focused on that you intend to support that would be regular traffic oriented and the pass-by and the rest of it? What do you want to draw? Do you want to serve the local Page 27 March 29, 2007 people with 87,000 square feet of commercial, or do you want to capture as much off the roadway as you can? What's the purpose? MR. MEYER: Well, I think it's -- a commercial location in this type of situation, you're looking at obviously some drive-by traffic and obviously some uses that will serve the surrounding area. We've said C-4, C-5. Obviously by the time -- were this approved today and gets through the process, we deal with the concurrency issue, whatever market we had envisioned will more than likely be changed. We realize that a commercial use is a good use in this area. But specifically, I don't think anyone at this point in time can tell you what's going to be the best use for this property. And I think that's the point here is it's trying to serve the surrounding area. That's what we're trying to do. And that's why the request for the uses. It is a broad range of uses. But to limit them at this point just I think would be ill advised to my client. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't suggest for a second to limit them. I was trying to understand what it is that you envision. Because obviously you cannot build today or tomorrow, even if you were approved. You might be 10 years out. And I would agree with you, that you'll have some things changed, and I appreciate all that. But this amendment, if passed, would have the effect of taking a penny a square foot and making it seven cents a square foot. I use those numbers just as examples only. And it creates a condition for the people who live in the neighborhood to also now be impacted for 10 years or more to have their own residential taxes appraised higher because of neighborhood changes and all the rest of the implications. And I just wonder whether we're protecting them adequately by -- we need to ask as many questions as we can. Mr. White spoke of a gateway. I'm trying to vision what it is that you have as your gateway. What is it that you want? I thought of the gateway, if you will, as being 41 and 951, ifthere is to be a gateway. Page 28 March 29, 2007 But if that's to be a gateway, are we looking at a flea market as a gateway? Mr. Basik, you said he would come up and talk to us about what he envisions what his property is looking like. I'd like to hear that, if! could. MR. MEYER: I'm sure he'd be happy to do that. Ron's going to pass out -- this is the property, this residential to the north. It's for the record. Give you a good idea of what we're looking to buffer. MR. WHITE: Preparatory to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Nino, do we have copies of both this and the previous proposed additional development criteria for the court reporter? Cherie', if at any time you fail to get a document you see being circulated, if you get a chance, remind me to call it to your attention. MR. WHITE: Preparatory to Mr. Basik's responses, I'd just like to be more precise on the record in response to Mr. Midney's question about percentage, and to emphasize that a condition could be added to the proposed text that would cap a maximum expansion of the adjacent marketplace use to 10 percent of the proposed and approved total. At this point that's 88,000 plus. So that would equate to approximately 8,800 square feet of expansion. The rest of the uses are envisioned to be a combination of commercial, retail, some of them highway oriented. Those people who are traveling eastbound, this would be seen as a place where you might be able to stop and refresh as you approach the urban area. It would be in that sense capturing trips and not generating them. But looking to answer Mr. Murray's question about the public assembly commons area, it is a space that can be and usually is closed off and partitioned but can be opened up for a type of public assembly. Whether they're entertainment based or they may become something -- for example, there might be a trade show that would operate in conjunction with a proposed small type of traveling public Page 29 March 29, 2007 hotel at the site. Those are all uses that we believe are compatible with the adjacent industrial, form a nice step-down in transition to the adjacent residential rural, and that we will address those impacts along Trinity and on our northern boundary, similar to what we've done on 41, at either adoption or rezoning. Additionally, we're looking at a type of rural activity center that is not too distinctly different from what the compo plan otherwise contemplates in the rural fringe mixed use district for rural villages and other types of aggregated mixed uses. And the impacts that would flow from those are no different than the ones that would flow from this use. This is along an arterial, U.S. 41, where the mixture of uses makes sense in the same fashion that they would, as anticipated in a rural village. As would the same necessity to address the impacts of those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. White? MR. WHITE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You had already done a rather lengthy presentation, and you asked for a rebuttal. Mr. Murray simply wanted the applicant to come up here and express his vision of what was going to be there in response to whether the uses would pan out. I would prefer we follow along that like of response, and then you can come back on rebuttal, as you asked. MR. WHITE: I was merely trying to stay as close time-wise as possible and still allow Mr. Schiffer's question about common architectural theme and the marketplace concept to be evolved by Mr. Basik. And I apologize -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is Mr. Basik going to be speaking? He was asked to, ifhe'd like. MR. WHITE: Yes, ifhe could, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chairman? Page 30 March 29,2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is this picture we got? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Nino passed it out. I'm sure someone on the team can explain it. Mr. Basik, since you're at the microphone, have you seen this picture? MR. MEYER: For the record, Robin Meyer. This is a picture taken by the Basiks. This is the property that lies due north that's residentially zoned. Just to demonstrate that it may be residentially zoned, but the use is obviously for a trucking operation for the farming business. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Did you call code enforcement? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, trucks for crops and everything are an allowable use in an agricultural area. I'm just wondering what your point was that shows it's being used as a farm and it's going to be used as homes in the future. I don't understand what your argument was. MR. MEYER: They asked that we pass it out. But again, we are more than willing to buffer and protect that use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mr. Chair, back to accepting documents on the stand, I'd like to move that we not accept the truck picture. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure why the -- Margie, is this the type of hearing where we would need to formally accept or not accept evidence, or is this, because it's transmittal, not of that nature? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I think you established a procedure where you do that, so I don't have any problem with formally moving to accept it. I have -- at the appropriate time I have a comment about a text item in this amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're looking forward to it.%Mr. Schiffer, go ahead. Page 31 March 29, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The concern I really have is that one of the things we were handed out is a commitment to provide gap housing. So I think if these things are handed out and they don't mean anything, they shouldn't be handed out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, did you want to -- I'm not sure the gap housing issue is one that would be appropriate at the GMP level. I'd have to turn to staff to -- first of all, I think if it's something they have to weigh in on their particular analysis of the project, they wouldn't have done that, being passed out today. David or Randy, do you have any comments on either of these? MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks, Planning Manager in the Comprehensive Planning Department. Still trying to digest it. The way it's -- ifthis is going to be a -- if you do vote to transmit, I guess the good thing about this is we'll have -- staff will have some additional time to review it and digest it and react to it. I certainly think that some modifications to the text will be necessary, if it is to be included. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is this an appropriate item to be involved in the GMP amendment? That's why I'm trying to -- Margie, I'm sorry. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: I don't believe it is. Because this is typically something you would see at the rezone level. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was trying to get to. Thank you. Mr. Schiffer, both of these documents, did you have something you wanted to contribute in regards to -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, my concern is, you know, if it's part of the sales, why do we even get it then? I think we should CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we can prohibit people from passing things out, necessarily. It's just a matter of whether -- if we're not going to accept in evidence, then it doesn't become part of Page 32 March 29, 2007 our evidentiary process. Is that what you're suggesting? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If it's not something to consider, then we shouldn't consider it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that for both the photograph and the COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- text? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a motion, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Murray. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Both documents will not be considered as part of evidence for this particular hearing. Mr. Basik, Mr. Schiffer had addressed a question earlier, and so did Mr. -- I think it was Mr. Murray, concerning your vision for this property. Would you be able to respond to that? MR. BASIK: Sure. For the record, my name is Keith Basik. I'm President of Basik Development. Page 33 March 29,2007 THE COURT REPORTER: Would you spell your last name, please. MR. BASIK: My last name is spelled B-A-S-I-K. I just want to take a second. I know there's a historical name attached to this project. Actually, it's the project right to the west of the 10 acres we're speaking of. To give you an idea of what we have out there is we have on the adjacent property to the west where the flea market or what we call is the marketplace, roughly 80,000 square feet, 80, 85,000 square feet. Just to the west of that we developed a storage or industrial park. To the east -- to the west of that, we have the concrete ready mix plant, which is C-Mix. So one of the things -- the first part of the overall development was really to buffer a cement ready mix plant from the rest of our project. So I just want to have you understand what is actually out there. Adjacent to that, we have a junk yard. Adjacent to that we have another kind of a batch plant or a form plant. And what we did was -- I think thus far what we've done out there has been an improvement for the area, an improvement for the neighbors. To the north of our project we have a lot of agricultural property, five acres. It's used for a number of different reasons. Some of them, you have homes on those projects, you have people that have really created lakes where lakes shouldn't have been created. They created -- there was some dumping that has been back there. So the overall -- I just want to give you kind of the overall context of what's out there. And that it's an area that -- what we've done out there thus far we think has been an improvement. We put up four buildings that were very nice buildings, very nice industrial buildings. They block the ready mix plant from the view of the neighbors, blocks the sound, blocks the dust and so forth. Page 34 March 29, 2007 This project, which is the marketplace, which is the project you asked about, I think will do -- it's going to be a very nice project. If you're familiar with any of the projects, most recent project we did was Hemingway Place, which was off of Goodlette Road. Very unique project. And we intend to do the same thing with this. It's 86,000 square feet. We call it a marketplace, but the idea is we have some -- we have retail. We have a section in the marketplace that is retail, smaller retail. We have a number of different people that will be there. In that context, the format is more of a -- maybe a flea market, but it's all indoors. And why we consider this a gateway into -- we consider it kind of -- I think Patrick White used a term that I wasn't aware of he used, but one that we use. This project is going to be a very nice project. As you go into it, one of the things that we want to do is embrace the history and the culture of Tamiami Trail. In fact, they tried to get with the woman's society that is spearheading the movement for the -- for Tamiami Trail, and it's for it to be designated a national scenic highway. And what we're trying to do is embrace the culture. So as you go into the building -- I'll give you a visualization of the building. As you walk into the building, you have a main what we call an arena area. It will be 30 feet, and it will go up to about 50 feet. As you go in there, it will have a -- it's the center, the hub of the building. You walk in. And it will have a hint of a Bass Pro feel to it. And what we want to do is bring all the historic photos that you see along the corridors, and embrace the idea that we're on Tamiami Trail. That we'll bring in these historic photos of the 1920's when they were building Tamiami Trail, when Collier was spearheading that movement, and bring in those photos. In fact, I talked to the curator of the museum. We said we want to incorporate that. We want to really embrace the history of the Everglades and what we're doing out there, incorporate into our building, and to the outside. Page 35 March 29, 2007 But mainly as you walk into it, you're going to see artifacts, historic artifacts of Tamiami Trail, of Naples. And it will have a nice feeling to it. It will have a small entertainment venue within the arena or the main center hub of this building that we could expand and we could do things at night that are musical events, smaller musical events that this area needs. Instead of going to the Philharmonic, we need a place that they could bring in a local entertainment and do things at night. So that is one portion of it. The other portion is the marketplace element where you have smaller vendors in there. And again, I want to bring in the -- I talked to the Naples Chamber of Commerce, I talked to Michael Reagen. And bringing in elements of incorporating Naples into what we're doing. And it's all going to be air conditioned, and it will have a different feel than what I think you're envisioning. One of the other aspects of this building, which is already moving forward, is a winery. And since Naples is considered one of the top -- one of the largest wine festivals in the world, what we want to do is incorporate in the front portion of it a small winery, where people could come in and we import grapes from Chile, from Napa Valley. And we have roughly 6,000 square feet that is dedicated to that. And the idea is not only from a -- selling some of the retail, but also from an educational standpoint. Which we think right where we're at, we're in a rural fringe area, and it's an appropriate place for something like that. The other element is behind the winery is we have a section that is kind of designated for a small expo. And that is another area where people who want to do trade shows, you do home shows, you do garden shows. You do other type of shows that -- again, Naples doesn't have this type of facility. And so this is going to be multi purpose. But as you go in there, if you know of any work we do, and I think our name has a good Page 36 March 29, 2007 reputation behind it, it's quality work. And I think this is going to be a place that Naples could be proud of, but also incorporates the history of Naples into it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mr. Basik. Mr. Murray, did that get to your question? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I just want to qualify a couple of things, if! may. You said something about 30 to 50, and I wasn't sure if you were talking about height. MR. BASIK: The height of the main area, marketplace, is 50 feet. So there's a -- it's a hexagon that serves as the main hub of the marketplace. So that goes up. And from an architectural standpoint, I think you'll find that it's -- I have a photo. I have a picture of what it looks like, just to help you understand it. I wasn't prepared -- I would have given you all site maps and I think it would have helped out a lot. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. I'm not trying to put you on the grill. I'm certainly not trying to do that. And I appreciate that you have an interesting vision. But I was trying to understand relative terms of -- Mr. White had indicated 35 feet maximum height of the adjacent-- MR. BASIK: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- building, and I wasn't sure. But we don't want to have it where we pledge 35 feet and then because another building has 50 we go to 50. MR. BASIK: No, no. I'm just trying to give you the dimensions and the height as it relates to the marketplace and the adjacent. So whatever we -- in terms of the 35 feet, we don't want to go below 35 feet, just from the standpoint of architectural -- being able to be somewhat creative from an architectural standpoint. I know a lot of people want to keep it real low, but sometimes that affects your ability to create an interesting building. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thank you very much. Page 37 March 29, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're going to take a 15-minute break. We'll be back here at 10:05. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're back from our break. Back on alr. We had left off with Mr. Basik at the podium of the and I wanted to make sure we finished with Mr. Basik from any planning commissioners before we go on to any question. One thing I would like to comment on, this is a GMP hearing, and while it's nice that we have a lot of discussion about visions and possible uses of the property, we've got to remember that this application is for a C-4, C-5 zoning, period. That means anything within those zonings basically could happen on that property. So I'm not sure how relevant all this discussion is. If it helps us get to the end point, that's fine. But I did want to make everybody aware, this is a GMP amendment and not a PUD -- or a conditional use. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question I think Rob needs to answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Patrick mentioned that 10 percent of the existing facility could be expanded, yet you testified that there would be no connections of these two buildings. Remember I questioned whether we could have essentially a 160,000 square foot building, and you said they would be connected. Could they be connected? Could there be unity of title and all this square footage be joined together? MR. MEYER: That is not the intent of the applicant. I suppose that could be possible legally to do. But you would have to obviously come back to this body at some point in time, especially at the rezone stage, if it were to be connected, and make that happen. And so you would obviously have the opportunity to look at it at that point in Page 38 March 29, 2007 time. But it is not the intent to do that. I just want to make a couple -- I just received a copy of an e-mail that staffs going to present to you. It's from the Ploskis, objecting to the rezone. Obviously we're not doing a rezone, we're doing a compo plan change. We do acknowledge that we've received it and we really don't have much to say beyond that. I also would like to point out that I attended the neighborhood information meeting for the Townsend Trust property, which is the next one before you, and one of the things that someone reminded me of is that we had a number of people who showed up at that particular NIM who really were requesting some uses in this area. What specifically they were talking about, they'd love to see some restaurants in this area, and they were hoping that as part of the marketplace that there were going to be restaurants. And obviously I couldn't answer that at that time. But I just think it's important that you are aware of that. And with that, I think we'll turn it over to Reed Jarvi for traffic, unless there's some more questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's -- yeah, we'll just find out. First of all, we want to find out, are there any more questions of Mr. Myers? Anybody? Mr. Adelstein, you had -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You were next after Mr. Murray, and I'm sorry, I went to Mr. Schiffer first, so if you -- COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's all right. He's a nice guy. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you still have a question, please go forward. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I have -- I don't have a question, I have a problem with this situation. For the record, I want to state that I respect Mr. Strain's intent to Page 39 March 29, 2007 be fair and abstain in this hearing. There was absolutely no reason for him to have to do so or to do so under the law. The fact that you did it is fine, but there was no responsibility for him to have to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I thought -- well, I am doing it, though. I just wanted to make sure you understand, I'm not going to be voting on this. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. You have this property C-4 and C-5. Could all the 88,000 feet be C-5? MR. MEYER: That is a possibility at this point in time. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Or it could be a combination. MR. MEYER: I think it more than likely is going to be a combination. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: But the way it's written, it would allow all C-5? MR. MEYER: Yes, sir. There is no limitation at this point in time. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Myers, I have a couple of questions before Reed comes up. In the staff report, at the neighborhood informational meeting, I found a contradiction. I know it's been talked about, but I want to make sure it's very clear. It says no parking or flea market access on Trinity building, and the building height would be limited to 35 feet. Yet in the same NIM at the second to last bullet it says, a rendering was shown of the adjacent property site indoor market and it was explained it would be a 7,000 square foot 50-foot high maximum arena to host music events, auctions, et cetera. That 7,000 square foot, 50-foot high maximum marina, is that intended to go on this property? Page 40 March 29, 2007 MR. MEYER: No, sir. That is the area that Mr. Basik was discussing as far as for community, music events and whatnot. The building -- the marketplace that is under construction right now does have a 50-foot height limit and will be built to 50 feet. This property will not. We are committing to maximum of35 feet on this property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I've been listening to some of the testimony provided by your side of -- your group, and a lot of it seems you're wanting to go to mostly retail type commercial uses. Why did you submit this application under C-4 and C-5 intensity? Mr. White? MR. WHITE: Part of the dialogue -- you know, as kind ofa historical wealth of information just shared with me is that that originated from, we believe, a staff comment. And certainly we believe, responsive to Mr. Kolflat's question, that even C-3 or C-4 uses would be ones that if the text could be amended to reflect those as the limitations that the applicant would be willing to consider. Because the intensity ofC-4 and C-5, with the fear being that at rezoning we may request essentially the C-5's for all of the property, aren't ones that are within that vision. So it originated from interface with staff, but we're at this point prepared to adjust the application and request to change the text to indicate that it could be a mix of C-3 and C-4. Those are more consistent with the marketplace and other vision of uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so let me understand this then. Staff, you go in with an application with possibly a C-3 or maybe a C-4 use intensity. Staff feels you should have a greater intensity and says C-4 and C-5, then they deny it to begin with. Somehow that doesn't flow. Maybe Randy or David can explain what their process is, if that in fact was their process. MR. WEEKS: When the 2002 petition was submitted, the petitioner had language explaining what uses they were proposing, and the language was unimplementable. It used general terms. As I Page 41 March 29, 2007 recall, something to the effect of retail uses, maybe restaurant uses affiliated with the adjacent flea market. Again, terms that staff viewed as too vague, too general and would be very difficult to implement. Staff recommended the C-4 and C-5 language because of its clarity. We know what's allowed in C-4 and C-5, we go right to the LDC. It was not a matter of we preferred that, but we wanted the clarity. And that's why we mentioned specific zoning issues. The intensity of uses that were being requested at the time were of a higher level. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were ofC-4 and C-5? MR. WEEKS: At least some of them, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were any of those expressed here today? I mean, I didn't hear C-5 ex -- I didn't hear anybody say anything. I thought it sounded like a C-5 use, but maybe you can define that or better explain that. MR. COHEN: For the record, Randy Cohen. No, sir. And that's why we were kind of -- when we heard the comment about, you know, the staff interaction and the staff recommending C-4, C-5, we kind oflooked at each other and we -- the first question was when? Because obviously that interaction hasn't occurred with this specific amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WHITE: And in fact, just to clarify the record, it would have been in the 2002 draft of this, if you will, that that comment I made took place, not specific to the 2005 application we're considering today. But I think to be responsive to Mr. Kolflat's concern, we would be willing to recognize that C-3 and C-4 would be the appropriate caps that could ever be requested at essentially step three, the rezonmg. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Thank you. Page 42 March 29, 2007 On this point, and I had made this comment to staff with the existing language about the C-4 and C-5, we need to put in there in effect at the time of adoption of the amendment, so this doesn't work into a self-amending compo plan amendment, should the LDC uses change under those districts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And Mr. Meyers, I have one other question that is non -- that doesn't come out of the traffic report. It comes out of Exhibit VE that was attached to the GMP amendment. Do you know who created that exhibit? There's some writing in there I want -- I would like to understand what they were thinking of. MR. MEYER: I'm going to have to assume that Mr. Nino was probably more than likely the author of the document, simply because it was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The title of the exhibit is Exhibit VE, and it says the first paragraph, public facility adequacy. And my question is about the comment made under the arterial and collector road impact. I'll read it, and maybe someone can explain it from your team. There's a sentence in there that says, comprehensive plan use designations should only be reflected as that land use which may be implemented through a rezoning action in the event the traffic level of service is adequate to serve the project, or that modifications to the highway system will be made prior to any development which may lower the level of service to unacceptable standards. And by your own statements today, I think you acknowledged that the improvements on U.S. 41 are lengthy, quite a ways down the road. Yet your TIS, supplied by your traffic engineer, says you're going to be on-line with your services in 2007. That doesn't correspond to the statement I just read you. And I'm just wondering how the reasoning came about and why anybody would put that in here and not want to follow it up adequately with Page 43 March 29,2007 their backup documents. MR. MEYER: I'm going to have to let somebody else answer that one, unfortunately. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I don't see anybody rushing to the podium. MR. MEYER: I know. MR. WHITE: I'll take a stab at it. I believe that the text was more likely than not accurate at the time it was drafted. Certainly I think in the presentation you're going to hear today from Mr. Jarvi, that acute concern that has evolved since this was last heard is the 2003 cycle amendments. And since this was drafted, I believe in -- sometime of 2004, perhaps for presentation in 2005. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you dig a hole too deep, Mr. White, the date on it is 5/23/06. MR. WHITE: That may have been the last date that it was revised, but I understand your point and hopefully we can give you a more informed and articulate answer than my rough stab at it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate, it, sir, thank you. MR. WHITE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Jarvi, looks like you've inherited some fun. MR. JARVI: For the record, Reed Jarvi of -- Transportation Engineer with Vanasse-Daylor. I'll attempt to address your question first before my prepared remarks. But when we did prepare the traffic impact statement back a few years ago for this submittal, actually at that point in time U.S. 41 was not overcapacity. It's the main issue these days. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was it that it was not or that it maybe was not recognized to be because the vested developments -- MR. JARVI: In according with the system in place two years ago, two plus years ago, it was not overcapacity. Now, since that Page 44 March 29, 2007 time, it -- more development orders have come on, and it is gone. But in the concurrency system overcapacity, it is not actually overcapacity from what traffic is actually traveling on the road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The statement that I read, that didn't come from you then? MR. JARVI: Not directly. I mean, it may have been something that was said in a meeting that, you know, transpired, somebody else wrote. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, this was an actual paragraph used to support your amendment. I just thought it was ironic, because the way it's written, it certainly does not seem to help. MR. JARVI: Yes, sir. You know, other than -- you know, we could talk philosophical about this for a long time, but I think we're way past that today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. So go ahead, and if you have a presentation to make, I'm sure there's questions involving transportation, so -- MR. JARVI: Yeah, I talked to Nick at the break and I told him that I was going to pair down my 25-minute presentation to about two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Nick, for helping out with that. MR. JARVI: But basically I'm not going to argue the merits or not merits of the current system and how we are characterizing U.S. 41. But rather than go right to the meat of this and see what we can do, the capital improvement element -- capital improvement Policy 1.1.2 and transportation element 5.1, I'm going to paraphrase them, but basically they say you shouldn't approve a rezone SRA comprehensive plan amendment, et cetera, et cetera. And there's several various types of processes. Unless there -- excuse me, if a project access is a deficient road, unless there is appropriate mitigation. And that's a paraphrase of it. But that's basically what those two comprehensive plan elements policies say. Page 45 March 29, 2007 And then to follow up with that, and we've had some illusion to the U.S. 41 issue, which is the main issue for this particular project, is as staffs correctly noted that the two-lane section of U.S. 41 is not funded for improvement in the five-year planning period. In fact, it's not funded in the near term. I mean, we've had discussions with staff, with FDOT staffs, and it probably is into 10 years from now, maybe 15, maybe 17 years, if the state is the one that's going to do it. The state basically has no money that they can allocate for this. They've allocated all their money through -- to the Davis Boulevard expansion that goes up to, I think it's 2017 or 2016, something like that. So they're basically at the allotment the state gives the county for state roads. There's no state money available for several years. With that discussion, also Collier County has no intention to expand state road. So now we are at a situation that's several years off. Not near term at all, several years off. With this in mind, there is what we effectively have called the U.S. 41 developers consortium, which is a group of developers in that area that have made some formal propositions to staff and informal propositions to the Board of County Commissioners to expand 41 and/or the 951/41 intersection. So that is an ongoing endeavor or initiative at this point in time. I guess you could call it a private/public relationship, but it's pretty much more a private relationship right now, that they are looking at doing expansion for 41 to address some of the concurrency problems that are out there. Right now, as I said earlier, public bodies are not addressing the problem, state or county. No federal dollars involved. So there's -- it's not being addressed. So this partnership, or the consortium, as we call it, is looking -- is doing that. There's been several discussions of staff over about the last year and a half, maybe, year and a half or so, about this in trying Page 46 March 29, 2007 to refine the proposal from the consortium and what staff thinks is the most important part of it, with the understanding that there is money available but there's limited money available from this consortium. I can talk more about it, if you want, but it's really not out -- I mean, it's in the public eye in that it's been presented to other people, but it hasn't been close to formally accepted. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sorry, Cherie'. I need to question something, because I think I'm pretty much up to speed on the consortium that relates to 951/41. And I thought I understood its boundaries. And I didn't think it related seven miles to the east. Are you telling us that this consortium is now intending to go as far as this property to expand it? MR. JARVI: Yes and no. The alleged -- or excuse me, the part of 41 that appears to be the problem is in the vicinity of the intersection. I mean, we could say it's a mile down the road, four miles down the road, three miles down the road. The consortium is looking at around two and a half, three miles east of 951. That's the area that has the congestion as currently the most -- once you get farther out east, you have lot less traffic and there are little drive -- excuse me, few driveways, so the congestion is minimal or less. I don't want to say minimal, but it's less than when you get nearer the intersection itself. The intersection itself works currently but is projected to fail. DOT's put it at some time in the teens, roughly. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I wanted to have that clear. MR. JARVI: Yes, the consortium has members that are out farther east than the two or three miles that it is proposing to expand 41. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Since you mentioned that, is Mr. Basik Page 47 March 29, 2007 a member of the consortium? MR. JARVI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are they all going to be contributing dollars, or how is that set up? MR. JARVI: Yeah, the consortium -- the rough arrangement is that they are contributing dollars above -- including and above impact fees, road impact fees. And Mr. Basik's land, which would be to the north of this petition -- north? MR. BASIK: East. MR. JARVI: East of this petition. It gets kind of confusing, there's several parcels right there -- is in the consortium. And what I was going to say, as part of our specific mitigation, we would suggest that maybe a stipulation would be appropriate that this project be included in the consortium also. And if it is, it will be participating in that expansion of 41 or the intersection as that goes through the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I just -- maybe I misstated my question. I asked you if Mr. Basik was a member of the consortium. Because he represents -- he is the property owner of this application, is he not? MR. JARVI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said he was a member. Now you're saying that he needs to be stipulated to be a member. MR. JARVI: Let me try to clarify. He is a member, not on this property. Because this property has nothing on it right now, so there's nothing for him to be a member of. He has -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but the whole purpose of the consortium has got to be property owners who have nothing on them, because if they had something on them, they wouldn't need the consortium. So how does that fit? MR. JARVI: Not necessarily, sir. There's several properties that are in the SDP or plats and plans stage that are stopped. There's Page 48 March 29, 2007 several properties that are in the rezoning stage that have a concurrent or -- excuse me, an existing future land use that's adequate for their rezonmg. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they have nothing on them either, because they're not permitted. MR. JARVI: They're not permitted, no. It's part -- the idea is an area-wide developers contribution agreement to do this -- that will be signed by several developers/landowners in this area. This is -- this consortium has come together to address the problem that is not being addressed by other sources, and that's what it IS. Adjacent to this particular land, or in the near vicinity, there is a piece that Mr. Basik owns that is part of the consortium, because they are in the SDP process at this point in time and are stopped because of this. So they are a member of the consortium. This particular property is not a member of the consortium. We would propose to make it part of the consortium, if it's approved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. JARVI: That's what we were saying. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, did you have something? Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You said that right now the level of service is all right, that it's several years in the future that it will be failing. But in the staff report on Page 10, I'm reading on the second-- well, the first paragraph it says, U.S. 41 has a directional peak traffic service volume of 1,075 trips, blah, blah, blah, yielding an operating level of service of F. Has is the present tense. So this seems to read that it's failing now. MR. JARVI: Yes, sir. What I said is in accordance with our concurrency management system, which is what was quoted by staff, it is failing. I'm saying the actual counts out there are not in a failure Page 49 March 29, 2007 mode. And as an example, and I don't have the exact numbers in my mind, but the capacity of that road is tagged at 1,075 vehicles per hour directional. The actual counts out there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 650 trips. And you can see that that is -- that's the cars that are actually on the road. Our concurrency management system has vested trips, cars that aren't actually on the road but that either are development orders that have been approved or other projects that have a vesting associated, for about 610 or 15 trips, something like that. When you add those together, you get a concurrency management system. And please bear in mind, concurrency management system is for SDPs, plats and plans. That concurrency management system says it's actually overcapacity by I think it's 288 if I remember right, what the staff report says. In that concurrency management system, that is a true statement. What I said is the cars actually on the road are not overcapacity, and they -- the projection is that it will be several years before the cars actually on the road would trigger that situation. But my point early on in discussion was I'm not going to refute that one way or another. I just said for our particular project, we would suggest appropriate mitigation in accordance with capital improvement element 1.1.2 and transportation element 5.1 would be for this project to join the consortium, provide funding for the expansion of the road, and we would also agree that whatever the phasing that is determined, if this consortium goes through, whatever phasing is agreed to on that, that we would be subject to the same phasing. Obviously we would be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Don't you have a bunch of property owners between this parcel or these parcels and all the way Page 50 March 29, 2007 up to where the consortium currently has membership that are not members of that consortium? MR. JARVI: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: To make it functional, make it feasible, wouldn't you have to have all of those parties or at least most of them before you could actually ever get a DCA with a county? MR. JARVI: No, the DCA with the county is for the members, the partners of the various developers. I don't know the number offhand, but it's around 10. And those people have chose that they would fund this improvement. The other property owners in the area, there is a potential that they could benefit from that funding, but they aren't right now part of the consortium, for reasons that I don't know. They may not have any development intention at this time, they may not think they need to be. You know, I don't know why somebody isn't a member. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. That adds clarity to the record. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney, go ahead. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: The needed improvements, aren't you talking about hundreds of millions of dollars? Is the consortium prepared to put up that much money? MR. JARVI: I'm going to be specifically vague here, because I'm not really authorized to talk about the consortium. But the improvements they are proposing is what they think they can fund. And in the hundreds of million dollars that has been noted is the improvement flyovers at the intersection and improvements out to 92. That is not what the consortium is proposing, because they are proposing something that they can fund. They can't fund hundreds of millions of dollars. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me try to short-circuit some of this, because we keep getting off into tangents that may not be as relevant. The consortium I don't believe is a county endorsed entity. I don't Page 51 March 29, 2007 think whether it exists or not exists is going to have any bearing on decisions involving planning within the county. Is that a fair statement, Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And what I'm worried about is it's fine that they've gotten together to do this. We know the market is lousy right now, we know a lot of people are not doing things because the market is lousy. Whether this happens now or 10 or 15 years from now, I'm not sure that should be a large basis on what we're doing. But for informational purposes, I think we've gotten quite an earful on it so far, if that works for everybody. Mr. Jarvi, did you have any more of your presentation to finish up-- MR. JARVI: No, that was it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or just general questions on your document? MR. JARVI: That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any questions related to the TIS document? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I'm not a visionary, but as I understand it, the level of service is still F on U.S. 41, close to Collier Boulevard; is that right? MR. JARVI: Yes. (At which time, Ms. Caron exits the room.) MR. JARVI: I believe you said it's F. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: F, yes. MR. JARVI: Well, U.S. 41 close to Collier Boulevard; is that correct? Yes. In that accordance with concurrency management system, that's a true statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let the record reflect Ms. Caron had to leave for a prior commitment. Page 52 March 29, 2007 Mr. Jarvi, if you could turn to Page 1 of your document. The third paragraph says, the analysis indicate that in 2007 only U.S. 41 between CR951 and -- SR951 and CR92 is reprojected to have trip generated trip volumes greater than three percent of the AUIR maximum service flow rate. The next paragraph said, no links exhibited projected volumes that would both exceed the SF and have projected site generating trips exceeding three percent of the FS max. Those two sentences, because probably I don't understand all your traffic writings, seem to con -- I'm a little confused. One seems to contradict the other. Can you clarify? MR. JARVI: Yes, sir. The first sentence says, in accordance with the Growth Management Plan and the Land Development Code. We measure significance of a project's impact on the roadway system. That is based on the max SF, which is surface flow max. It's all -- capacity is probably a better, more common term in public forums. We measure the project's traffic as compared to that capacity. And there is only one link in this particular project that has a greater than three percent impact. Once it gets -- basically once it gets to 951 and 41 and traffic comes and goes three different directions, it drops below that significance factor. The next statement says that there is no adverse -- adverse meaning it's overcapacity. At the time this was written, it wasn't adverse. Remember, this was written over two years ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right now, though, would it be considered adverse? MR. JARVI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's-- MR. JARVI: Well, let me rephrase that and say yes it would, in accordance with the concurrency management system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 3, in your committed roadway improvements, the second paragraph, CR951, north of U.S. 41, is Page 53 March 29, 2007 scheduled from a four-lane to six-lane expansion with construction to start in 2006. You do know that didn't occur. MR. JARVI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The PD&E study from LePress (phonetic) to widen U.S. 41, east of951, however designed and constructed, any possible improvements have not yet been scheduled. Based on the staff report, it looks like it's five years before that's going to happen. Is that -- MR. JARVI: No, I think staff report said it wasn't scheduled within five years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, it's not scheduled in five years. MR. JARVI: That's correct, sir. The PD&E study is ongoing, but the construction of 41 has not been scheduled. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You use the shopping center category 820 -- MR. JARVI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to do your modeling, yet we're going to have a lot -- we could have potentially different uses than what 820 would dictate, based on the statements by Mr. Meyer earlier that anything in the C-4/C-5 range could happen. MR. JARVI: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you look and see how that would affect your TIS? MR. JARVI: No, sir. In general, when we have a general retail use, we use shopping center, because that considers many different uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 6, second paragraph, second to the last sentence, I'm trying to figure out where this fits in. Since CR92 has no assigned SF max of flow rate for Logan Boulevard was used. I'm just -- I don't understand that. MR. JARVI: What it says is CR92, San Marco Drive, or Boulevard, there was -- at that time there was no capacity noted in the Page 54 March 29, 2007 county's concurrency system or the AUIR, so we used what we felt was a similar type road, which we picked Logan as a two-lane road, as a similar type road for its capacity so we could do a comparison. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Logan Boulevard through the Estates goes from Santa Barbara to Vanderbilt Beach Road? Oh, no, that's four-lane there. So you're looking at a two-lane segment, so it would be Pine Ridge to Vanderbilt Beach Road through the Golden Gate Estates. You think that's comparable to CR92, which is a back door in off U.S. 41 to Marco Island? There's only two on the whole island and that's one of them? MR. JARVI: It's a character of roads, sir, it's not what the traffic is. And it is a capacity of the road segment. If anything, Logan Boulevard with the series of intersections would have a lower capacity than CR952 -- excuse me, CR92. Because 92 has very few driveways. So from a capacity standpoint, it's conservative using Logan Boulevard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think you've answered the other questions I had. My only remaining questions remain of staff. Does anybody else have any questions of the applicant at this point, of any of his consultants? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'd like to hear from county staff. MS. MOSCA: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Commissioners. F or the record, my name is Michelle Mosca with Comprehensive Planning Staff. I'm going to ask David Weeks if he'll go ahead and pass out the activity center map at 951 and Collier Boulevard. I don't have the visualizer, that's why I'm providing the handout. The agents discussed the project in great detail, so I'll just go ahead and address staffs findings. The findings are also located on the Page 55 March 29, 2007 second to last page or Page 12 of the staff report. Generally speaking, the application fails to demonstrate or justify the requested change to the Growth Management Plan. The market study and the analysis provided is inconclusive in that it does not adequately demonstrate demand. If you look at the handout in front of you, the activity center map, this property is located within 3.5 miles from the site within the urban area. And as you can see from the map, there's a tremendous amount of commercial development proposed and presently developed in that center. I'd like to also point out, and this was mentioned earlier, that this is an area where a large 2,500-acre rural village is planned. This could possibly equate to just for the neighborhood center alone 750,000 square feet of commercial development. Just for that center alone. The idea with the rural village center is that it is a semi rural type development. It's buffered from adjacent properties. It's required to have a minimum 300-acre buffer. Very different from what's being proposed here. I know that the applicant mentioned somewhere around 88,000 square feet of commercial. Small when you look at the site alone, but when you look at all of the commercial being proposed in this area, as well as what is already there at the activity center, it's a huge number. Also, when you look at the units that were provided in the analysis from the agent, those units include, for example, Fiddler's Creek. Well, we know that Fiddler's Creek has approximately 325,000 square feet of commercial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 265,000. MS. MOSCA: Thank you. Okay, on the PUD perhaps it lists 325 -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That 265 is permitted. MS. MOSCA: Okay, thank you. So those units, those residents within Fiddler's Creek -- and some Page 56 March 29, 2007 of that is located internally to the project. And Mr. Strain can correct me if I'm wrong. Those units will be served by that commercial. There was also a reference to Walnut -- I believe it's Walnut Lakes PUD. That PUD is actually closer to the activity center than to the specific site. So I just wanted to bring that to your attention. I just referenced two of the developments listed in the agent's submittal. Secondly, I'd like to point out that the submittal fails to address noncommercial type development opportunities on the property that are consistent with the present designation. Again, I want to remind everyone that this is a property that is designated rural agricultural. It is zoned rural agricultural. It is intended to provide a transition between the urban area and the rural area. If the site is not suitable for residential, there are many conditional uses that could be considered, such as community facility uses, churches, day care, assisted living facilities, and the listings on. Or agricultural type uses. I'd like to also mention, which was addressed, that considerable traffic will be generated should this subdistrict be approved. And again, mention 41 is a failing roadway, it has vested trips for development already in the area. The approval of this subdistrict will only exacerbate that condition. Finally, I would like to stress that this is an inappropriate location for this commercial development. Again, designated rural agricultural. What you'll see here is the pulling of the urban population to this center. In staffs professional planning opinion this is inappropriate. Further, this allows for the chipping away of the rural fringe program, the rural fringe mixed use program. We'd like to see that program have the opportunity to take off, and again, slated for a large rural village. Finally, I'd like to mention, there were two letters of opposition, Page 57 March 29, 2007 both of which now you have received. With that, I'll answer any questions that you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Questions of staff? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Michelle, in the staff recommended wording, number -- or item A, you changed that from requiring a PUD to encouraging a PUD. So essentially what you're saying is that this site could be developed for whatever uses we determine without the PUD process. MS. MOSCA: My understanding from legal staff is that we cannot require PUD zoning. And I'll defer to Marjorie. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Marjorie? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: When I reviewed these amendments, I made a notation to staff that that should be changed to shall be encouraged. That's what we've done at other places in the comprehensive plan. And there's case law that local government cannot force someone to do a PUD. And I understand this language is being brought forward by the applicant, but we still need to be careful what we put in our plan, so I would recommend the encouraged language. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What that means is that the site could be developed without a PUD. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: That's correct. And we can't force it so-- , CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the staff at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michelle? MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My turn. Let's start on Page 6. Well, first of all, as a general note, the applicant has suggested that they would work with C-3 and C-4 Page 58 March 29, 2007 instead of C-4 and C-5. Would -- I know this is a kind of on-the- fly question. Would that change any of staffs considerations? MS. MOSCA: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On Page 6, the second paragraph has a one-sentence statement. The present designation on the subject site allows development consistent with the surrounding development patterns, both existing and proposed. Can you explain that? MS. MOSCA: Yes. To the east of the property is a preserve area. And then you'll see the golf course. To the -- wait a minute, let me get my map. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what is the present designation? MS. MOSCA: The present designation is rural agricultural, rural fringe mixed use district, receiving lands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And under those receiving lands, you can have a variety of uses, including, for example? MS. MOSCA: For example, residential. And it's listed on-- there's an exhaustive list, but it starts on Page 5. Agricultural uses, single-family, multi-family, and the listings on. Essential services, community facilities, et cetera. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would the particular use they're looking for qualify under any of those? MS. MOSCA: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 7, economic justification. Apparently the agent on the first bullet provided census tracts or portions of unspecified census tracts as a justification for the potential trade area for any commercial activity for local goods and services. Seems that staff took exception of that. Can you elaborate just a little bit on that? MS. MOSCA: Yes. If you look at the census tracts -- I know the maps are rather small, but if you look at the census tract boundaries -- and that would read 111.01 and 111.02. And then you look at the Page 59 March 29, 2007 additional analysis that was provided in the applicant's commercial needs analysis or inventory, they referred to the Royal Fakapalm. So when you overlay the two, they're not the same. So if you start looking at households within one area, obviously they're going to be different in the other. Did that explain it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it does. That means the multipliers used for justification then would be maybe not exactly as they should be? MS. MOSCA: Correct. I'm sorry, I would like to point out, though, there are areas of 110.2 that are completely undeveloped. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. The third bullet down, the agent failed to explain the methodology used to calculate the existing and projected residential units and population within the market/trade area. Can you elaborate? Is that the same reference to that population census tracts that are used; is that right? MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under the commercial needs analysis, towards the bottom of the page, the last sentence, last line, the existing and proposed commercial square foot for the same area was not provided in the analysis, rather only a three-mile radius. Can you elaborate on that? MS. MOSCA: Well, when you look at a commercial needs analysis and you start looking at the aggregation of units, that same geographic area has to be looked at in comparison to your existing commercial inventory. So you can't state there's 6,000 units within "X" geographic area and then narrow the commercial within a three-mile radius. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then what happens is you create a greater need for the -- based on the residential and a wider area that may be served by commercial that isn't reflected in your three-mile area, is that -- MS. MOSCA: That's correct. Page 60 ___."___ _u_._._" March 29, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the same page towards the bottom it says, the agent provided select dwelling unit data as listed below, but did not provide data sources and did not account for vacancy rates. Any elaboration on that? MS. MOSCA: If you look at Page 8, you'll see the project description, number of dwelling units. This was provided -- this was provided by the agent. The bracketed items were additions. And many of them are RV communities, mobile homes. I don't really have anything more to add to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. On that same -- on Page 8, the bullet that is at the end of the section you just started talking about, the agent provided the county-wide medium household EBI rather than the figure appropriate to the specific trade area and then applied this figure to an unidentified household count within the Royal Fakapalm planning community in order to determine the project commercial demand in 2015. Why would that have been done? MS. MOSCA: We don't typically see that at this -- this is perhaps an exception. What we look at -- and there are different ways to prepare a commercial needs analysis. But if you're looking at a market area, you want all of the demographics for that specific area. You don't want to just go ahead and generalize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Page 10, public facilities impacts, first bullet, second sentence, the agent did not provide the level of service impact specified to the requested use, shopping center. Well, now, we know they use that in the TIS, as Mr. Jarvi previously stated. But apparently in the water and wastewater calculations they did not use that? MS. MOSCA: In can recall, I don't believe -- I believe the level of service standard was provided; however, they did not apply those level of service standards to the actual square footage being requested. Page 61 March 29, 2007 I had to go back and look at a prior submittal to obtain the information, which I believe is probably accurate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under the consistency with the GMP statement above, the additional -- it says in the last sentence, the additional 88,110 square feet of commercial use is not consistent with the Policy 5.1 of the transportation element of the GMP. Is that because ofthe current situation? Because we heard Mr. Jarvi testify there were changes in the pattern or the way the level of service was looked at from the time this started till the time we have today. I'm just wondering what time frame your consistency analysis was for. MS. MOSCA: That was a statement provided to me by transportation staff, so I'll need to defer to them for that answer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let me make sure I've got -- I've got one more of you and then I'll ask -- I'm sure Nick's dying to get up here today. Findings and conclusions. Let's see. The third bullet, the data and analysis submitted with the petition fails to address or consider noncommercial development opportunities on the subject property. What did you mean by that? MS. MOSCA: If you look at the second sentence, we look at transitional uses such as conditional uses, if a site is not viable for residential development, let's say. There are many uses that can be developed on this property. It does not have to be a commercial use, especially of this magnitude and intensity within a transitional area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Michelle, are you a planner? MS. MOSCA: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Typical planning, when you layout entry -- first of all, I believe East Tamiami Trail is one of the main thoroughfares to enter -- to East Naples; would that be a fair statement? MS. MOSCA: That would be a fair statement. Page 62 March 29,2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you look at those entries in planning in today's world, is generally heavy industrial use something that's sought for in those main entries? MS. MOSCA: I would have to say no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other questions of Michelle? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe Nick could answer that one question then. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida with Transportation Planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, the question was around the timing of this comment and the consistency of the GMP for 5.1 of the transportation element. Since we heard Reed indicate that he had submitted this early and had one application or one maybe finding at that time involving the level of service, and it may have changed between the time that it was submitted and today, I was just -- I wanted your thoughts on timing in which you provided that statement. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. At this time I reviewed the application, it was discussed that the 5.1 was a five-year look forward period. And so Mr. Jarvi was commenting about concurrency at that time when the original submittal came in would be in effect true, there was concurrency there. But we are not talking about concurrency, and I want to be clear, we're talking about consistency. And I'll elaborate as far as the land use element and future use in this area. If you allow the compo plan change to continue and move forward, we have to consider that use in our long-range transportation plan as a viable land use at our -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You might want to do two things: Slow down a little bit and pull the mic closer to you, because I know Page 63 March 29, 2007 Cherie's probably typing as fast as she can right now. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Thank you, Cherie'. You know, should get a little shock collar on me if I talk too fast. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Give me the button. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You would definitely be the sound. So when we looked at that, we were consistent with 5.1. You look at traffic five years ahead. And you've looked at your improvements in that five-year period. There are none. So we looked at that and found it inconsistent with 5.1. Mr. Jarvi referenced mitigation. Yes, there is a consortium. I don't think he can count that in this application. It's not been approved. It's being vetted at this time, so it's something that's out there but cannot be counted as a viable project for U.S. 41. So transportation has found the project inconsistent and recommends denial at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you provided staff with that statement of inconsistency, was it -- can you give me a time frame? Was that recently or was that when this was first reviewed? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Within the last six months. It was recently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of Nick or any staff members? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, Nick, how is it that -- we don't have that many F roads or F segments. How is it that we can get so far behind on something and have no plans to improve it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, it's a state road. And when you say so far behind something, it's -- you know, when you look on our five-year plan five years ago, Davis Boulevard was in there to be funded. Whether there was money planned for U.S. 41 as the funding has dwindled through the state process, even through the county process, projects get pulled. So planning-wise, we anticipated, you know, the PD&E study to Page 64 March 29, 2007 come forward and we anticipated the state would have funding for projects like this, but they do not. And so, you know, as funding changes, roads fall off, programs to be improved, you know, level of service F. So-- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Is this going to be like a constrained road do you think in the foreseeable future? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, constrained now due to concurrency, if that's what you mean. We're not approving any development orders on this roadway right now. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: How are we going to get a rural village in there if it's going to be an F road in the long-term future? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would hope that the developers that are part of this consortium and the rural village will step up and be part of the solution at that point in time if they want to make their projects work. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Isn't it, though, hundreds of millions of dollars that are needed? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, for the widening of 41, depending on how far you take it and what kind of footprint, it might be difficult. The long-range PD&E forecast, you're right. We're talking $150 million overpass fly over at that location. You would fund some of that in phases, I would imagine. One of the things we are looking at, even with the consortium, is to say maybe the object would be to do intersection improvements and have a plan for long-range what that intersection should look like. So we are looking at it, we're not putting a blind eye to it. Funding is the critical issue right now. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Nick. David, are there any public speakers? Page 65 March 29, 2007 MR. WEEKS: We have one. Pat Rodinsky. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Rodinsky, were you sworn? MS. RODINSKY: No, I wasn't. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll probably need to start by spelling your name for the court reporter. MS. RODINSKY: Patricia Rodinsky. R-O-D-I-N-S-K-Y. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. MS. RODINSKY: And I live on Trinity Place, 11231. And I am very glad that I came to this meeting today, because I do see that everyone is looking out for our best interest. But my only concern is that I do live on a dead-end street, and if the project goes forward, I would hope that you all consider that we need a way out of Trinity Place. And I was hoping that you could see that no traffic from the flea market/marketplace would be allowed to go through this property that we're talking about today on the corner, so it would be difficult for me and my family to leave my location. And that's about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And I -- this is what's called a GMP amendment, and the specificity of road access and items like that are usually accomplished through a subsequent application through an SDP or a PUD. I'm not sure, and maybe staff can correct me, I don't know how detailed we can get in a GMP amendment with access to roads and items like that. MR. WEEKS: That's up to you ultimately. I know the preference is to be more general in nature to defer such a site specific consideration to the zoning stage, or even the site development plan stage. But we do have some precedent in the past for getting down to that level of detail. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: For the record, Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney. I've warned against, since this started, with a great detail on Page 66 March 29,2007 subdistricts. They do not belong in a comprehensive plan. To change anything, you have to go through an incredible process, and there's quite -- could be some exposure for an administrative hearing of finding of noncompliance. The GMP is like a constitution, and it has more general language than the LDC. The Land Development Code is supposed to implement the compo plan, as are the various development orders, including rezones, and to me this type of thing is more appropriate at the site plan level, because typically we -- and Nick is here to verify this -- we see language in the PUD documents even, which is a step beyond this, that says that the access points are more conceptual, and they reserve the right to change them at a later point. Isn't that correct, Mr. Casalanguida? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's not on record, he's sitting in the audience. But I understand -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I just wanted to make sure that was my correct recollection. So I don't believe this is the point to be setting access points. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The reason, Ms. Rodinsky, I'm pointing all this out is I think that your presence here and any issues like that, you need to bring up as this moves through the process. There's going to be four meetings total, including this being one of them, just to get to the point where they may have the right then to come in and ask for further detail on a project. And it's in that further detail that the answers to your questions would be addressed. To address them here is not the arena that we normally get into them, but by you highlighting it, I'm certainly -- that is a good thing. That will make it aware in everybody's mind, if it survives this process today and the next weeks. MS. RODINSKY: I do appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. MS. RODINSKY: Thank you very much. Page 67 March 29,2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, this is -- or to you, Margie. But in this thing we're limiting the access to -- in other words, we're requiring the access to be Trinity, Item F. So the neighbor gets up and says I don't want any access on Trinity, you're saying we can't do that, yet this is requiring. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: You know, I think it's something that needs to be addressed later on in the process. I don't really think it belongs in here, period. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But if it passes from here, it's going to require access on Trinity. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: You can recommend the language be removed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And in fact, if you look at some of these other items on here, if this were to survive today, there are other issues here that we may want to take a look at in that regard. But I think we first need to get all the input we have. Are there any other speakers, Mr. Weeks? MR. WEEKS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. White, you wanted a short rebuttal? MR. WHITE: Quick, brief, succinct. Taking the last point I think first, we would be prepared to stipulate, even if it's not appropriate at GMP, that at rezoning we would implement a parking management plan such that all of the marketplace uses and any events associated with the use of the public assembly common area would be implemented such that all the traffic from those events would flow through the existing commercial area that's already developed and down Basik Drive to 41 so it would not be exiting at Trinity Place. So we would address that neighborhood concern. The other uses, commercial or residential, as they may evolve, Page 68 March 29, 2007 including the potential even for an EMS station, that there have been discussions with the county on, would all be ones that I believe the neighbors have not objected to, and we've discussed with them and they would be comfortable with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. White then, before we go any further, Ms. Rodinsky's point and Mr. Schiffer's follow-up question about striking any reference to Trinity Place in the subdistrict language as proposed, then you would have no problem with that? MR. WHITE: I'm just looking at the staff recommended text. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 13, Item F. MR. WHITE: F. I don't think we have an objection. Because in fact we're contemplating an alternative, if you will, based upon those more recently expressed neighborhood concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Schiffer, thank you for pointing that out. MR. WHITE: To respond to the staff comments first, in particular on Page 7 of the staff report, bullet one, talking about economic justification in the question of the overbreadth of the household numbers coming from a portion of consensus tracts that were enumerated. The reason why the word portions was used and the whole staff objection to it is not based on a sound premise. It's incorrect, because if you look on the following page of the staff report, our number of housing units analysis is based on the approved PUDs and the residential development within the three-mile radius. They are internally consistent. And so I know there's a number of bullet points and arguments made in the staff report based upon the premise that somehow they were overly broad. But the fact of the matter is that they are equivalent and appropriate and form the rationale that is consistent with sound planning practice under 9J-5 to constitute adequate data and analysis, and therefore we believe would allow this planning commission to find it appropriate for transmittal. Page 69 March 29, 2007 It's a key point, and I'm glad we got into a discussion about it, because the clarity for this commission is essential. Just more generally, we started out by kind of trying to identify where we were on the development cycle time line. And I find it an interesting dichotomy that at times the long-range planning analysis done by the county, in particular from the transportation planning perspective, is one that finds a long-range planned small-scale amendment to somehow not be consistent when in fact it specifically looks to implement a mitigation condition that is consistent with what all developers and developments do. No one gets to go anywhere in terms of actual development unless and until you meet concurrency at site development plan or plats and plan. And I find it somewhat confusing to use the argument that you can't be now consistent because you haven't demonstrated that you will be able to build the capacity, because this body may not see the consortium as an accepted mitigation solution, when the nature of the condition that's actually being put into the amendment is one that says it would then have to be. The fact that it is not today isn't as pertinent as recognizing that for long-range land use and transportation planning purposes, we would in fact be consistent with the policies that have been identified, because they allow for just that kind of a mitigating circumstance. We're committing to it, we're committed to it at the SDP level for the adjacent property, and we'll remain committed to it, consistent with the way that the folks for the rural village would have to be. And so I just don't want to have there be a circumstance to arise where somehow the impacts from rural village specific to transportation are somehow seen as different than those for a proposed small-scale amendment. Now, we didn't talk specifics. None of the planning commissioners seemed to have a concern about the intensity of the development. But if it helps to allay the concerns that may exist, and Page 70 March 29, 2007 knowing that we'll address some of this at rezoning, in particularly the TDR issue. And since it's not a, quote, matter of evidence today, that is a commitment that we can make on the record. Similarly is the concern about transportation mitigation. And lastly about common architectural theme. That is something that I think we can -- more consistent with what other PUDs have done, and what is generally for some of the commercial zoning districts, identify and be consistent with those criteria that are already enumerated in the LDC and those other PUDs, because those PUDs are incorporated by reference. And turning to the intensity of the request, we're prepared to reduce to the prior original 2002 submittal the square footage intensity to 75,000 square feet. We believe that that will help in terms of the transportation impact overall. It will certainly I think address some of the economic justification issues that staff perceives or may still perceive as being pertinent. And I think that in combination with our proffer today to have the amendment reflect only C-3 and C-4 uses, that reduction of intensity, once we get down to more precise transportation or traffic impact statements and look at more precise ITE land use categories, and we start talking at rezoning about what those will be and what the trips generated will be, I think you're going to see that there's a smaller and smaller number of trips that we're talking about. So we're focusing on what the concerns are that have been expressed here today, and I believe responding appropriately, including that we have exhibited sound planning principals in terms of the data and analysis provided to justify it. And if there are any questions, I'll be happy to try to address them. I appreciate you being patient with us, and I again thank you for allowing us a week's continuance to be able to come back and present you as clearly as we could today our proposal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? Page 71 March 29,2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just want to clarify something you just said about Trinity Place, and you thought you might be able to accommodate that because you have an alternative plan. Presumably then, I'm thinking interconnectivity with the other adjacent property. And change is then -- again, I don't want to belabor this, but we're going back to creating a larger item, ultimately. That's where I'm heading in my mind. Is that correct what I see? MR. WHITE: If you're referring to being considered as an integrated and unified plan of development at rezoning, the answer is yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, that's what I thought. MR. WHITE: The stormwater is presently integrated. Weare looking at the internal traffic being similarly integrated. The common architectural theme would be integrated. So what we're looking at a holistic vision with a mix of uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. White, one statement you made I wanted to just suggest a clarification. I think you said that none of this commission was concerned about the intensity of the development. MR. WHITE: No, I said no one had specifically expressed a concern about 88,000. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mr. White, I think-- MR. WHITE: Mr. Schiffer did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think all the questions I asked in my mind were related to the intensity of development. If I didn't specify each one by saying based on 88,000 square feet -- my questions were all based on what you're proposing, which was the 88,000 square feet. So I think the intensity is a concern from some of those, at least me. MR. WHITE: I appreciate the clarification, Mr. Chairman. And my proffer of a reduction to the prior original 75,000 stands and hopefully is responsive to those broad and more now specific Page 72 March 29, 2007 concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Any other questions or comments? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a point of information, and maybe Margie answers this. If this were approved, the next step for development, they would either come in with a PUD, but would it automatically rezone the property where they could go straight to an SDP, or would they have to come here to rezone it to -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It is encouraged to be in the form of a PUD. And then there's discussion about, you know, uses that are in certain zoning districts. I think they more than likely would come from a PUD. I don't know what -- what's the current zoning on it right now? MR. WHITE: Ag. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Ag? Okay, they'd have to come through either a straight rezone or a PUD. So at the rezone level, you would get another bite of the apple, so to speak. And at either one of those you can put conditions on straight rezone, as well as things from aPUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So there's no way they could go into the SDP process without coming before a public hearing? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: I don't see it with ago zoning on it now. MR. WHITE: We'd agree with that, Mr. Schiffer. And in fact it may not be something that is seen as appropriately broad enough in our conditions, but it's a commitment we would make, that it would be PUD. That would be fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I don't want another bite of the apple. I'd like to make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got to make sure we're done with Page 73 March 29, 2007 all the questions and no other public speakers. If so, then you're free to make a motion. MR. WHITE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I make a motion that we forward to the Board of County Commissioners CP-2005-10 with a recommendation that it not be forwarded to the CDA (sic). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Recommendation of denial of transmittal? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Kolflat, second by Commissioner Adelstein. Is there any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All against the motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Make mine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Note that I'll be abstaining. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm against it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the motion carries 5-1, with one abstention. PETITION: CP-2005-13 - Continued to April 5, 2007 Page 74 March 29, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll finish with that item. I have a housekeeping matter that I remember being notified about, but usually somebody pops up at the beginning of the meeting to help remind me, and that is the continuation of the Item CP-2005-13. Is someone here today to request that? MR. COHEN: No, sir. Staff specifically is requesting that that item be continued. And when we spoke about continuing, we thought it would be best to continue to your next regularly scheduled meeting, which I believe is April the 5th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, at the end of this meeting we can make a motion to continue to whatever date we decide. But I want to make sure that anybody in the audience that may have been here for number 13, which is the Assembly of God PUD on 951, that particular motion will most likely not be heard today. PETITION: CP-2005-11 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with that, we will move on to CP-2005-11. It's a future land use map to change the rural fringe mixed use district to allow for approximately a half a million square feet of building space for warehouse and manufacturing uses along U.S. 41 East. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this applicant, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the record, I will be abstaining from the vote on this. This is the Growth Management Plan Amendment 2005-11, located across the roadway from a project that I receive income from. In order to avoid the perception of a conflict, I will abstain from voting on this issue. This plan amendment may have an impact on the development that I work on. Thank you. But I will be participating. Okay. Page 75 March 29, 2007 MR. FERGUSON: Okay. For the purposes of the record, my name is Tim Ferguson. I'm an attorney. I've also got a Master's Degree in urban regional planning. This -- my team is by absolute coincidence the same team that was here for the previous presentation. And a lot of the issues addressed in the previous presentation will be similar to this one, so I'm going to try to keep my comments brief. For the last two years we've looked at trying to forward an industrial type use on the property adjacent to the Cemex Plant. There's a 15-acre piece of property that's between our 42 acres and the Cemex Plant that's also controlled by the same group. We would have liked to included that in this application, but the amendment to the application would have caused it to be bumped, so as you consider this, we'll be coming back to add that 15 acres as well. If you fail to plan, you plan to fail. Right now we have individuals that live out on the East Trail who drive about 14 miles into town to pick up their lawn trucks who will be driving 14 miles back to this area to cut a lawn or to do a pool or do maintenance on homes. Then they'll get back in their work truck and they'll drive 14 miles back to the industrial zone we have now. Then they'll get in their car and they'll drive 14 miles back to where they live. Because that area for those workers is about the most inexpensive place to live in this county, if you're going to live here. That is planning to fail. And when we talk about transportation issues from a planning perspective, if -- there's a proportionate share law in this state that says if the -- if you've got concurrency in place, which we do, which says that you cannot develop your property unless it's concurrent, you can pay your proportionate share to build that road, okay. What we're doing here is we're avoiding that, okay, we're failing to plan to build this road. Yet what we've done is we've created a whole system of sending lands. We've said this is where we're all Page 76 March 29, 2007 going to put all those units. We've already got 6,000 units in that area. That is a rural village. They will need services out there. If we don't address that now and at least plan to have some uses, industrial uses out there -- what we intend to do is put warehouses out there that will house uses that service the residents. Now, the rural fringe district, which apparently is consistent with the comprehensive plan because it's already been voted in, okay, we found that this is consistent, it suggests that we need essential uses. And what it suggests is it suggests that the rural fringe mixed use district allows for a mixture of urban and rural levels of service. And so what that -- what you're doing there is you're saying we need essential water, schools, schools, recreational facilities, commercial uses and essential services deemed necessary to serve the residents of the district. In the comprehensive plan stage you're thinking generally in the future for what you're going to need out there. If you don't plan to have it, somebody's going to come develop that property for a different use and you won't have it there. And then everybody will be driving 14 miles into town and 14 miles back and 14 miles back and back and forth. They'll be putting 40, 50 miles on the roads when they could put four. No one would be able to develop here until the road's concurrent. That's the law. And somehow we're mixing up what is a long-range comprehensive plan with a concurrency that shouldn't even be thought about at this stage. And what we're calling it is we're calling it consistency. It really isn't consistency at all. It's another bite at concurrency. And so what we're doing is we're planning to fail out here, okay? There's 6,000 planned units out there. When I grew up in Naples, because I'm a native, there were 6,000 people in town. That was a city. There's a city planned out here. And staffhas suggested that this Page 77 March 29,2007 is where the city is going to go. And we talk about rural uses. The plan is for an urban use out there. And that's what allows us to save all the land that we have designated as receiving. So -- I mean sending. Because we're going to conserve all that sending land. So this is where we plan to put it. Now, if we don't plan to put some services out there to service these people, then we're planning to fail. So what I'm suggesting to you today is there is a need for about approximately 400 acres of industrial type uses. But they should be just limited to the types of uses that service the residents. When we talk industrial, we're not talking smokestacks out there, okay. We're talking what we need out there. Repair your car, build a truss so you don't have to drive all the way from Pine Ridge Road down here to get a truss. Those are the types of things that we need here. That's going to save the taxpayers money on the roads because they won't be traveled on. Now you don't even have to get on 951, now you don't even have to get on Davis Boulevard, you handle the service where it's needed. You've already got a rural village out there, you're just not calling it that. The approved PUDs constitute that type of use. I talked to the county manager over two years ago, I talked to the development services director, they all think it's a good idea. And the only reason why we're not going to do it if we don't do it is because the roads at level of service F road. Well, guess what? There's already a mechanism in place for that, okay? Several of them. Nobody's going to be able to build out there until that road's concurrent. But there are allowable uses there. And if you think property owners are going to wait 11 years before they go out there to decide what they're going to do if it's allowable, you know, I just think we need to plan to have the services where they're needed. And we are right beside a concrete batch plant. Page 78 March 29, 2007 Now, furthermore, if you're in a rural village, the allowable uses include facilities for collection and transfer and processing and reduction of solid waste, asphalt and concrete batch plants and other services that obviously are going to be essential, they're obviously consistent out there. So the thought that this is inconsistent can't be true. Either that, or the whole idea of rural village out there is inconsistent with the plan. But we already know this is consistent. What we're really debating is concurrency, and it doesn't belong here, okay? Youjust can't plan to fail, and that's what's going to end up happening here. And it's not good for Collier County. Now, with that I'll reserve rebuttal and I'll turn it over to my experts whose I hope will -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, before you walk away, there might be some questions of you, if you don't mind. Anybody on this panel have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a small one. You may have said it and I missed it, but the parcel you also own, is that also to the east? MR. FERGUSON: It's to the east. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, are you talking just TDR credits for you? MR. FERGUSON: I'm sure we're going to have to deal with TDR credits one way or the other. I mean, that's the whole -- you know, the county intends to see that system work. However, in the past if you look at -- traditionally over the years if you look at the number ofTDR programs that have worked, very few of them do. But we intend to participate with Collier County in trying to see that the TDR program works. Page 79 March 29, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Weeks? MR. WEEKS: What's being requested is a redesignation of the property from the rural fringe mixed use district to the rural industrial district. As such, there is no requirement -- it in fact -- that district is not part of the -- the requested district is not part of the TDR program. So if they should choose to participate, that would be just that, their choice. It's not that the plan is not structured for industrial properties to participate in the TDR program. Similar to the previous petition you just discussed, it's really an issue off to the side. And if they either choose or the BCC imposes upon them some TDR participation, that really is a separate issue, it's not part of the requested -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But he's offered, so I guess that will be binding, right? MR. WEEKS: Ifultimately the county commissioners approve such, yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Nino. MR. NINO: Yes, my name is Ron Nino for the record. I'm with the firm of Vanasse and Daylor. Now, I can't help but -- given all the years I've been doing this, I can't help but preach. And I know you're probably not going to like it. But I'm old enough that I feel that I'm entitled to tick you off, if that's the case. But we've gotten -- we've really prostituted the planning process here in Collier County by in effect adding concurrency as an evaluation justification for denying comprehensive plan amendments. And I don't blame you fellows, you commissioners. I think quite frankly that professional staff has been negligent in pointing out to you the distinctions and differences between planning and zoning and the SDP process. The comprehensive planning process, particularly the Page 80 March 29, 2007 development of the future land use map, is a policy visionary plan that says if we have our druthers, this is the way we would like to use land in Collier County. It doesn't matter -- I mean, the fact that you have determined land to be appropriately used for commercial purposes on a long-range future land use map doesn't necessarily and automatically guarantee that within any particular time frame the decision-makers of this county have to rezone that property. That is a fallacy that has been in part created by some of the members of the legal fraternity in this county, but it isn't true. You don't have to rezone immediately. At some point in time -- you have to have good reason, and concurrency is not a reason for denying a rezoning that is consistent with your future land use map. Because that is in effect creating a moratorium without a way of addressing the moratorium. A community in Florida -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Nino, I'm sorry, sir, but we need to stick to the facts of this GMP amendment. I understand you have strong feelings about issues that may not have been done right or done in your opinion, but if it is relevant to this GMP amendment, let's -- we need to stick to those issues, please. MR. NINO: Thank you. I felt like I needed to explain the difference between planning and zoning. So let me address the issues that staff has raised. On Page 9, the staff report says rural fringe receiving areas permit research and technology parks as a component of a rural village. Basically what staff is saying is that the only way you can get industrial development into the receiving area is through a research and technology park that is part in the component of a rural village. If this is the only avenue available to property owners, then it denies the existence of many properties that do not qualify for development because they don't meet the minimum threshold, acreage threshold for rural villages, which is 300 acres. Page 81 March 29, 2007 We have an owner ofland here with 42 and a half acres, they're not entitled to do a rural village; ergo, they're not entitled to apply for industrial zoning or a research and development park. The suggestion that industrial development can only take place in the ago rural mixed use district through a rural village technology and research park fails to appreciate that the types of industrial development producing the most jobs in Collier County do not fit the desired use emphasis for R&T park development. There's also no evidence that a proposed developer of a rural village will want an industrial component to their plan that will focus on the types of industry most needed; i.e., building contractors, auto body shops, the landscapers, the types of uses that you generally see in the Radio Road/Mercantile corridor, industrial railhead. Let's face it, folks, there are very few -- fewer research and development park opportunities in Collier County. The major jobs created by growth are those residents that require a gardener, require their car to be repaired, all of those -- and those aren't by far the major jobs. In this regard, if industrial development in the area east of 951 can only be achieved by research and industrial park zoning, it will not provide for many industrial type uses that should be located east of 951. In particular, industrial uses like contractors, various specialties, automobile body repair shops, landscaping contractors and the like would not be accommodated in R&T parks where the use emphasis is architecturally significant buildings with an abundance of green space if these are the majority of jobs created by growth in Collier County. Page 9. Staff has identified an evaluation criteria that quite frankly in all of my years of experience and training I have never heard before, and that is the use of the word spot designation. By this token, many of the commercial subdistricts approved in the last 10 years would in my opinion constitute a spot designation. I Page 82 March 29, 2007 mean, all of those corner commercial subdistricts along Airport Road, five, six, 10 acres, are spot designations. Why were they approved if spot designation by itself has a negative connotation? This evaluation standard is without any planning foundation when one considers the fact that the subject land is contiguous to currently designated industrial property, for all practical purposes. There's a 15-acre split Jim mentioned that however is currently owned by the same owners, and we know darn well that if this application is approved, that that intervening parcel will likewise be the subject of an application which at that point in time will automatically, for all practical purposes, would be approved because it's now between two industrial designations. We fail to appreciate how staff jumped to the conclusion of expanding -- for all practical purposes an existing industrial node jeopardizes the integrity of the rural fringe mixed use district. When one considers the fact, as Tim mentioned, that industrial development is expressly allowed in the mixed use district, except you're saying it has to be in a rural village and it has to be by a research and technology park. But you acknowledge that industrial development east of 951 is appropriate. And that is stated in another area. I would also remind you that the market study that we prepared advises that there's upwards of 400 acres of land that could be used for industrial purposes east of 951, based on the job growth estimates. Staff has to challenge that. That's an acknowledged fact, I would assume. However, what staff is basically saying is we think there's a better location. I'm going to get off my notes. There's a better location. And I ask -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Nino, you've got to use the microphone. MR. NINO: Take a look at that map east of 951. Do you think that that industrial park of 400 acres is going to be a component of a Page 83 March 29,2007 new town that may be associated with 6L Farms. You know, that rumor's been around for a long time. 6L Farms will one day be a new town and it will provide all the required land uses. Well, I suggest, first of all, it's a long ways off, and in the meantime we need some locations for jobs today. Therefore, when you look at that area east of 951 and how you conclude that there's any other better area than the north side of the Tamiami Trail between Basik Drive and Greenway Road, there isn't any better location. You're not going to stick body shops and contractors specialty development, the kind of stuff that is in Mercantile Road and Progress and Industrial Avenue and up in railhead, you're not going to stick that next to a new town that is mainly associated with the 6L Farms. Let's get real. So for -- I'm telling you -- I'm advising you that as a professional planner with academic standing that is as good or better than any people on your staff, and I've been doing this for 50 some years, that that -- what we're proposing to you is good long-range planning. This area ought to be set aside for industrial development, the type of industrial development to be determined at the appropriate time, namely, the zoning stage, and that level of service standards are inappropriate for consideration in determining the appropriateness of lands in the future. Thank you. That's my -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Before we go into questions ofMr. Nino, we're going to take a 15-minute break, be back here at five minutes till 12:00, because we most likely will not be taking a lunch break today, and I'd like to give the court reporter enough break so we can finish up swiftly today. Thank you. Back at five till twelve. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Kady. We're back on the alr. Everyone please have their seats. Page 84 March 29, 2007 We left off with, I believe it was, Mr. Nino finishing up his presentation. I was going to entertain any questions from the commission that they may have of the applicant at this time. Don't everybody jump up at once. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's not so much a question as just a declaration. I know Mr. Nino, I respect the fact that he's passionate. But he indicated something about the R&D. But I just wanted to mention that use of required 35 contiguous acres for things of that nature that the economic development council is espousing, I believe it's down to 19 acres now. So that's not precluded from that area. There's plenty of space, if you wanted to go in that direction. I just wanted to respond to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of the applicant? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We need the staff presentation -- or Reed, do you have a presentation? I'm sorry, I didn't know that you did. MR. JARVI: Yes, sir. Being an engineer, I always like to get up here and talk as much as possible, unlike some others. But I will talk just a bit about what we've said today. First off, as Tim Ferguson said in his presentation, this is primarily oriented -- or this project is primarily oriented towards the service type people with warehousing. And they are in the area and they are driving a considerable distance to go or to get to their place of employment or their place of employment to come out to service the homes at Reflection Lakes or the other houses -- excuse me, the housing developments in the area. Having that service type of use in the near vicinity or proximity to the houses would be actually a betterment to the transportation Page 85 March 29, 2007 network. You can't quantify it as such, but it is -- you know, logically it makes sense that rather than going from the Airport Road Industrial Park that Mr. Nino is talking about, I actually found what looked like the White Lake Industrial Park was probably the closest one, which is about 11 miles away. But instead of going up and down 41 and 951, you could have the people that work on those service type industries be in the general proximity of quite a few homes, Fiddler's Creek, Marco Shores, Reflection Lakes and out 41. So there's -- that has I think some validity from a thought process that that would actually be a positive for the area. The other thing to mention is that I find it interesting that on the previous amendment we talked about that we should not consider the consortium as part of a for real that we could use that we could say yes, we'll be part of the consortium, which would help the expansion of U.S. 41 to make it a non-failing road. Yet later in the same presentation when the question was asked, well how are we going to fix 41, it was well, we're depending on the consortium. I mean, it seems to me either we use the consortium or we don't use the consortium. But we can't, you know, one side say it's viable and the next side say that's what we're depending on. So I think it's important -- I personally think the consortium is moving forward, it has been moving forward since its inception, and that it is a viable way to address expansions of roads that aren't on anybody's program. We can't use proportionate share. The legislature brought it in, but we can't use it because it's not on a program. If we can't get the comprehensive plan changed, we can't get to the point where we can help the situation. Because we can't get proportionate share until it's on the program. You can't really use proportionate share really until at site development plan. That's what it's designed for. So with that said, I believe this project would be the same from a Page 86 March 29,2007 mitigation standpoint as the previous one. I know you voted that one down, but I say that this project would be a willing participant in the consortium and would be a participant, if it would go that far. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions ofMr. Jarvi? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Reed, consortium. What year are they putting the money up, the 150 million? MR. JARVI: The intention is the PD&E study is supposed to end this summer sometime, I think it's late summer now, and they're looking at next section -- next would be plans and permits, which is probably a year plus. And then the money would be going to building the road probably three years from now would be the construction time frame, best case. You know, there's permitting issues that we don't anticipate much because they already have the right-of-way on 41 in general. But if it becomes more of a permitting design issue, that would push the actual construction back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you've got commitments from the consortium to put up $150 million in three years; is that correct? MR. JARVI: No, sir. I said their proposal-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't have commitments, though, you've got a proposal. Do you have a DCA with the county for that kind ofa backup? MR. JARVI: We have had three drafts sent to the county. Transportation staff is still part of negotiations at this point in time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. Any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a few. I'm not sure they're traffic related. Actually, mine are going to be of staff, so how about staff Page 87 March 29, 2007 presentation? MR. GREENWOOD: For the record, Tom Greenwood, Comprehensive Planning. I haven't been in the field quite as long as Ron Nino. I would like to basically -- without talking and reading a report for you, because I'm sure you've read it already, I think there's two basic -- two or three basic issues. One, East Tamiami Trail, and it's been talked to death in the previous hearing. This site is six miles, more or less, from the intersection of Collier Boulevard and East Tamiami Trail. When you drive out that way, you're driving over basically a rural cross-section road. And as you've seen in the staff report and transportation's comments, the -- this project would not be consistent with 5.1. The other point, and it's a major point, is that any additional traffic or intensity of land use, whether it be on this 42 acres or adjoining or nearby 42 -- or other acreage in the rural land receiving area will generate additional traffic. The future land use map and FLUE designation of rural land mixed use district, receiving has some very specific standards in it. And you have most of those standards in your packet. The applicant would have the future land use map changed to rural industrial. And their application suggests that there could be and very likely would be about one half million square feet of manufacturing and warehousing and about 11 acres under roof in apparently a typical urban type industrial usage of land. Obviously significant trucks would be generated and other vehicular traffic from such use. The intent of the rural land, rural fringe mixed use district, is to act as a transition, if you will, from the more urbanized area west of County Road 951 in the very rural east, the North Belle Meade, Belle Meade, Nature Conservancy area, the state and federal lands further Page 88 March 29, 2007 East on Tamiami Trail. One of the uses -- and it's been discussed -- that's permitted in a rural village is the research and technology park. And there are some very specific standards for that. That park is intended again to be part of a rural village. But it's also more particularly intended to have specific design standards, relatively low intensity types of nonresidential uses, and a lot of screening. And generally to fit within the context of an approved rural village. The area and -- the site in question does have municipal type water and sewer. And again, a significant problem right now is the street or the roadway. And there appears to be no definitive time, at least within the next five years, that that can be corrected. The other point, and I think it's a significant point in the staff report, is that when a body such as this makes a recommendation and the Board of County Commissioners approves and DCA approves a modification to the future land use map to a more intense use such as industrial, although that obviously doesn't effectively change the zoning, it certainly makes a public indication, a public record that that is the intent of the usage of the land. And once a change in the future land use map is made without any particular basic background for approving that, it will be somewhat more difficult, in my opinion, to deny a future similar request in the same general area. This site is part of a very large receiving lands area, and the receiving lands and rural mixed -- rural fringe mixed use district is in its relative infancy, as is, for example, the rural land stewardship area. And I think the intent again of the public policy, as evidenced in the future land use map and the FLUE is to provide for transitional types of uses for lower density, as appropriate from a time standpoint. There are some findings and, you know, the basic recommendation from staff is that the planning commission forward this petition to the Page 89 March 29, 2007 Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation not to transmit to the Department of Community Affairs. This has been reviewed legally by our county attorney. There are no environmental -- the environmental council has not reviewed this application, nor do they normally. There was a neighborhood information meeting January 16th at St. Finbarr's Mission, and I was present, as well as another county staffer and two or three representatives of the applicant. There also were two -- one property owner who indicated he owned property in the area. And I think he was there primarily, as he said, for information. The other person was a member of the church and for a different reason entirely. The surrounding land uses have been indicated. Much of the land surrounding this is vacant, is undeveloped. There is a developed area, it's approximately 350 feet further east, and it's been talked about, where Cemex is there and a residential vehicle park is there, and I believe an auto parts business is there. With that, again, I point out that this is a major departure from the plan, and that the recommendation from transportation is clearly not to approve this or transmit it. That's all my comments at this time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom, before we go into general questions, I've got a procedural issue. I wish the county attorney was here, but maybe you could answer it or a member of staff. You said this did not go before the EAC. MR. GREENWOOD: It did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's 42 acres. You've got 10.2 acres of wetlands, you've got an active eagle's nest. Why did it not go before the EAC? MR. GREENWOOD: It was an internal decision made by my supervIsor . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to know why. MR. WEEKS: Historically Growth Management Plans have not Page 90 March 29, 2007 gone before the Environmental Advisory Council. I'm really not sure what the reason has been for that. I know the next layer of development orders would be the rezonings, which are taken before the Environmental Advisory Council. As you are aware, we did take three of the '05 cycle of Growth Management Plan amendments before the EAC, and the staff rationale for that was that those all three involved sending lands designated properties. So the short answer is we have a historical record of not taking plan amendments, I guess because of their general nature, perhaps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It just seems surprising with the eagle's nest and the fact that there was over 10 acres of wetlands on this site and the site's size. I know in the LDC we have minimum stipulations for rezones that have to go before the EAC, and this would exceed any of those. I know it's not a rezone, it's a GMP. I thought it was kind of odd when I read that and found the conditions on the site as indicated in the backup provided by staff. But anyway I want to just make a note of that. Are there any questions of staff? Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do have a concern with your designated this as spot zoning. How would you defend that? Because there really is some pretty heavy industrial uses very close to this. If not adjoining this, if they bring the other site in. MR. GREENWOOD: There is an existing, and I don't know how long that development's been there, an area that's zoned industrial. And on the future land use map industrial about 350 feet to the east, and that's part of the record. The -- more importantly, the departure from the intent of the existing FLUM and the FLUE for the receiving lands is the biggest issue, and once departure or departures in the future occur, the integrity of that land use designation becomes somewhat less perceived as something that's more permanent. Page 91 March 29, 2007 MR. COHEN: For the record, Randy Cohen, Comprehensive Planning Director. I don't know if necessarily the words spot designation may have been the best. I think the intent behind the comment was that the rural fringe mixed use district was established with a specific purpose in mind. And you have all that information before you in your packet. One of the things that's intended within the rural fringe mixed use district, receiving lands in a lot of respects is to have a self-contained rural village. And I'll give you an example of one that we had in the review process, not for this particular property, but it's actually been withdrawn. But the intent behind that one was to have a self-contained community within a commercial component. The idea there was to have a residential community with a commercial component that would actually effectuate some self-contained movements so you wouldn't actually bring out those trips under the major roadways. If we start taking apart portions of the rural fringe mixed use district, receiving lands and taking portions away, a spot here, a spot there -- and that's where the word spot comes on in -- I think you take away from the integrity of the program of what was intended when that particular receiving area was established. And that's where the word spot came in. I just wanted to kind of clarify that. The other thing is, is that in the receiving areas, that with the level of scrutiny, one of the things that's also required is a heightened level of scrutiny. And when I say that, you have a fiscal impact analysis model that's done with any application that comes in for a rural village that actually demonstrates that what's being developed on that site is fiscally neutral or positive. But not only that, you look at the level of what's transpiring within the village and one of the things you do look at is intermodal splits and transportation. It gets very involved. So it's a heightened level of scrutiny. Maybe the word spot Page 92 March 29, 2007 designation wasn't the appropriate way of going about doing it, but the intent was to maintain the level of what was intended behind the rural fringe mixed use district, receiving area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Randy, then what was to happen to these sites? Are these guys orphaned? I mean, these small developers. I mean, obviously what they've done in the rural fringe is to get a large developer to do a large project. Does that orphan all these small sites, these small builders, these small developers? What are they supposed to do? MR. COHEN: You know, we have a lot of small parcels. And I use the example of property off of Immokalee Road, just south of Twin Eagles. You saw an aggregation of parcels that occurred with the intent of developing a cohesive rural village. I think you'll see that happen not only there but you're seeing that happen in the rural land stewardship area as well, too. So we talk maybe orphan parcels, I don't believe that's necessarily the case. You see a lot of times the aggregation of parcels with respect to larger developments. It happens all over the place. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the intent of these parcels along here is to ultimately join together, become a large parcel and become something that can be developed? I mean, because that doesn't seem fair to the smaller people in the community. MR. WEEKS: I wouldn't say that's the intent. I think Randy's point simply is it's allowed to occur, and it frequently does occur, that properties are aggregated, one person buys out another or they go into a partnership or something like that. But the uses that are allowed for these properties, they are what they are. It was discussed at the last -- on the last petition. Properties such as this is allowed in addition to residential uses. And by the way, this property is large enough to participate in the TDR program, so it could have its density increase to as much as one unit per acre, that would be the maximum. But there's that variety of Page 93 March 29, 2007 conditional uses that are allowed on the property, as well as a few agricultural type uses that their property is eligible for. So in this particular case, but also in general some of these smaller properties, the staff position is that these properties do have what we believe are viable uses that are available to them under their existing designation without aggregating. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, nobody would want to live near that cement plant. I mean, this is not a place for residential. Whether they could make money farming it, I don't know, but it hasn't been farmed. There are sites around it being farmed. MR. WEEKS: Right. If not residential, then we look at all the other types of uses, mostly conditional uses that are available to the property. From staff perspective, and I think you've heard this before, over the years with comprehensive plan amendments, from our perspective, if an applicant is asserting that a property is no longer suitable for residential, then we don't think you should automatically jump to commercial. And frequently it's not just a jump to commercial, but it's a jump to retail, a higher level of commercial, and in this case it's to industrial. We think you should first consider the conditional uses or institutional type uses, quasi-residential, quasi-commercial uses and looking at a latter of use intensity. In this case we're jumping all the way to an industrial. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other thing too is this is very long-sided. Are we able to limit what we approve? In other words, let's say for example the half of this along 41 might make good sense industrial, maybe the back half might make good sense multi-family. Are we able to do that, or do you have to stick exactly with the application? MR. WEEKS: That's perhaps a question for the attorney's office. I believe you would have the discretion to only approve what's Page 94 March 29,2007 requested for a portion of the property. What I think would be problematic is if you tried to approve for the balance of the property something that has not been requested. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, Tom, I'm a little bit influenced by the argument about the lack of industrial zoning in the county, and the fact that we're going to have to have more industrial zoning east of951 because west of951 there doesn't seem to be too much land available for industrial. Where else besides Immokalee is there available industrial land in this area? MR. GREENWOOD: Most of the industrial land that's available is scattered in the urban area. Small parcels. Most -- you're correct, most of the industrial development probably in the future will occur west of 9 -- or rather east of 951. The area along Tamiami they were talking about has never to my knowledge been proposed for heavy industrial types of use, which is what is being proposed here with this plan amendment. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I don't know about heavy industrial, but industrial. MR. GREENWOOD: Yeah, manufacturing and warehousing. Truck-related activities. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: It's occurring to me that we're trying to get people to think of Immokalee as the industrial hub of Collier County, but I -- which is good. But I don't think that should exclude everywhere else in the county from industrial. I think good planning, as the petitioner stated, should imply that you have some industrial spread in other areas and not just, you know, put it all out in Immokalee. And it does seem that there is going to be an insufficiency of industrial in the area east of 951. The other question that I had was the petitioner said that 5.1 Page 95 March 29, 2007 doesn't really disqualify this because concurrency is not an issue. They may not develop this as industrial for perhaps 15 years when there is adequate roads in there. Why do we talk about the traffic as being a limiting factor when we haven't reached that point yet? MR. GREENWOOD: Well, you have existing traffic and then you have traffic that would be generated by projects that are already vested. Worst case scenario is you have to assume that those vested projects will go on-line at some point in the future. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That's reasonable. MR. GREENWOOD: You'd have to add any traffic would be generated from this project. So it's basically a consistency with the comprehensive plan relative to meeting traffic. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But concurrency would dictate that they couldn't do anything with it anyway until there was roads. And they're not asking to do anything now, they're using this to say at some point in the future it could be 15 or 20 years when the roads are perfectly fine. MR. COHEN: Mr. Midney, I think it's probably -- 5.1 doesn't deal with concurrency. I see -- I think Mr. Scott is still back there. Maybe he could distinguish for you what 5.1 does and how it differentiates between consistency and concurrency, because we're not talking about the same thing. MR. SCOTT: Don Scott, Transportation Planning. Obviously we've looked at -- just like during a rezone, you look at five years and you say within that five-year time frame is there going to be adequate capacity for what you are reviewing. And from what we have so far, it's not programmed in our five years, not programmed in FDOT's. Though we are working with a group out there, we can't guarantee that's done within the five years. Now, when you're referring to it's not actually failing at the Page 96 March 29, 2007 moment, that's correct. But the way the concurrency system was set up, and that was by input of both boards, we look at what's out there for vested, what's the trip bank. Well, we know it's going to go forward no matter what happens. If we don't even touch the road, something else can be built out there that can be impacting the road. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, why do we limit it to five years for a compo plan amendment? Because we're really trying to plan for the future. And this may be needed a lot longer time out than that. Why would you exclude something now, because this is the time when you're really kind of laying out what's going to be in different areas. MR. SCOTT: I don't disagree that in some respects we ought to take looking at further into the future too, but that's the way it's set up for us to review it. Now, I know there's been a lot of talk back and forth about should you allow the compo plan to go through and then the rezoning and then the site plan in determining concurrency at that point, but any indication that we've got from, let's say even DCA, is that if you don't want to -- you can't get these projects done and you're having a problem with the projects, then don't rezone the property. That's what they've basically told us through this whole process. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But they're not asking for rezone yet. MR. SCOTT: I know, but that was -- you grouped them together, the compo plan and the rezone. And from this -- I mean, this is the way we're looking at the projects is can I guarantee that I can do that within five years? No, I can't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just out of curiosity, if they're not asking for a rezone, what are we doing here today? I mean, the point is they don't want a GMP change because they want a rezone. So if you give them a GMP, as Mr. Y ovanovich has argued many times in front of us, you're obligated to give them the rezone. Page 97 March 29, 2007 Now, I don't agree with Mr. Y ovanovich, but that's what he said, and that's what certainly anybody else can say. So I don't think we ought to be looking at this as it isn't a rezone. Eventually that's the goal. The GMP amendment, you're right. But the eventuality, it's going to be used for something that's going to request a rezone. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: They'll have to request it. It's not automatic that they'll get it. MR. SCOTT: I know, but what's hurt us in other areas is that they've said okay, you've given a rezone to a property 10 years ago, or whatever, and I'm entitled to move to the next process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Thank you. The way this is supposed to work, and I'm going back to 1988 when I first came here to work on compo plan, the original compo plan, is that when you do your future land use map, the CIE was supposed to mesh with the future land use map and address infrastructure needs and have a programmatic schedule to supply them for what you had on your infrastructure map. Because otherwise the plan would not be internally consistent unless you did that. And then the other thing you were supposed to do is at that point in time you were supposed to look at what were the existing deficiencies and come up with a plan to deal with those existing deficiencies plus the future projection, based upon your future land use map. And then if you do it in that way it sort of, you know, all falls into place and works in tandem one piece with the other. That's theoretical textbook and, you know, what DCA was telling us at the time. I think in stating not to rezone, I think the secretary of the agency stated that. I don't believe when he stated it he was taking into account that, well, if you do that you should do a moratorium. And moratoria under the law can only be for certain purposes and certain Page 98 March 29,2007 durations, and you have to be working on fixing the problem. You just can't say we're not going to fix it, we're not going to rezone, because that wouldn't fly in the courts. And I'm sure that when the then secretary said that, he just said that and had not done a full legal analysis of what that might mean. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Marjorie. Mr. Midney, any other questions? MR. COHEN: In may expand on the county attorney's point right there. I don't know if you recall, but as part of the EAR-based amendments, one of the objections that came from DCA was you need to demonstrate that you have adequate infrastructure to serve your land uses, or in this case a projected land use. And that's a very important thing in terms of our data and analysis and the roadways here in question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Tom? Mr. Ferguson, we're still working with staff. Tom, this is a diagram I found in my packet. And it says it's by Vanasse and Daylor, Ferguson Law Group, LLC. Four. It shows the site built with two lakes in the front, a roadway less than 50 feet or about 50 feet wide by the scale shown here. Coming in with turning radiuses, going back to three extremely long buildings with another building across the top and parking inbetween these lengths of buildings. Is this an industrial manufacturing type use accessible to a lot of trucks and things like that, in your opinion? Did you evaluate this plan? MR. GREENWOOD: It's conceptual. And the application indicated about 250,000 square feet of manufacturing, 250,000 square feet of warehousing. No, I did not look at that. It almost looks like self-storage or something like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it does. It that's why I was asking. Page 99 March 29, 2007 It was in the package. I'm assuming this was the plan that was submitted by the applicant. Is it a use that would be allowed if this particular zoning ever came, if the GMP allowed the zoning that's being requested? MR. GREENWOOD: It depends on the uses. I don't know what uses they anticipate, other than what they showed on their application, which are uses that are permitted in the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it was-- MR. GREENWOOD: -- rural industrial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was given to the planning commission, which means it came from staff, which means it came probably from the applicant. And if it wasn't relevant, why was it given to us? So maybe someone looked at this. Yes, Mr. Weeks. MR. WEEKS: The industrial zoning district, amongst other uses, does allow storage, warehousing, it allows distribution, manufacturing, and allows some accessory commercial uses. And I'm glad you asked the question, Mr. Strain, because though that I believe was submitted by the petitioner for the purpose of showing one conceptual idea of how they might want to develop the property, if this property is designated as industrial, then it would be allowed all uses in that industrial designation. And then the next step is the zoning. If it is rezoned to industrial or to PUD with industrial uses, it would be allowed any of those uses granted at the time of zomng. During the petitioner's presentation, it suggested certain types of uses, including storage, including storage of equipment for those in the lawn service business and so forth. And while those uses would be allowed, we need to look at what is being requested. And that's not a specific use or group of uses, it is the rural industrial designation, which means we have to consider the whole breadth of what is being requested and what would be allowed by what is being requested. Page 100 March 29, 2007 At the zoning stage you would have -- you and the board would have the opportunity to limit the uses, if you deem so appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. The other question, Tom, is I've heard numerous discussion by the applicant's people that the benefits of this particular facility to the workers in the area that they could go to here instead of going somewhere else, was there any data and analysis submitted to you that indicates this area had any more prevalent need for such workers in comparison to any other? Meaning if they had an industrial area on Airport Road and the workers drive from Golden Gate to Airport Road, is that any better than if they drive from Golden Gate down 951, down the East Trail down to this place? And I'm just wondering if any data analysis was supplied to you. MR. GREENWOOD: I don't recall any data analysis that would answer that question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And I also notice that there's been a clearing violation reported to code enforcement. It's in the staff report. Since it's there, I was just curious, has anybody followed up on that to see if that was a relevant issue? MR. GREENWOOD: I have not. But I can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have no other questions of Tom, unless anybody else does. I have one question of Mr. Scott. Everybody okay? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don, in your traffic capacity, traffic circulation impacts, your conclusion was that the half million square feet of industrial uses is not consistent with policy 5.1, and that it would put additional trips on a failing link that is not scheduled or funded for improvements within the five-year planning period. Like the last applicant, I'd like to know, is this conclusion consistent with today's understanding of things and the time frame of Page 10 1 March 29, 2007 it? MR. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions ofMr. Scott? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Don. Is there any public speakers, David? MR. WEEKS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does the applicant want some short period for rebuttal? MR. FERGUSON: This is common sense. We have industrial right beside us. It's common sense that the workers work out there. It's pretty much general knowledge that a lot of the workers live out there. You need the services out there. The trucks are going to be on the road anyway to service that area. To suggest that the trucks won't be on the road anyway out there servicing that area is absurd, because they're going to need to be serviced. So the trucks are going to be out there anyway. This is a trip capture concept. You take a bunch of miles off the road by doing this. You put the services where services are needed. You put them right beside existing industrial. There's no question that you're going to need the services. None. We will never be able to do anything out there until the road's concurrent anyway. Long-range planning is to put a good use where it belongs. Now, Mr. Strain suggested that -- he showed you a map. That's impractical. About three months ago we had an eagle land on our property. Perfect timing, huh? Probably most of the back of that property is going to have to be kept for open space, for retention and to buffer that eagle. So most of the development on that property will Page 102 March 29,2007 have to be up front by 41 anyway. Okay? It's just from a practical standpoint, the way the land's laid out, that's the way it's going to have to be anyway. The area to the back of us is an old burrow pit that probably will never be used for anything other than mitigation for some other development. You don't have a better place for this. You've got 5,000 units right across the street in Mr. Strain's development. They're going to have to be serviced, the trucks are going to be on the road anyway, so why don't we make sure they go a little bit to some place and a little bit back instead of going a long way to someplace and a long way back. I'm a native of this county, and I've sick and tired, I've got to tell you, of having to drive everywhere distances in traffic to try to get to things. If I lived in Fiddler's Creek, if I lived anyplace around there, I'd like to be able to have services available to me. If I have to go get my car serviced, do I want to have to drive all the way down to Airport Road or to wherever it is now miles away to get my car had serviced, or do I want to go over and drop it off and get serviced and get it picked up? This is a commonsense project. It's where it needs to be. It can only be there when concurrency allows it to be there. And I think from a planning perspective it's incumbent upon this commission, this board, to do what's right for the taxpayers so you don't have to continue to build roads, you don't have to pay to maintain roads. If the trips are shorter, you save taxpayers money. This project makes too much sense. And I'd appreciate it if you would recommend it be submitted to the board for approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other questions from the commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a recommendation -- oh, Mr. Page 103 March 29, 2007 Greenwood, go ahead. MR. GREENWOOD: I just wanted to mention, and I think you all have received an e-mail from Tabitha and Stephen Stadler. They were not at the neighborhood improvement meeting, but their e-mail in part of March 21 st says, we chose this area because of its proximity -- and they're a resident there -- to Collier Seminole State Park, and the myriad of wildlife that we see on our land. These projects threaten those rather expensive choices that we made to live in an area with this atmosphere. They also mention in their e-mail, this area has been planned as a low density transition area and needs to be maintained. Allowing projects ofthis nature will, "open a can of worms," and lead to future sites of limited use, thus further reducing the property values for landowners and the intended uses of this area of the county. I assume you've seen this, and I wanted to put that as part of the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did everybody receive it? Okay, Mr. Ferguson? MR. FERGUSON: Rural villages allow three units an acre. Three units an acre is what you've got all the rest of the way through the county. Suggesting that this is somehow going to be -- it's receiving lands. It's where everybody made the decision to put these units. So to somehow suggest now that this is rural in nature, this is where to plan to put your density so you wouldn't have to put it everywhere else. That's a decision that's already been made. They're going to have to be serviced. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Okay, any other questions or comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, I'll ask for a motion. Anybody willing to make a motion? Somebody's got to. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make one. Page 104 March 29, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move that the planning commission forward CP-2005-11 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to transmit to the Department of Community Affairs. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made my Commissioner Schiffer, seconded by Commissioner Vigliotti. Is there discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, all those in favor ofthe motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray opposes. Motion carries 5-1, and I abstained. Thank you. Does staff have a request for number 13? MR. COHEN: Yes, sir. Staff respectfully requests that Petition 05-13 be continued to your April 19th regular meeting of the CCPC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, there's been a request by staff to continue the Assembly of God to the 19th. Margie, do we have to provide a time certain? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: If you wish. I guess it's up to staff. If you want to do it at the end or at the beginning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what I'm thinking is we do not have our schedule or agenda for the 19th yet, so I don't know the intensity of it. And Ray Bellows usually keeps track of that. And I'd Page 105 March 29, 2007 hate to see us lose that date by putting it on the end of a long agenda, so why don't we schedule it for the beginning at 8:30, if staff has no objection to that. MR. COHEN: And we will go ahead and we'll notify Mr. Bellows that it should be the first item on the agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the request is to continue it, the Assembly of God, the 2005-13 petition, continue this meeting until the 19th of April at 8:30 in the morning in the Board of County Commissioners chambers, which is our regular meeting room. Once we have this meeting over with, we'll close that meeting and then open the new one up for our regular meeting. Is there a motion to that effect? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So moved. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat had his hand up. Mr. Vigliotti seconded it. All in favor? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. And this meeting is continued until then. Thank you. Page 106 March 29, 2007 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:38 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on presented or as corrected , as TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM. Page 107 FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COONT~ MUNICIPAL AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS loST NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME S,..iA,\-" in o..V'\~ ? ~ILlNG ADDRESS \ 'be. 1.~ D n> ~ ,.J <J TY NCJ-. \..IA Yt.- 'TE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED 'J-). COUNTY c.. tl.~ NAME OF BOARD. COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMmEE utl,.....,.- Co....., P4-NN' ~'i~lW THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISSION. AUTHORnY OR CDMMmEE ON WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: o CnY COUNTY NAME OF POLITICAl SUBDIVISION: tl.e-.-- COO"",,, MY POSITION IS: o OTHER LOCAl AGENCY o ELECTIVE II! APPOINTIVE . WHO MUST FILE FORM 88 rhis form is for use by any person serving at the county. city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, :ommission, authority. or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting :onflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. (our responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending In whether you hold an elective or appointive position. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before ;ompleting the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION.112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES , person holding elective or appointive county, municipat, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a m~asure which lures to his or her special private gain or ioss. Each eiected or' appointed local officer also is prohibited from ki.c'.';;r.gly voting C:i 3. mea ure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a government agency) by whom he or she is retained.(including the arent organization or subsidi"ry of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a retative; or. ) the special private gain or loss of a business associate. CommiSsioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 63.357, F.S.,and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that apacity. or purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the officer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, loth"er-in-Iaw, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate" means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business nterprise with the oHicer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation re not listed on any national or regional s~ock exchange). " :LECTED OFFICERS: , addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- _. utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. . . PPOINTED OFFICERS: though you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters_ However, you ust disclose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and whether made , you or at your direction. YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE V6TE WILL BE \KEN: You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes. (Continued on other side) { ,_tj ." . APPOINTED OFFICERS (continued) . A copy pf the form-must be-provided immediately to the other members of the agency. The form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: . You must disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. . You must complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recofding the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immedial<lly to ii1/ij:)ther members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting after the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST I, M~'L .r. ~....),.:l , hereby disclose that on ::, - L 5 ,19 !Ll-: (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inured to the special gain or loss of my relative,' inured to the special gain or loss of whom I am retained; or , by inured to the special gai'l or loss of is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. , which (b) 1:lJfLme7'SUrab.eJnreJ!l.y...,::<a"''''''''':' ..,,.,r! .hc. ,.....t' '.c---GLmy ,G(""'f'ic~i:1@ ;11~Gr35~ irrthe t'f're~s.....e ;3 a.;> ivllvwy~. - "-- -- G lU;>..0-\1.- ~0Vv>.0-~ P\o.-J ~ 6l ~ '2.o~.r - 'I \$ \ Oc.,Q--bJ o..CY't>S S f \ ,I. J..I re ~ ...... - \"'N CCM- -G"""" ,r", ~ ~ (?>~'^-'I """'- 0... f 1'0]<<-"'--'1 .....,0..7' ~....... -.- . 1 \ .... _ t. <T1 c;:... ~'u+ g. wu.A oJ..,S+cu.i0 -h-""" vo-hke. It> ~"6\(:) \'"'-"- G'-V\..CJ2..y:>,,-^-.. -I;) ( "'^- ~S \'1;S "'-<.. ~ '\\....\S r'\w o..~~ ~ ~ ~ O\...J . \l.v.t,a..+ =--- ~ ~ ~ ~ p "-"'1 d L UJov-l ""'. Date Filed 3> 'Ul -0'1 ~ 1 [\Jv P Ji0\-~ Signature NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES !j112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO lOXCEEO $10,000. CE FORM 86 . REV. 1/98 - PAGE 2 FORM 88 MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COONT~. MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICERS ~T NAME-FIRST NAME-MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD. COUNCIL, COMM~SION. AUTHORITY ~R COMMmEE c"i'l~ (>., \ o,J 1\' ,', ,L ,-") C...t!I'C'- Ci.,..,-,,;-k, 'IA:J,VI)V~ _......~;;tJ11'~~' l."\.J , ~ILlNG ADDRESS -,' ) " ,'0 ....,J THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMMISsiON, AUTHORnY oR CDMMmEE ON ! '5 . ., Iw-,,- WHICH I SERVE IS A UNIT OF: " j('COUNTY OCnY o OTHER LOCAl AGENCY TY -, COUNTY "J f"{' ~:' J , \ L ,4;,;111" Ii.... NAME OF POlITlCAl SUBOIVISION: C.," j! ,e. (01...0 .( Li 'TE ON WHICH VOTE OCCURRED MY POSITION IS: tf APPOINTIVE ;,- Z"l~o7 o ELECTIVE . WHO MUST FILE FORM 88 ,his form is for use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, council, :ommission, authority, or committee. It applies equally to members of advisory and non-advisory bodies who are presented with a voting :onflict of interest under Section 112.3143, Florida Statutes. . ' 'our responsibilities under the law when faced with voting on a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending In whether you hold an elective or appointive posilion. For this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before ;ompleting the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION .112.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES , person holding elective or appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a m~asure which lures to his or her special private gain or ioss. Each eiected or appointed local officer also is prohibited from kj.cw;ng~y v;;ting cn:z. mea ure which inures to the special gain or loss of a principal (other than a govemment agency) by whom he or she is retained-(including the arent organization or subsidi"ry of a corporate principal by which he or she is retained); to the special private gain or loss of a relative; or. ) the special private gain or loss of a business associate. CommiSsioners of community redevelopment agencies under Sec. 163.356 or 63.357, F.S.,.and officers of independent special tax districts elected on a one-acre, one-vote basis are not prohibited from voting in that apacity. or purposes of this law, a "relative" includes only the oflicer's father, mother, son, daughter, husband, wife, brother, sister, father-in-law, loth'er-in-Iaw, son-in.law, and daughter-in-law. A "business associate' means any person or entity engaged in or carrying on a business nterprise with the officer as a partner, joint venturer, coowner of property, or corporate shareholder (where the shares of the corporation re not listed on any national or regional s!ock exchange). , :LECTED OFFICERS: , addition to abstaining from voting in the situations described above, you must disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form with the person responsible for recording the min- , utes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. , PPOINTED OFFICERS: Ihough you must abstain from voting in the situations described above, you otherwise may participate in these matters. However, you ust disClose the nature of the conflict before making any attempt to influence the decision, whether orally or in writing and ",hether made , you or at yoUr direction~ YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH THE.N~;fE:WILL BE \KEN: You must complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the minutes_ (Continued on other side) ,t) , . APPOINTED OFJ=ICERS (continued) . A copy 9f the form-must be1>rovided immediately to the other members of the agency. , The form must be read publicly at the next meeting alter the form is filed. IF YOU MAKE NO ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION EXCEPT BY DISCUSSION AT THE MEETING: , You must disclose oraliy the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. , You must complete the form and file it within 15 days alter the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who must incorporate the form in the minutes. A copy of the form must be provided immediat~1y to ;;,,,\other members of the agency, and the form must be read publicly at the next meeting alter the form is filed. DISCLOSURE OF LOCAL OFFICER'S INTEREST (Vv\ lL \.- ~, 'lilt.. pc~ r-J , hereby disclose that on :5./ 2- ci .19~: I, (a) A measure came or will come before my agency which (check one) inured to my special private gain or loss; inured to the special gain or loss of my business associate, inUred to the special gain or loss of my relative,' iAured to the special gain or loss of whom I am retained; or inured to the special gal,! or loss of is the parent organization or subsidiary of a principal which has retained me. , by , which (b) TI}~_rn_f;\':sura.b.efare...J:l"-4-_sg.-::nr:r ~......-!6p'c. ,..~6!t:'-G4my'GG-fli~::19 In~efe5Urr{hetne~ule ~ a.3 fvilvwyo;). G'~ l"-o"'~ P\<>--J ~,Jru-J.:- "2.oc>S-\cP !.~ \..c".j.,...J o..or<>.sS -\1Nl- /lD..-cll>.>,,-\ ~""~ ... ('.. j'e-ak- ~ ~ r<o.c.c.'-' ;>.Jc.<:>.--.uo..-Q",,,,,,- J::,...i ov.Jo.r -10 ",-UD . J ~ p.eAC er> -I-\:.-.....r ~ to- ~-c) ..r w..:u 0..1" s -k:u\-u -Pn" v-...J. >V f ~ -n.v::; i'i~ ~ 1\..... ~ \....... "'-IW.-"" J ~ M"'{ lA.~ fAN I~~ ""'- ~ ~ llV~ ~ f'tU",..c,r 'l: wo-"- '^"'- 3 & "( ~ 0<7 i/J eJ (J ~~ SignatUrE Date Filed NOTICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES ~112.317, A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED DISCLOSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: IMPEACHMENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN SALARY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENAL TV NOT TO EXCEED $10,000. CE FORM B6' REV. 1/98 . PAGE 2