The URL can be used to link to this page

CCPC Minutes 11/26/2007 GMP November 26, 2007 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN MEETING OF COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida November 26, 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 1 :00 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Lindy Adelstein Donna Reed-Caron Tor Kolflat Paul Midney (Absent) Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, Chief Asst. County Attorney Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning Manager Thomas Eastman, School Board Representative Page 1 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 1:00 P.M., MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2007, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATiON BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MA TERlAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTiVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATiONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENT A TiON TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATiM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. ADVERTiSED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Adoption hearings for 2005 cycle of GMP amendments: );0 CP-2005-2, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map (GGAMP/FLUM) and Map Series, to expand "Wilson Boulevard/Golden Gate Boulevard Neighborhood Center", to allow medicall medical related uses and professional office uses, for property located at the Southeast corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and l;t Street SW, in Section 9, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 7* acres. (Coordinator: Torn Greenwood, AlCP, Principal Planner] );0 CP-2005-6, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map (GGAMPIFLUM) and Map Series. to create the "Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict", to allow for the expansion and continued operation of the David Lawrence Center and the Church of God, and, to allow additional institutional and related uses, for property located on the north side of Golden Gate Parkway, specifically Tracts 43, 50, 59, and 66, Unit 30, Golden Gate Estates, Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 16.3* acres. (Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AlCP, Principal Planner] 1 );0 CP-2005-9, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and Map Series. to create the "Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Commercial Subdisttict" for property designated on the Future Land Use Map as Rural Fringe Mixed Use Disttict, Neutral Lands, to allow up to 70,000 square feet of lower order retail, office and personal service uses, for property located at the northwest corner of Immokalee Road and Platt Road, in Section 27, Township 47 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 8* acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner] >- CP-2005-13, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and Map Series, to create the "Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict" for property designated on the Future Land Use Map as Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, to allow up to 368,000 square feet of church-sponsored institutional and residential uses, and allow non-church sponsored residential uses at 4.5 dwelling units per acre, offering 150 of up to 296 affordable-workforce and market rate housing units to persons involved in providing essential services in Collier County, for property located on the east side of Collier Blvd. (CR-95I ), one-half mile north of Rattlesnake-Hammock Road (within the First Assembly of God PUD site), in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 69* acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner] >- CPSP-2005-14, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and North Belle Meade Overlav Map. part of the Future Land Use Map Series. to re-designate Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands to either Neutral Lands or Receiving Lands, for 20 properties located within Section 34, Township 47 South, Range 27 East, and Section 3, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, and Sections 13 and 29, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, and Sections 15 and 21, Township 51 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 2:283 acres total. [Coordinator: David Weeks, AICP, GMP Planning Manager] >- CPSP-2005-15, Petition requesting an amendment to the Transportation Element (TE), to add new Policies 3.5 and 3.6, introducing Thoroughfare Corridor Protection Plans (TCPPs), Transportation Corridor Preservation Maps (TCPMs), and associated tables and ordinances, to provide for the protection and acquisition of existing and future transportation corridors. [Coordinator: Nick Casalanguida, Transportation Planning Director] >- CPSP-2005-16, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Map series map titled Collier County Wellhead Protection Areas. Proposed Wellfields and ASRs Map. [Coordinator: David Weeks, AICP, GMP Planning Managerl >- CP-2006-4, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP). to modify the Conditional Uses Subdistrict, Special Exceptions to Conditional Use Locational Criteria provision, to allow a church as a special exception to locational criteria, for property located on the south side ofImmokalee Road and *300' east of Oakes Boulevard, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 2.6* acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner] 9. OLD BUSINESS 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 13. ADJOURN ll/26/07CCPC Special Agenda/lDW/mk 2 November 26, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Collier County Planning Commission meeting for the adoption hearing for the Growth Management Plan amendments for 2005. If you'll all please rise to pledge allegiance to the flag. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. If our secretary will take the roll call. Item #2 ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is absent. Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Tuff is no longer on the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's with us but no longer here. Item #3 Page 2 November 26,2007 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA Addenda to the agenda. Are there any changes to the agenda from planning commission members or staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, absences. Our next -- we have two items coming up for planning commission. One is voluntary, one is please attend. Wednesday morning, 8:30 in this room we have the LDC meeting. And correct me ifl'm wrong, I think it is 8:30. Let me double -- you have 8:30 as well? COMMISSIONER CARON : Yeah. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have 8:30. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So 8:30 Wednesday morning we'll do the Land Development Code, Cycle 2. I don't -- hopefully that won't go all day, but you all will need to be here. I'd like to ask staff, too, and David, the people who prepare the LDC meeting aren't here. I guess that's Catherine. Would you ask her if there's a reason why we can't go in order of the book that's provided to us? MR. WEEKS: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I should have made the call to her before the meeting. I didn't know she wouldn't be here. We seem to jump around the book, go from page by page. Why don't we just take them in order and try to plow through it. That might make the meeting a little more better followed by those of us that have to go through that book. As far as the item that's voluntary, tomorrow morning at 9:00 in these chambers, the county commission has requested our presence for a presentation and proclamation. So us and the productivity committee for the work done on the AUIR. If anybody can be there, it's 9:00 tomorrow morning right here. Page 3 November 26, 2007 Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES Okay, planning commission absences. Does anybody know they're not going to be here Wednesday? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Looks like we'll have a quorum. Approval of minutes. There were none attached. No BCC report. I have no Chairman's report, so we'll move right on into the advertised public hearings. Item #8A ADOPTION HEARINGS FOR 2005 CYCLE OF GMP AMENDMENTS The first one is for the -- first of all, David, does staff have any general presentation they want to make before we move into the individual ones? MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks, Planning Manager in the Comprehensive Planning Department. For the time being, I'll come over here. F or the record, David Weeks, Planning Manager in the Comprehensive Planning Department. Commissioners, this is the adoption hearing for the 2005 cycle of Growth Management Plan amendments. You've previously seen each of these petitions, with the exception of one at the transmittal hearings held earlier this year. At these adoption hearings it's where you will take your final action, as far as your recommendation to the county commissioners, Page 4 November 26, 2007 and then at their hearing on December 4th, they will take final action to either adopt or not adopt one or more of these amendments. There is a sign-up sheet in the hall on the table right next to the speaker slips. And that's for the public, should they wish to sign up to receive courtesy notification from the Department of Community Affairs. Which is where the adopted amendments will be sent after the board hearing. The notice that they would -- a person signing up would receive from that agency would be to advise them of when the department issues their notice of intent to find the adopted amendments in compliance with state statutes or were not in compliance. Would appreciate, as always, at the conclusion of this hearing, assuming we do hear all petitions today, and we certainly hope so, that you'll leave your binders behind, if you do not wish to keep them. We can reuse those to provide to the county commission for their hearings, and in turn send to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. As I mentioned a moment ago, you've seen these petitions before, with the exception of one at the transmittal hearing. You might recall that there were 16 petitions at that time. But some of those were not adopted by the Board of County Commissioners and some of those were withdrawn. That also explains why you have the unusual numbering sequence of the petitions in your packet. We did include within your packet or your binder the staff report to this body from the transmittal hearings, which gives you the full background and analysis that staff prepared for each of the petitions. Conversely, this staff report for this hearing is rather abbreviated, simply identifying for you what the petition is, via its title, and then for the most part just giving you the past actions, what your recommendation was at transmittal, what the board's action was at the transmittal hearings, and the staffs recommendations at that time, as well as the staff recommendations today. And for those few that were reviewed by the Environmental Advisory Council, what their¹ Page 5 November 26,2007 recommendation was as well. Of these petitions that were transmitted by the Board of County Commissioners to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, DCA, they are subject to review and issuance of an objections, recommendations and comments report, which you have in your packets, and as I'm sure you've already read and noted, only two of the petitions were the subject of objections by the Department of Community Affairs. And that is significant in that any objection may form the basis of a noncompliance finding if it is not adequately addressed, as outlined in your staff report how we could address that, from the extreme of not adopting the amendment to the other extreme of leave it just the way it is and try to convince the state agency that their objection is not valid. The one petition that is in your packet that you did not previously see is the Petition No. CPSP-2005-16. It pertains to the wellfield protection area map that is in the Future Land Use Element. The amendment could not be prepared in time to have been included at transmittal hearings. Staff went before the Board of County Commissioners, requested and received permission to bring this forward at adoption hearing. The rationale simply is the plan amendment must occur before we can amend the Land Development Code maps that also show those wellfield protection areas, but in more detail and with regulatory effect. There are some uses that are not allowed within the wellfield protection areas, and we believe it's very important to amend those Land Development Code maps as soon as possible after the modeling effort has occurred that shows new wellfields or modified wellfields so that protection can get in place as soon as possible. That's why from staffs perspective, and presumably the board agreed by giving us the direction we requested, it's important to go ahead and bring these to you at adoption without going through the transmittal hearing process. Page 6 November 26, 2007 Commissioners, with that, I think I've completed my introductory comments. As is your typical protocol, the petitioner will present first, staff will make our best effort to keep our presentation very brief, because you have seen these before at transmittal, and just focus in on the reason for staffs recommendation and any particular comments that have been received and wrap it up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, there's some clarifications I'd like to ask you about. You had mentioned something in your presentation that has a lot of history with it. And I know you have been with the county forever. Are you going to be here all day so that when that particular issue comes up late today we can get into certain history issues that may arise? MR. WEEKS: I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You had some possible handouts that you -- what I'd like you to do is if you have any handouts for any of the petitions, if could provide them to us now so that during the breaks -- they're minor handouts, I understand, just wordsmithing -- we can at least read them during the breaks and not delay the meeting any longer. MR. WEEKS: I'm not aware of any other than what I presented to you this morning -- or a few moments ago before the meeting began, Commissioners, which was a revised Page 5 for Petition CP-2005-6. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Corby Schmidt's actually got some. I didn't know if he had talked with you. He's trying to save Nick, and so he wanted to pass something out ahead of time. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, we'll do that. Thank you for that suggestion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Corby. For the planning commission's benefit, we'll probably have a couple of breaks before we get to these items on today's agenda so Page 7 November 26, 2007 we'll have plenty time to review them. So the audience understands, every couple of hours we'll be taking a break for the court reporter to rest her fingers and for Kady to rest her hands from turning cameras all day long. PETITION #CP-2005-2 So with that we'll call for the first presentation. It's CP-2005-2. That's a petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and the Future Land Use Map. It's at the intersection of Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard. MR. FERNANDEZ: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Michael Fernandez, for the petition. This is a proposed change to the Golden Gate Master Plan with some associated text. It's approximately seven acres that surround an existing quadrant of the neighborhood activity center at the intersection of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevard. This intersection is located substantially distant from existing commercial. It's located about three miles south of Immokalee Road, approximately five miles to the east of 951, and approximately three miles west of another neighborhood activity center at Everglades and Golden Gate Boulevard. This seven acres currently would have the opportunity to request a conditional use. What we've actually proposed is a substitution of that ability to ask for a conditional use and designate this as additional -- neighborhood activity center with additional restrictions. When we came before you before, those restrictions were commercial and very much unlimited relative to that commercial. What we've proposed as we've gathered input from the public, from this body, from the neighborhood, is a refinement that has reduced the request to medical, medical related and professional office uses. Page 8 November 26, 2007 These uses are relatively similar to ones that you find in the C-1 commercial district, which provides for transitions between commercial areas and neighborhood centers, so we believe it's an appropriate transition. It actually is -- it's well defined uses, and it's probably less intense in many respects than the conditional uses that we could otherwise apply for; for instance, schools and churches. In addition to that, there were some additional stipulations that were made relative to the proposal, including that it would be a minimum of 60 percent of the square footage that would be approved at rezoning would be restricted to that medical or medical related uses. The rest would have the opportunity -- it could be up to 100 percent medical and the balance would be general office uses. Additionally, we made a commitment to the neighborhood not to utilize pole lights, except where absolutely necessary at arterial lighting intersections with the road network, but we'll get into that a little bit more in a minute. And also, the parking standards were going to be provided. The parking to be provided would be at a medical related or medical use standard so that eventually 100 percent, enabling at least -- up to 100 percent use for medical. As I said, this is a project that we believe has community benefit. We've been very responsive to community involvement. We have -- the petitioner has collected over 200 signatures from local areas, explaining his project to the community. In addition to that, the petitioner sent out 2,800 -- approximately 2,800 letters with a response card that was addressed directly to the chairman of the Board of County Commissioners asking for a preference selection for the use of this quadrant of the neighborhood center. Of that, we received a 25 percent return. 96 percent wanted some form of commercial. About 75 percent endorsed or embraced the idea Page 9 November 26, 2007 of the medical or medical related uses. Only five percent basically said we don't want anything occurring here. We believe that the proposed uses are, as I said, a community benefit, offering medical services to the area. In addition to that, it will capture trips that would otherwise have to go out to other medical centers, either south on 951, west to -- along Immokalee, or in the future further east to Ave Maria or other areas. So we believe it's a well positioned site for it. Right next door there's an existing Snowy Egret PUD that has submitted a SDP for a Walgreen's. So we have a nice complement of uses. There will be interconnection between the two projects, as required. This amendment doesn't propose any changes to the restrictions or the development standards that were approved by the Golden Gate Master Plan, which requires significant enhancement of traditional buffer requirements and setbacks from the neighborhood and from the perimeter of the site. With that, I'll be happy to answer any of your questions that you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there questions from the planning commission? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Is this the petition that Dr. McGann was involved in? MR. FERNANDEZ: He was -- he came and spoke for the project, saying that there was a need for it, and he also presented a letter that is incorporated into your documentation from Dr. Tober about the need and the viability of this location for the services. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Again, I want to repeat, theret Page 10 November 26, 2007 will be no retail in this center at all, correct? MR. FERNANDEZ: Unless it's medical related. For instance, like an eye glass store that would have a physician there or optometrist, along with retail sales of glasses, for instance. But essentially no, it's all either medical, medical related or professional office. There's no restaurants, there's no retail in the traditional sense. Also, I did want to mention regarding -- the staff report suggests different text than we've accepted. We're amenable to accepting all that text, and we look at it mostly as wordsmithing, not changes to what's being proposed by -- or that was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. And the board was very insistent that we not make any changes from what they approved. And we assured them that we would not. We don't see these as significant changes. The only thing that we see and we have a disagreement with staff, and we believe we can work it out, was their stipulation that we remove the commitment that was made by the petitioner regarding the bollards, versus Policy 5.1.1.1, which states that we'll use cobra lights 25 feet high, sodium based. Our proposal is actually more restrictive than what has already been adopted by the Golden Gate Master Plan. And there was concern about creating light clouds or, you know, light coming from the site, and we agreed to using bollards, which are much more friendly. And in talking to Mr. Weeks, it's out understanding that an exception can be added to that Policy 5.1.1.1, should you wish, so that it would allow you to adopt the text that we had proposed relative to the light fixtures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The question having to do with medical uses and medical related uses, which then I think I saw in here somewhere about wellness centers and places of physical therapy, and might even be a place to go and exercise. Is that all valid so far what I just said? Page 11 November 26, 2007 MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In that context then the question arose in my mind in your response. If you were having a -- I'm trying to find a term, a place where they exercises, a gymnasium of sorts, would there be retail activity associated with that? MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm not sure what you're talking about, like clothes or food products? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't know. An entrepreneur does whatever they can, you know. MR. FERNANDEZ: No, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So there some restriction on the retail that you reference, which seems reasonable, is fine. But you're saying that you agree that there should be some restriction on ancillary, if you will, ancillary sales? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. And I would suggest to you the appropriate time to maybe get into more depth would be at the rezoning stage, which would have to come before this body and before the Board of County Commissioners and would also go through the neighborhood meeting process. And then you could look specifically at what was being requested and we could go into those specific items instead of trying to work it into what is being proposed now. Because at this time we don't know if it's going to be substantially 100 percent hard core medical or those accessory uses or general office. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. I appreciate the thoughts that you have. Hard core medical, I have to keep that in mind. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, one thing is your -- the staff wants you to get rid of the urgent care center? MR. FERNANDEZ: I believe what they have told us is that they believe that those uses are inherent in the other descriptions and that it Page 12 November 26, 2007 would be already permitted and they didn't want to introduce a term that hasn't been defined, either in the Growth Management Plan or in the LDC. And so, you know, we've accepted their judgment that it would be -- that if we came before you for approval of an urgent care center, that it would be approved under these provisions with the text that they've proposed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the other thing, see your drawing in -- I think the worse one is the GMP drawing. The scale of this project always seems to be much larger than it really is in these drawings. Is that the case here or is that about? It's not exactly the shape of the site. I mean, it's L-shape. MR. FERNANDEZ: This will show you probably a better idea. I believe some of the graphics that were being utilized by staff members actually show about a quarter mile of an activity center and then actually show this property outside of that. The truth is that the boundaries of this activity center, neighborhood center, aren't square. And in fact, even as you look at that drawing that's off a plat, it doesn't take out for right-of-way. For instance, the site next door, which would be normally a five-acre site was actually 4.2 acres, I believe. And that -- some of that area was utilized for right-of-way and in fact given up additional right-of-way, they're under four acres I believe now in their final design. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is -- on this drawing what is the perimeter of the activity center, the existing activity center? MR. FERNANDEZ: The activity center? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, it includes Snowy Egret, the PUD across the way, and C-2. Is there other stuff? MR. FERNANDEZ: Actually, it's a little bit larger than that C-2. In fact, there was an amendment that was done after the original approval that squared up, if you will, an additional piece of that C-2 about approximately two acres, and that was for G's. I believe it's Page 13 November 26,2007 under common ownership with the owners of that G's convenience multi-use store. On our corner again you see the Snowy Egret. Across the way on the northeast corner, it's just that first parcel that is part of the activity center. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Noted as PUD on your drawing area? Is that that whole parcel or parcels? MR. FERNANDEZ: This Snowy Egret is just that one parcel. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, across the way, the PUD, is that the activity center on that quadrant? MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir. Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is there any activity center on the northwest? MR. FERNANDEZ: Northwest corner? There is, but it is currently zoned estates. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Some housekeeping matters. I received four or five e-mails from residents in the Estates on this issue. Four of the people that I received e-mails from I believe are here, so I'm sure they're going to speak on behalf of themselves. One resident who I received an e-mail from is not here and they asked -- or may not be here so I'm going to ask them to stand if they are. That's Mr. and Mrs. McDonald who live on 820 First Street Northwest. Because they didn't know if they could make the date. And I told they that if they couldn't, I would be glad to read their record into the record. It's the only letter I've received or the information I received against this petition, and I'll read it. I'm against any expansion of the neighborhood centers at Golden Gate Boulevard and First Street Southwest. Since 1990 we have been promised by various area representative commissioners that this land Page 14 November 26,2007 and the other two corners would remain activity centers, not commercial properties. These could be used for public services, i.e., schools, fire stations, parks and libraries. The land around the activity centers would remain residential. Now we have all four corners commercial and/or planned commercial. The road infrastructure, other than the west side of Golden Gate Boulevard, has remained the same since 1960. This commercial change will have a serious impact on this intersection, especially First Street Northwest and Southwest. Commercialization will bring excessive tractor-trailers worker and patron traffic to an already congested, overburdened -- area already congested and overburdened. This is rural Golden Gate Estates, not Pine Ridge Road. I ask the planning commission to evaluate this proposed change and recommend against additional commercial property in the Estates subdivision. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter. I also for the record passed this information on to Mr. Corder so that he could attempt to resolve any differences that he might have with these individuals. So we'll see maybe in our discussions if anything came out of that. Mr. Fernandez, in your discussion, you said the BCC has adopted language. This is an adoption hearing, and they can't adopt until we get done recommending. So what did you mean by that? MR. FERNANDEZ: It was the adopted language for transmittal to DCA prior to coming to this body and to the BCC for final adoption. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student, it was transmittal language, which means we have every right to recommend changes to it. We're not bound by it in any manner, are we? MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: That's correct, transmittal is transmittal and adoption is the final step in the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Fernandez, you earlier said that you were looking at C-1 uses Page 15 November 26, 2007 for this -- C-l -- uses similar to C-l, is that true? MR. FERNANDEZ: For the office uses, that's one of the gauges. The Growth Management Plan currently defines the uses that are permitted within the activity centers as being similar to, similar to, C-1, C-2 and C-3 uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's in the activity centers, and this is an area outside the activity center to which we're looking at additional restrictions in order for it to coexist there. But I thought I heard you say during your discussion that the medical facilities that you were looking at were going to be similar to C-1 uses. MR. FERNANDEZ: I believe that most of the uses that we were looking at, in other words, when we produced the record of all the uses in the C-1, C-2 and C-3 district, we sat down with the neighborhood, the neighbors that were going to be in close proximity, we looked at that list, we went through to see if there was any objection. And the only objection that we added to that list as went through, and that was for C-1, C-2 and C-3, the majority of which are in C-1, was the removal of surveyors. Because there were concerns about using parking lots for their trucks and so forth. But they had no objection to the other uses that were permitted in the C-1, C-2 and C-3 districts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As an area around the outside of that and one that was supposed to be dedicated or supposedly primarily medical and then where medical wasn't used above 60 percent it was going to be office. I'm not understanding why a C-3 use is necessary there. MR. FERNANDEZ: Again, as far as for the office uses, I think they're all located within the C-1 district. For the medical, I'm not sure, Mr. Weeks maybe could address it better than I could if some of the medical type uses are in those C-2 or C-3 districts and not in the Page 16 November 26, 2007 C-l. But again, the intent, and the clear intent had always been for, you know, medical including urgent care. And I'm not sure ifurgent care for instance is permitted in the C-l district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I understand all that. I'm more trying to protect the neighborhood from something they didn't expect. While I fully expect Mr. Corder and his effort he's gone forward with, and I think he's done an excellent job in turning this around, and he's made a lot of good commitments. But commitments are unfortunately only as good as the individual. And ifhe happened to leave and somebody else picked this up, then I'm not sure what flexibility they would read into language that may not be intended here today. Part of that leads me to wonder why you did not use specific SIC codes in references to the uses that you're looking for. MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, again, this is the Growth Management Plan, as you're well aware, and, you know, it's not really in our opinion or I think in staffs opinion a zoning document. And you're going to get a second bite at this apple when you come for zoning. You're going to come in, you're going to get to review a very specific list of uses that would be requested for a site, much like they did next door. And so at that time there will be a neighborhood information meeting and so forth so that you'll have an opportunity to review those more carefully at that time. And those will be more tailored and perhaps more restrictive than what we're talking about right now. But at this time the intent is to leave it more general. We've already placed additional restrictions above what would be allowed within these activity centers, as I said, similar to C-1, C-2 and C-3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Fernandez, I'm probably more familiar with the process than you are, so I understand what's going to happen next in the LDC implementation language. And that's what concerns me, because there was a land use attorney sitting in this room Page 17 November 26, 2007 a little while ago who at one time argued in front of us and said if it says it in the GMP, it's an entitlement. And I don't want going to basically the LDC and having everything under the premises of medical that is related to an SIC code all of a sudden being lumped in here. I'm not sure the neighbors thought that, for example, a Gold's Gym was a medical facility, but in the description under the wellness center, you could have a physical fitness facility, a physical therapy and dietician services. Those are activities that while they may be medical related, may not be what the neighborhood had in mind. I'll certainly ask the neighbors when they come up here today, because I want to make sure that if we go this route we're not getting into anymore, anymore, even one iota than what they expect. And I'm responding to the neighborhood in this, because my original position on this particular issue and the first transmittal is an absolute no way should it happen. The neighborhood has come back and has offered support for this, so I want to make sure that their support is not misled. MR. FERNANDEZ: Certainly. And I think for instance medical related, as you spoke of, right now would be more geared to what we would term a wellness center, as opposed to a Gold's Gym. And we wouldn't have a problem saying we're not looking for a Gold's Gym. However, we're not sure there's actually text available. And we think at the LDC we can make those distinctions. And I'll tell you for the record that I disagree with whoever that attorney was that said it's an entitlement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't quote him verbatim, but the argument was before us that if it's in the GMP there's an allowment there that something can happen. And I want to make sure that whatever this GMP language does doesn't provide the flexibility that opens doors up that we don't want opened. And we'll be looking to David for that before this meeting is overt Page 18 November 26, 2007 to make sure that the language is as absolutely tight as it can be for the uses that are acceptable to the neighborhood. And with that, I've got a few other -- Brad, do you want to go ahead? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you still have more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I've got plenty more. You want to go ahead now then? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, and my concern is Michael, do you have an example that you showed the neighbors as to what kind of development this would be? Were there post cards? Could you put that up in the monitor? MR. FERNANDEZ: Let's see ifl have that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Margie, while he's doing that, abutting means what, versus adjacent? We ask this question every time, so -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yeah, I don't have my code handy. Mr. Weeks will probably address this. MR. WEEKS: Abutting is property line to property line with no intervening right-of-way. Whereas adjacent would allow jumping across the street. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I wanted to see this thing and make sure that -- MR. FERNANDEZ: Is that better? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So there is a 75-foot on the lower property that would be left natural? MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, there's a requirement that's in the Growth Management Plan as it is today that requires a 75-foot buffer of which 25 percent is -- or 25 feet is natural. The balance of that would be utilized in this particular case for water management. I think that distance -- and again, this is a conceptual plan. We're Page 19 November 26, 2007 not -- our client's not the end user and we're not coming before anyone with a specific site plan and saying this is what we're proposing today. But it's an example of what could be built on it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I understand that. My question is really on what's in the code. On the western boundary, which is a roadway, what is the required-- MR. FERNANDEZ: I believe that requirement's a 25-foot buffer, which includes an enhanced landscape buffer. It doubles up on the trees, I believe, in a couple of the other requirements of a normal type D buffer, I believe. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's it, thanks, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Fernandez, you keep saying things I have to question. You said your client is not the end user, and I don't doubt that your client is not a doctor who is going to open up a clinic. I hope not, but Mike, whatever. But I am concerned ifhe's -- is he going to -- at this time do you know if there's any intention of selling the property? MR. FERNANDEZ: He's not the developer, if that's what you mean. It's not our understanding that he's going to be the developer of the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, therein lies my concern. As I have met with Mike many times, I believe his heart is in this, I believe he's trying to do the right thing. I just want to make sure that whatever he passes on to somebody else, it doesn't change his intentions and what he has exposed to the neighborhood. MR. FERNANDEZ: Right. I mean, I think that the terminologies that we provided, the medical, medical related, the 60 percent commitment and all the other restrictions that are already placed on the property, for instance, you're limited to one story a maximum of 35 feet, architectural design standards, landscape standards, buffers, all of those are already in place with this GMP. So this is actually -- this provision that's being insert here are Page 20 November 26, 2007 additional restrictions to what the Golden Gate Estates master plan has already provided for. So this is more restrictive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staffhas found a concern with the use and reference to campus setting, and they suggested that this be further described or defined in this amendment or be struck from the amendment language. Which do you prefer? MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, again, working with staff, we felt we reviewed the text, we're amenable to accepting their terminologies except for the one that we feel has gone against a commitment that was made to the neighborhood, and that has to do with the lighting. But other than that, we're amenable to accepting the text that they proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, the text that you proposed, I've got so many different copies of the text in the same document. I'm just -- I'm assuming it's the one that's been highlighted in dark is the final? Does your final text have the campus setting reference in it? MR. WEEKS: The language that staff would suggest you adopt, if you're going to adopt this amendment -- staff recommendation is not to adopt, that has not changed -- is in the staff report on Pages 3 and 4. MR. FERNANDEZ: And I think my understanding was that there were some problems with the terminology of campus setting, when you were reviewing or when staff was reviewing the issue of the Naples Daily News and what it actually meant to different individuals, and rather than jump into that same quagmire, staff suggested that we remove it from the text. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I was going to say, according to Page 3, staffs recommendation, should the CCPC decide to transmit this, is to just strike the language. And I have concerns about that, because campus like setting does have certain connotations for the neighborhood, debatable as that may be. And I'm not sure that totally striking it is the way to go. Perhaps defining it is -- Page 21 November 26, 2007 totally striking it is the way to go. Perhaps defining it is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only difference there is the Golden Gate Area Master Plan was careful to include a lot of neighborhood setting criteria like the architectural code. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, I'm -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'm not sure the campus setting would have any more impact if not as much impact that we already have with the language that we put in under the master plan. So from that perspective it may work okay without that being struck. COMMISSIONER CARON: And I would certainly defer to those of you who set up that overlay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's probably a majority of us here today, from what I can see in the audience. MR. FERNANDEZ: The only thing that we found to be -- the only thing that we found that would be in our definition that wasn't already included would -- that the ultimate development would have multiple buildings. In other words, the idea here is not to come and put one big '01 building in here, it would be one where you would have pedestrian travel between buildings. So you would have more than one structure here eventually. It's not intended to be put a Walgreen's type, you know, put one in the middle and put parking around it and be done with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, in your staff report you referred to the physical -- the wellness center as an SIC code -- or that it could justify multiple uses such as physical fitness facility, physical therapy and dietitian services. Could someone, under the terminology used in this particular application, put a Gold's Gym in or something like that? Or is that considered a use that wouldn't be appropriate under the references made here? MR. WEEKS: I'd say that's a possibility. The reason that staffs comments were provided there was to show you what our Page 22 November 26,2007 experience, and I believe other staffs, at least locally would be the Naples Community Hospital Wellness Center, which is a combination of dietary services, physical therapy and exercise, which is clearly not a fitness -- physical fitness facility such as a Gold's Gym. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so Gold's Gym you don't think is likely to happen out of the language that's here today, or could happen? You know the extremes we have to prepare, constantly someone's going to come in and argue an extreme we didn't expect. I want to know that we can avoid that, as best possible with what language is looked at today. MR. WEEKS: There is some risk. Remember, this starts with medical related uses, and then trying to give some examples of what that would be, wellness being one of those examples. One is to go to a great level of specificity, and that would be rather than saying medical related uses such as, either specifically list them outright or say medical related facilities limited to the following, so either way we specifically identify them. The other way is to take a more broad approach and just say medical related facilities, with or without the such as language, which, as Michael has suggested, then leaves it open at the rezone hearing stage to determine how broad or narrow that would ultimately be defined. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Knowing that this particular action today might trigger others in other quadrants to argue the same case, what's the best way to go to protect that from happening? MR. WEEKS: Well, point blank it would be to be very specific. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought. MR. WEEKS: But this is a comprehensive plan amendment. I would have to agree with Michael in one sense that we have -- in our coastal management plan on the one hand it is a general planning document to provide guidance for where development should go, the parameters of what the intensity should be, and then through the Page 23 November 26, 2007 rezoning process decide the very specifics. For example, if we say medical related uses and everyone agrees that means a list of 50 uses, at the rezoning stage it might be decided, though, upon that detailed evaluation that only 30 of those 50 are appropriate, or all 50 or only one. But that greater level of specificity at the rezoning stage I believe is the appropriate level -- appropriate time to get to that level of specificity. But Mr. Chairman, you are correct, if we leave it broad, that certainly leaves the door open for the argument to be made at the rezoning hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any sentence or paragraph that could be inserted into this particular document that would limit the flexibility that could be utilized until the rezone bases are established? I mean, I know that's what you say is supposed to happen anyway, but I would hate to see a disagreement at the rezone level turn into a debate over well, that's what I meant, even though that's what you didn't mean, and now all of a sudden we have more uses that are under medical that may not be truly in the eyes of medical as people see it. MR. WEEKS: I do, but the language would still be I think more in line with what we typically see either in the LDC or within a rezone petition. And that would be, for example, to say that of the medical related uses pertaining to retail, specify what percentage of a building used or square footage could be retail use. That would go to the examples of the wellness center, that no more than "X" percent could be actual exercise area. But even that is a risk, because an exercise -- exercise equipment, the use of exercise equipment can be part of a physical therapy regiment. It's problematic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. I think what we'll probably do is as soon as we get to the public speakers, see if they have any concerns, because there are actually people living closer to Page 24 November 26, 2007 this than I might be. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I was hoping I could add something that might help. Is there any way that we could insert in there and be appropriate certain -- quote, certain restricted medical related uses? That sets it out that it's understood that at the rezoning this will be a matter that is subject to restriction? Does that have any impact or any import to this? No? MR. WEEKS: I think that just helps in guiding the future decision-makers at the time of the rezoning like a flag being raised, this is something we need to focus in on. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's my intent. And I would think that -- because I recognize that these issues will have to be dealt with at that time. What it does provide, however, is that it tells a perspective buyer that there should be a concern that there are restrictions that will happen, or potentially can happen, and that they must look a little bit more closely at this. If that helps in any way, I was just hoping I could add something. MR. FERNANDEZ: One thing that we did I think that helps you get to where you want to be and that we gave the Board of County Commissioners is the assurance we're going to be providing parking at medical related, medical standards. In fact, my terminology, what I put here I thought was more restrictive than what staff had. But basically that's at a higher intensity than you would provide for, say, for shopping center or retail. And so by doing so, you know, you're adding more cost to the development. They're going to be pushing to get that medical in there. Plus the provision that says that it needs 60 percent. In other words, there's only 40 percent that can be general office type uses. So I think those two combinations, even the fact that we're Page 25 November 26, 2007 looking at using bollards, which are essentially a low key type of illumination that's more appropriate at twilight and early morning as opposed to, you know, evening hours, again tells you that the intent here is not to be -- is not retail oriented. We've been more restrictive, we think, in our terminology than what you already have in the code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Weeks? MR. WEEKS: I'll offer a couple more comments, Mr. Chairman. One thing: The way this language is structured, no -- it's 60 percent -- you could impose minimum or maximum amounts of square footage by use. And I don't mean a specific use, but a range. For example, we're talking about medical and medical related uses. I'd say no more than -- no less than 60 percent of the building square footage shall be devoted to medical and medical related uses. And then within that say no more than "X" percent of that will be devoted to medical related uses. So that you're going to ensure that some certain minimum percentage will be devoted to the actual medical office and clinic, physical therapist, dietitian, doctor, dentist, chiropractor, et cetera. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, therein lies exactly the problem I anticipate in the LDC. What you just said was not how I read that. The way this was reading now, it says no less than 60 percent of the allowed gross square footage shall be designated for medical office, clinics and medical related uses. I saw that as the useful part of the text, the useful part of the square footage. The retail would be above the 60 percent and outside the percentage that was medical. MR. FERNANDEZ: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're saying the retail-- Mr. Fernandez, I'm not talking to you, I'm talking to Mr. Weeks. You're saying the retail is included now in the 60 percent if it's medically related to one of the uses in that 60 percent. So in essence the true medical treatment could be reduced and the retail for eyeglasses or whatever, like a LensCrafters where they have a small Page 26 November 26, 2007 room for the optometrists but five or ten times as much to sell glasses. MR. WEEKS: The way this is written with that 60 percent limitation for medical and medical related uses means that it could be 100 percent medical office and clinic or it could be zero percent that. And conversely, the full 60 percent could be medical related. That is, it could be apothecary, it could be the eyeglass store. That's what I was mentioning a moment ago, that you have the ability to establish those parameters if you believe it's appropriate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So to get to that 60 percent to be true medical, we'd have to strike the words at the end of your B-1 where it says and medical related uses. Just simply strike those. And that leaves 60 percent designated for medical offices and clinics. That means any retail would be above and beyond that 60 percent. Is that -- MR. WEEKS: That's referring to the parking. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know, but referring to the overall project is what I'm getting at. I understand what you're saying. MR. WEEKS: I think the building square footage would be the way to go, if you want to ensure a certain amount of medical office and clinic type uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Fernandez, did you have something you wanted to add? MR. FERNANDEZ: Just again, I think you're starting to delve into the marketplace, and it's a market driven product. And come back and square footages, buildings and percentages of the buildings gets very problematic in trying to develop something. I believe that the commitment that was made was 60 percent for medical and medical related, and we've got 40 percent for general office type uses. And I think that at the rezone stage maybe we can add text in there that says if those, the percentages -- or the uses, medical related uses and medical uses will be further evaluated at the time of the Page 27 November 26, 2007 rezone, subsequent rezone, so that it raises the flag, as was said earlier, that when we come in or when someone comes in for the rezone, that they're already put on notice that those uses are going to be further evaluated relative to their specifics. And maybe that's the easiest thing to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, by the time we finish with the public and wrap up our discussion on this, maybe you could offer some language, if you can think of any. If you can't we'll just live with it. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have a suggestion that mayor may not help. We keep talking about a Gold's Gym and the size of a Gold's Gym. Is there a way we can put in the documents that if we do choose to accept a certain SIC code or whatever, it can be restricted to so many square feet? MR. WEEKS: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, we do that in the LDC on a regular basis. MR. WEEKS: That again is just a question of how specific we want to get in the Growth Management Plan, but you certainly have that ability, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just one final for me, anyway. The way I understand it now from this discussion, you could have one physician, one office, and the rest of it could all be medically related retail; is that correct? That's the way I think I understood David Weeks to say that. MR. FERNANDEZ: If it's medically related for that 60 percent of the project, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't know what's in the minds of the people who live in that area, but I kind of suspected from the last times we talked about this that they were hoping they'd see Page 28 November 26, 2007 doctors and chiropractors and people within the profession. I wonder if they would be happy with the notion that there might be one physician and all kinds of retail. MR. FERNANDEZ: Over time you're going to see the highest and best use, the highest returning economic use of the property will be toward medical. And you'll see that it may not happen immediately. But over time I suspect that it will be over the 60 percent. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I would agree that the highest and best use from an economics point of view from the point of view of the investor is to achieve that. But the highest and best use for the community is I think a primary concern. MR. FERNANDEZ: Certainly. I think they're both one in the same in this case. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I hope so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, yeah, just to further what actually Mr. Murray -- I think Mr. Murray was trying to get at, I respectfully disagree with Mr. Fernandez. I believe it is our job to be specific on these things. Certain commitments have been made to the community, and I want to make sure that the community understands those commitments. And I'll wait to hear from the community, but I disagree that we're getting into market forces. I think our job is to get into those market forces, because I don't want this community to end up with something that they don't intend. Originally when this proposal came before us, it was for an urgent care. That was the big discussion, surrounded an urgent care facility for this area. A very legitimate need in the neighborhood. (At which time, Commissioner Midney enters the boardroom.) COMMISSIONER CARON: If you change that to be a series of LensCrafters, I'm not sure that's what these people think they're getting. And so I'll wait to hear from the community. Page 29 November 26, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let the record show that-- COMMISSIONER CARON: And just one more comment. I did want to say that I also did get a bunch of e-mails from people. And all of which I read, but I did not print any of them out today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let the record show Mr. Midney has shown up. And Paul, the placemat that's there, Brad did that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, it was on the side of my car. Mark -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- I had a question. Is staff going to make a presentation or not? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They will after the applicant gets done. And before the -- David, do you prefer yours before the public or after? MR. WEEKS: Before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So as soon as we're done with questioning the applicant, David will be next. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then let me just ask this one question. In D there's a statement, the neighborhood center boundaries of this quadrant shall not be further expanded. How powerful is that? Is that until the next group asks for it to expand, or -- MR. WEEKS: Exactly. You impose it through a plan amendment and you can remove it through a plan amendment. But it still does take a plan amendment. MR. FERNANDEZ: I think probably the strongest item relative to that issue is that currently these lands can be requested to be utilized for conditional uses. And what we've done is really substituted for those uses, because we've removed the opportunity for those conditional uses to expand further. Page 30 November 26, 2007 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant before we go to staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. FERNANDEZ: I'd like to reserve the right to get back here to address any issues that may come up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certainly. Go ahead, Mr. Weeks. Tom, I'm sorry. MR. GREENWOODWOOD: Good afternoon. For the record, Tom Greenwood, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Department. I'm going to be fairly brief, but I would like to touch on some things that perhaps were skated over briefly. This map, as we heard on the March 5th transmittal hearing for the planning commission, is not to scale. But that map would basically be modified if this application were to go forward and approved to include the additional acreage at the southwest quadrant of that neighborhood center. Although this may not be real legible, the area shaded in yellow, okay, the lower tract is the north 150 feet of Tract 126. The two tracts to the left are actually separate tax J.D. numbers, but it's Tract 124. The effect of the amendment to the map for this neighborhood district would be more than double the area of that quadrant. This map -- there we go. Everybody dizzy yet? This map, the crosshatched yellow area represents the area that's under consideration for addition to the neighborhood center. And as you recall back on March 5th, the amendment was fairly straightforward. It proposed the neighborhood center be added on to by the acreage in question, with the possible C-l through C-3 uses, which are anticipated in the neighborhood center. And as you recall, the testimony at that time was 100 percent in Page 31 November 26, 2007 opposition, I believe, with the exception of the applicant. The planning commission recommended denial to the Board of County Commissioners. Staff recommended denial to the Board of County Commissioners. When the transmittal hearing got to the Board of County Commissioners and prior to that time, the applicant admitted that he had met a number of times with the property owners in the surrounding area. And their real interest I guess was in a medical center, medical urgent care, that sort of thing. So the additional language that was submitted was submitted to staff the morning of the June 5th transmittal hearing before the BCC, is that which you see on Pages 3 and 4 of the staff report. Staff did meet with the applicant, and you can see by that meeting the staffs proposed double line strike-throughs for deletions from what they submitted and double lined underlined for what staff would feel appropriate to be additions. Just very briefly, there is a sense that when a map is amended like this, whether it be a zoning map or a future land use map, that this tends to be somewhat of a foretelling of the future for the area. There already is, as mentioned in the staff report, an application further to the west on the north side of Golden Gate Boulevard, which is proposing some much more substantial changes to the Future Land Use Map. Some of the comments that were received by you and from the 11 speakers who spoke originally on March 5th in opposition included the -- they felt the proposal is premature; they favor the isolation from commercial development; willing to drive miles to nearest commercial; Golden Gate is intended to be rural in character and this petition is incompatible with that; piecemeal approach to commercial siting is inappropriate; and it sets a precedent for future -- similar requests in the future. The -- again, the BCC action was to transmit by a vote of 4-1. Page 32 November 26, 2007 And during their transmittal discussion and hearing they basically felt that there should be, number one, another neighborhood information meeting, which was held on October 22nd. I attended that meeting. And those who spoke, spoke in favor of medical facilities. I don't recall if anybody spoke in favor of lots of retail or other commercial uses. But to my knowledge, there was nobody who spoke in opposition to medical out there. The other reason the board felt that transmitting this to DCA would be appropriate is there would be another bite at the apple, and this is the bite here today. And the Board of County Commissioners will have another bite at a subsequent hearing on this matter. I think you've already discussed in great detail the annotations on the bottom of Page 3 and Page 4 of the staff report. And unless there are some questions of me, that's my presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of staff at this time? Ms. Caron, then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER CARON: Does staff have any objection to more restrictive lighting standards? MR. GREENWOODWOOD: I don't. And I would defer that question to David. I think that's really what the proponent is proposmg. MR. WEEKS: No. The issue is that the way the language is presently proposed by the applicant is in conflict with an existing policy in the Golden Gate Master Plan pertaining to lighting. The question then becomes do we want to treat this and any other future amendments on a piecemeal basis, or should we go back to that underlined policy and make changes there. You certainly have the option of allowing this type of lighting here, we just need to put the appropriate language in there to say this lighting is allowed here, notwithstanding what Policy 5.1.1 says, and then the appropriate cross-reference in that policy. Page 33 November 26, 2007 COMMISSIONER CARON: Thanks, Dave. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Is it still the staff's position to recommend not to adopt? MR. GREENWOOD: Yes, sir. And if you choose to adopt, we would recommend language similar to that what's in the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, then we'll hear from the public speakers. I ask that when you come to the podium, either one, by the way, identify yourself and please try to spend no longer than five minutes. We're pretty tolerant on time so let's go forward. MR. WEEKS: First is Pat Humphries, followed by Christina Farlow. MS. HUMPHRIES: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Pat Humphries, and I have spent the past 12 years engaged in issues regarding Golden Gate Estates. As a past director of the Estates civic and an advisor on the board for the new homeowners association of the Estates, I have monitored every commercial petition that involved Golden Gate Estates. Some good, some not so good. This request is unique in that the owner is willing to specify the type of business that will utilize this space. A medical facility will serve the residents of the Estates, and I am therefore in favor of this petition. I am not in favor of a gym, nor do I think that area would even invite a gym. A gym is huge. The whole center would have to be a gym in order for somebody to be interested in it. Or a wellness center. I'm looking at pediatricians, dentists, doctors, urgent care, and a guarantee that it will never be any different. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Pat, could I -- I'm going to Page 34 November 26, 2007 ask each speaker the same question, so could I ask you one question before you leave the podium? I think you're heading in the direction I was assuming that the public thought out there, medical offices and clinics, but when we added medical related uses, were you envisioning this to be like a LensCrafters operation? MS. HUMPHRIES: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. HUMPHRIES: You're welcome. MS. FARLOW: Good morning. My name is Christina Farlow. I live in Golden Gate Estates. I'd like to begin by prefacing my remarks in response to the opposition letter that you read and say that, ladies and gentlemen, this is not 1960. And Golden Gate Estates is not the same as it was in 1960. The needs are not the same. And at some point the public out there is going to demand that these things be provided for us. Let's just look at the demographics around this particular medical facility. Within five miles of that medical facility urgent care, doctors' office, dentist office, and even eyeglass store, I have no objection it that. There are five schools, with a sixth one proposed. There are six gated communities and thousands of homes in the Estates. This is not 1960. We need facilities and services that currently we are having to drive into Naples for. And while you think that Ave Maria might supply something, let me remind you, that it is about 10 to 12 miles to the nearest medical facility from this particular site, and Ave Maria is about 10 to 12 miles from that particular facility. It's no closer. We have Ava Maria out there and we have Big Cypress coming. And while we love to hold on to our rural characteristics, sometimes you just have to realize that there are services and infrastructure that are needed in some areas. So I speak for this particular project, and am inclined to say that Page 35 November 26, 2007 we need these services out there. You want me to ask me a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You already answered it. MS. FARLOW: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, please. MR. WEEKS: Linda Hartman, followed by Karen Acquard. MS. HARTMAN: Hi. Good afternoon, and thank you for allowing us to be here. And you know what, thanks for looking out for us. Because I'm a long-time resident in the Estates, and I was the vice chair of the master plan committee with Mark, and we try to do what the people wanted us to do out there. And a big thing now is, you know, the neighborhood centers. And we had so many. And at the time I'm sure the ones that were out there remember, we tried to expand that and make a couple more neighborhood centers because we need some to give the people some services out there. We just need to. I mean, like Chris was saying, that was a long time ago that -- and I'm sure there's still a few out there that don't mind. You know, I used to drive -- when I'd come home, I'd stop and it was 20 minutes later till I got home. But now traffic is so rough out there that gee, I sure wish I had something a little bit closer. And when my grandkids get sick it would be really nice for them to be able to go down -- well, they're doing a Walgreen's, thank goodness, but it would be nice to go to the doctor, then walk over to the Walgreen's. Or you guys were talking about like an optometrist out there? Well, fine, I don't care if I can get my class there, too. That saves another trip. So I don't have a problem with some facilities out there. You know, along and yeah, if you need therapy, you break your arm, you go to the doctors, then you go next door and you can actually, you know, be therapeutic. Gold Gym, I don't think so. Page 36 November 26, 2007 know, be therapeutic. Gold Gym, I don't think so. But then again, by talking with Mike and Mr. Corder, and we all have, because he's taken the time to come to us and ask us what we think is needed out there and get the community to say what they need out there. And yeah, we do want that. He's been able to deal with us. But I do appreciate that you want to protect us from whoever is going to be out there, and I know you need to get the wording down. Lord knows, with the master plan we went through, you know, and the many committees I've worked with -- we've gone through trying to get those things out there. But we need a medical center out there. So however you've got to do it, take the time. Don't refuse this. This is an opportunity for us. The transitional use is wonderful. It beats a day care. It's less traffic than is going to be there and it takes care of our people out there. So make it happen for us. You know, spend time with that wording. I can't figure out why there was -- why these guys don't want it out there, when they know we need it so bad. So please, take the time and work out these details with us. You're doing a good job. And Mark, you are, you are really wonderful at doing that. But take the time. Give us what we need. Help us get it right. You know, we're just the public. But we live out there, we want this. Make it happen for us, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. HARTMAN: Any question for me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You -- in your text you answered as well. I'm listening closely, so thank you. Next speaker? MR. WEEKS: Karen Acquard, followed by your final speaker, Mark Teeters. MS. ACQUARD: Good afternoon. For the record, it's Karen Page 37 November 26, 2007 Acquard. I have spent a number of years working hard for Golden Gate Estates and its betterment. And a medical facility or medical offices are badly needed in the area. As a member of the master plan, we micromanaged. And if you are going to consider this, I believe firmly that as long as Mr. Corder is connected with it, it will be what he's promised. My concern is the developer. We have heard many requests and had developers thumb their noise in our face once they got the rezone. And so I am asking that you consider this, because it is needed, but to do it in such a way that the wording is so tight that no, I don't want a LensCrafters, thank you very much. A Montgomery Eye Center would be great. Gold's Gym, no way. Drive into town if you want to exercise, or walk around the block, thank you, get a bike. But yes, an urgent care center, I know that that is one of the things that Mr. Corder is promising, but he's not the developer. So please, take your time. We do need this. The location is perfect. And it would be an asset to so many people in the Estates who live out off DeSoto and Everglades and so on. But micromanage it so that the developer can't screw up what Mr. Corder intends. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Appreciate it. And you already answered my question as well, thank you. MR. TEETERS: Commissioners, good afternoon. Mark Teeters. I'm a little unique in that I live almost directly across from where this project would be located. I live on Wilson Boulevard. And the buffer area -- there's no picture up here now. Michael, could you put that picture up there again? The buffer area that goes across the bottom of there is going to basically -- down a little bit, over this way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to use the speaker if you're going to speak. I'm sorry. I think we know where the buffer area is. Page 38 November 26, 2007 there, well, that was one of the concerns of the folks in the neighborhood. I sent you all an e-mail with the documentation on the minutes of the little meeting -- neighborhood meeting we had with the local residents. If anybody needs one, I have some more copies. That was one of their concerns was the buffer. See, as it is right now, Walgreen's is going to be built. But as you drive down the road, if somebody were to develop this piece of property into a residential property, you're going to see the back of the Walgreen's. If this project gets built, that buffer is going to protect the folks that drive up and down the street and that live in the area that are going to see the back end of all of these, okay. That was one of the things that they talked about. Medical and professional offices, community benefit, obviously. Reduced trip generation to the west and into Naples is going to save us on fuel. Folks that want to drive into Naples are going to drive into Naples anyway. But as our roads get more and more crowded, as more and more people move out there, it's going to get tougher and tougher. The types of businesses that have been discussed here, normally even the LensCrafters, most of those businesses aren't high volume generators, and most of them do business 8:00 to 5:00. Even a LensCrafters. So even if there's some type of restrictions, hey, so they're open to 9:00. But that's not late. That's not going to be a big problem for the neighborhood. A Gold's Gym, no. I have a problem with the Gold's Gym, obviously. Let me think, what else do we have here. The bollard lighting was a great touch. Everybody really liked that. The fleet trucks, that was a big thing that the folks from the neighborhood wanted to talk about was they didn't want to have somebody have a business where they could park a whole bunch of fleet trucks there. That just wasn't -- that's not conducive to the neighborhood. Parking designed to be conducive to medical, again you're not Page 39 November 26, 2007 going to have a whole bunch of vehicles parked there 24 hours a day. Let me see, project is within walking distance or bike riding distance of an awful lot of people out there. Let's see, what else? Someone said earlier that this was premature. There are so many people that are still moving to this area. I don't care what anybody says, the developers, say well, golly, everything is stopped right now. There's still people moving here, okay? We need these services. If not now, when are we going to do these things? I think it's important -- this particular project is important to folks out there, because these are things that we do need, all right? Now, the next projects that are going to come along are going to be things that we need as well. We need a small supermarket. We need somewhere for folks to come and shop out there. This is not going to be it. This piece of property is not conducive to that. But this is conducive to what's being proposed. Therefore, I recommend that you vote for approval on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Mark. MR. TEATERS: Did I answer your question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah. I'm hearing it. And that's the end of the public speakers? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Fernandez, you wanted time for rebuttal? MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, actually, I think we may have a solution, if you feel comfortable with it. And that medical related uses would be limited to a maximum of 5,000 square feet. You don't get a Gold's Gym in 5,000 square feet. In fact, you don't get a LensCrafters in 5,000 square feet. You might get a small optometrist that sells glasses and so forth. Hopefully that will take care of your concerns. I mean, the intent is not geared to be -- and the owner doesn't believe it and as a site designer/planner, I don't believe that it's Page 40 November 26, 2007 intended or it's destined to be that type of use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Fernandez, approximately how many square feet do you think you're going to put on this parcel? MR. FERNANDEZ: I think the number that we've used with the board was 60,000 square feet was the maximum that we would be able to accommodate on this site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So 36,000 square feet of that is proposed for medical offices, clinics and related uses, and that would leave the remainder, which would be 24,000 for retail? MR. FERNANDEZ: No, sir, general office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, general office. MR. FERNANDEZ: And its design -- and hopefully, you know, from an economic standpoint for the developer it will all end up being medical. But a maximum of 40 percent of it can be professional office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, or -- where is the limitation that the remaining 24,000 -- the remaining 40 percent is limited to medical office -- or to offices in general? How do you -- because the way this reads, and I thought I heard during the presentation you were talking about uses similar to the remaining part of the activity center, which would get you up to C- 3 for anything above 60 percent. How are we limiting that? MR. WEEKS: Okay, two things: First of all, we have to put it in context that this is being added to a neighborhood center. I know Michael had made reference earlier that all of the development standards, the use limitations et cetera that apply to neighborhood centers apply to this property. What he's doing is further restricting to just -- if you go to Page 3, the staff recommended language the only uses allowed are under A-2 and A-3, and that is medical offices and clinics and professional offices, except surveyors, and medical related uses. So if the medical uses, medical and medical related are capped -- excuse me, under B-1 have to be no less than 60 percent, then by Page 41 November 26, 2007 default 40 percent is devoted to the only other use category in that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but if we were to utilize a 60 percent for pure medical offices and clinics, then any medical related use, which would be the retail areas of those, like a glasses and a LensCrafters, could be put in the 40 percent. It's not like we're saying you can't put those there, but that would be restricted to the 40 percent if it was taken out of the reference of 60 percent, would it not? MR. WEEKS: I see what you're saying, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then that solves everybody's problem. Then when the BCC is getting exactly what they believe they were going to get, which is pure medical in the form of clinics and offices, then any space within those buildings that are used for -- beyond medical or medical related use, like a showroom for glasses or a casting room for -- or whatever they sell in drug stores, that would be part of the 40 percent as a medical related use, if we move that just to the 40 percent use. MR. WEEKS: If I follow what you're saying, you're suggesting no less than 60 percent of the building square footage be limited to medical office and clinic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That would guarantee us doctors and podiatrists and all the people that we were hoping to have out there. And then the other 40 percent, the medical related uses that they would need or whatever somebody would want to come in with that still fits the bill could go under that additional 40 percent. MR. WEEKS: As well as professional offices. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, right. Mr. Kolflat, I know you had a comment, then Mr. Fernandez, we'll get to you. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I had a question, Mark. What was the question you were going to ask each of the speakers? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What they thought about the use of a retail area with a small doctor's office, like a LensCrafter's where they Page 42 November 26, 2007 have a small square footage dedicated to an optometrist, but the bulk of their building is for retail glasses. And I heard their answers through their discussion from everybody. Mr. Fernandez? MR. FERNANDEZ: Commissioners, at the public hearing with the board, I think it was clear that 60 percent of the total gross square footage was for medical and medical related uses. If you look at our text that we propose under B, it says the subsequent rezoning -- it's not per building, it's the rezoning -- shall provide that 60 percent of the permitted gross square footage shall be designated for medical and medical related uses. We certainly don't want to do it, first of all, on a building-by-building basis, because that can get very problematic. But the idea was that well, let's just use 50,000 square feet, easy math. 60 percent, that means 30 of it would be medical and medical related. Up to 100 percent could be medical and medical related, but a minimum of it was going to be medical or medical related. That 30,000, the balance which would be 20 would be general office, although it could be medical or medical related. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mr. Fernandez, the words medical related uses are so ambiguous. It's kind oflike when we tell staff that -- in the end of a PUD we used to have this catchall phrase that says any use staff feels is compatible with the uses herein above. That is too broad for a GMP amendment in regards to protecting the neighborhood. I think that your medical related uses could be easily be accomplished in the 40 percent remaining. I don't know why it couldn't. MR. FERNANDEZ: Well, but I think the problem that we have is that it's the marketplace. Eventually we hope to have the whole thing medical. But in the marketplace, especially initially, you're basically saying you're going to have 60 percent medical, period. And what we wanted is the flexibility so we have medical and Page 43 November 26, 2007 medical related and that it can grow into something more than that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it's 60 percent of what's built and applied for. I mean, I don't know why you'd go in -- I don't understand your statement how it wouldn't apply. David, the 60 percent, is it 60 percent of the maximum they could build there or 60 percent of what's permitted? MR. FERNANDEZ: It's the zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David. MR. WEEKS: Well, the language reads the subsequent rezoning shall provide that 60 percent of the permitted gross square footage shall be designated for medical and medical related uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But someone crossed out the word permitted and put the word allowed in the text that you provided. So now we need to go back to the word permitted? MR. WEEKS: No, sir, I'm just reading from what the board approved for transmittal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: I'm sorry, just to try to answer your question. So it seems to be saying that 60 percent of the building square footage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is permitted. So if you apply for a permit for 10,000, you're looking at 60/40,6,000 and 4,000. MR. FERNANDEZ: It doesn't use the word building at all. It talks about zoning. So, for instance, if we get 40,000 square feet -- so you could have one building that's 100 percent medical and then have another building that's 100 percent office. And as long as that percentage stays constant, you haven't exceeded 40 percent of the general office, you're okay. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, I would agree with that. I would agree with that, that the zoning -- for example, if they come in and they are granted at approval for 100,000 square foot, 60,000 square feet must be devoted to medical and medical related. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But if they come in and request Page 44 November 26,2007 approval for 50,000 square feet then only 30,000 has to be medical, medical related until you request more. Wouldn't that be true? MR. WEEKS: Correct. Staying at that percentage basis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So wouldn't we want to be going back to the word permitted, instead of the word allowed, as you -- as was originally suggested by BCC? MR. WEEKS: That was a staff recommended change, because we usually don't use the word permitted, we usually word use the word allowed in the Growth Management Plan because of the connotation in the Land Development Code of a permitted being a use by right. MR. FERNANDEZ: But Commissioners, I think that the concern you had, does the 5,000 maximum limit give you the comfort level? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't see the need for it when you've got 40 percent in which you could move this whole phrase to and do whatever you want. I mean, if you remove the phrase medical related uses to only apply to that remaining 40 percent, it gives you whatever use you need to make up for those doctors' offices that want some other part of their offices doing something else. I don't know why -- I can't see why it harms you, unless there's something being done that is not being told to us today. MR. FERNANDEZ: I could even tell you that it's problematic to try to even come back and carve out suites and say okay, this is medical and this is nonmedical and how does staff review that from impact fees and parking and every other consideration? And that's why I think it would probably be -- the way we've got it is that 60 percent of the permitted zoning would be restricted to medical and medical related, a maximum of 40 percent would be office, and we could say that the maximum square footage of any medical related use, which would cover, you know, your concerns. I don't believe, for instance, that a Gold's Gym is a medical Page 45 November 26, 2007 related use. I mean, that's -- to me that's stretching it too far. But in terms -- if it was a wellness center like they have at the Naples Hospital, yes, then it has equipment, I could see that. Then that's a medical related use, and those would be restricted to a maximum of 5,000 square feet. Because I can't see a facility larger than that being supported here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I kind of have a problem. Because you're basing this on a ratio, the description you gave, that one was 100 percent office, one was 100 percent medical, you know, can you build the 100 percent office first. The word allowed is somewhat dangerous, because somebody could do a study showing a lot of square footage that would be allowed, yet they may not be building that much. So what if you just took it and said 60 percent of the gross square footage? Got rid of allowed, got rid of permitted? And that way you get rid of the problems here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that gets -- that says 60 percent of the gross square footage would be designated to medical offices and clinics -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No less than 60 percent. MR. FERNANDEZ: No less. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But then you've still got the verbiage that I've been -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I would kill medical related uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, then we're on the same page. COMMISSIONER CARON: Then we're on the same page. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. The other question I have is how important is the one story? I know that's in the master plan. But essentially you could put a Page 46 November 26,2007 mezzanine in a one -- and that would count as one story. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't remember how the master plan was written at the time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is it important that this thing -- because 35 feet is a two-story building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think whatever they -- whatever the master plan allows there is okay with the community. We vetted that very well, over two years or more. So I would be willing to think that would work. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Even on this site? Because this site is a transition into the Estates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the homes next door could go 35 feet too, for that matter. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: They could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Single-family homes. MR. FERNANDEZ: You would have to make an exception in this language to go more than one story. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of the applicant, of staff, of anybody at this point on the planning commission? MR. FERNANDEZ: Mark, could you repeat the language that you're starting to feel is coming together? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the same -- the only -- on B-1, we would suggest the change no less than 60 percent of the gross square footage shall be designated for medical offices and clinics, period. MR. FERNANDEZ: As opposed to medical related in that 60 percent? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And then the medical related applies as a use on the property, but it would be part of the 40 percent fill-out. And that's what I'm -- that's where I'm at with it. And I think is everybody else -- any comments? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I think that makes good sense. Page 47 November 26, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Margie, do we have to officially close the public hearing before we vote on this -- in this context? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, I think you should on each one of them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move that we forward CP-2005-2 to the Board of County Commission with a recommendation to adopt with the following change: That in A -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, B-1. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- B-1, the word allowed be struck through and the words medical related uses be struck through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And do you accept the rest of staffs recommendations as well? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. I'm striking through the staff report. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Now discussion. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: The lighting issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, I looked at that. And I know we've addressed it in the master plan and I know we've been comfortable with that. So I'm not sure why we want to research lighting in another section of the GMP. David, if we were to go back and modify the GMP for that lighting if the community felt it was a necessity, would this project then fall under that modified language to whatever extent it came out? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: No. MR. WEEKS: That's assuming that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: His name's David now. Page 48 November 26, 2007 MR. WEEKS: Is that assuming that we do not address lighting in this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. MR. WEEKS: So it's simply subject to Policy 5.1.1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WEEKS: Correct. That would apply to any project then within Golden Gate Estates. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There are some GMP amendments I guess going to be coming forward in Golden Gate as a result of one of the other committees meeting out there, is what I've been hearing. I don't know, the 951 committee? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just -- on the lighting thing, I mean, if you could do this with just bollards, it would look a lot better. It would be much more passive for the neighborhood and everything. I think there is some concerns in code on the requirements for lighting in parking lots that would make -- to achieve it with ballards (sic) you would have, you know, ballard hall of fame. But I think ifit could be done with ballards, it would certainly be better. I can think of some nice stuff up in Pelican Bay and stuff that's all done with ballard lighting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, David, then could we possibly in C instead of striking all the language reference that ballards (sic) could be used, subject to the Land Development Code basically -- you know, in addition to 5.1.1, but where conflicting they could use ballards, subject to any restrictions or any standards in the Land Development Code that are written in that regard. Meaning parking lots and things like that? MR. WEEKS: I think the answer is yes. What you're asking is for example if they want to do -- what they could clearly do, if they want to use the bollards, but if the bollard lighting does not meet the lighting requirements in the Land Development Code, then they must Page 49 November 26,2007 do whatever's required by the Land Development Code. Which conceivably could include the combination of the two even. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the bollards can -- I think then where we're heading is the language could be supplemented to indicate that ballards (sic) could be utilized as an option on this property, subject to the restrictions in the Land Development Code. MR. WEEKS: Okay. And then I would ask that we also make-- add language that makes a specific reference over to Policy 5.1.1 and conversely have a cross-reference in Policy 5.1.1 to reference this as an exception. Just housecleaning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. Is that-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I agree -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- acceptable to everybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- except for one thing, is rather than use the word Land Development Code, can you use the word governing codes? Because there's a lot more codes than Land Development that could govern that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine with me. Does that work for you, David? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The fire prevention code addresses that and, you know, stuff like that. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: You could say Land Development Code and other governing regulations, or something like that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's not like this could overrule it anyway. But as the motion maker, I accept that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the second? COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Accept it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, David, is the staff clear on the motion? We want to have no unclear motions any longer. MR. WEEKS: I appreciate that. Yes, sir, I am. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: First we have to get unclear human beings. Page 50 November 26,2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to do the best we can to avoid it. Okay, the motion's been made and seconded. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you all. We're past item number one today. Let me get to item two. Okay, we will take a break for 15 minutes, be back here at-- actually, a little less than 15 minutes, at 2:45. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if everybody will resume their seats, we'll go on with the next part of the meeting. PETITION #CP-2005-6 The next petition is CP-2005-6. It's the Golden Gate Area Master Plan change to the Future Land Use Map for the David Lawrence Center and the Church of God, located on Golden Gate Parkway. Who is making today's presentation by the applicant? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich, on behalf of the applicants. I have with me David Schimmel, with the David Lawrence Center, Margaret Perry, Jeff Perry. I think that's it. Page 51 November 26, 2007 You've heard this before. We went through -- we're asking to designate five acres on Golden Gate Parkway for use for the David Lawrence Center and/or the church use. As you know, no more conditional uses are allowed on Golden Gate Parkway. The David Lawrence Center owns this five acres. The intent is to use this five acres for the development of what was intended to occur on the original David Lawrence Center property, but through the taking of Goodlette -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your speaker is not kicking in. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The intent is to go ahead and use this five acres to make up for the 2.2 acres that were lost through the acquisition by Collier County for Golden Gate Parkway. The Board of County Commissioners recommended unanimously to transmit this to the Department of Community Affairs. The Department of Community Affairs did not have any comments in the ORC Report. And with that, unless you need more information, since you've heard all this before, we'll answer any questions you might have regarding the petition. I believe we've satisfied your staffs original concerns that we did not provide enough data and analysis, needs analysis. I think we provided that before the Board of County Commissioners' hearing, and I think we've satisfied that concern of your staff. And you also have I believe in your agenda package a conceptual site plan for what we may do on that five acres, which basically shows a building fronting Golden Gate Parkway, with a lake behind that building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, you may not have satisfied all of staffs concerns, because they still recommended not to adopt. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm told that that's a typo, right? Page 52 November 26, 2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was good. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But I'll let Michelle explain that. MS. MOSCA: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Michelle Mosca with the Comprehensive Planning Department. Before I provide the information on the transmittal history, I would like to correct the record to reflect the change conditions of the executive summary. Staff originally had recommended not to transmit this petition to the Department of Community Affairs. However, between the planning commission, transmittal hearing and the board transmittal hearing, the applicant provided a needs analysis which demonstrated that the services provided by the David Lawrence Center, both now and in the future, will be needed. As a result, staff changed the recommendation again. I see that we have made an error in the executive summary that recommends denial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't tell us Richard's right. That's going to set a terrible precedent -- MS. MOSCA: Unfortunately I have to be the bearer of bad news. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for the future. MS. MOSCA: Yes, he is correct. Staffs recommendation, however, is the alternative recommendation that was provided to you in the staff report originally. And I'll provide that on the visualizer. Also, you should all have a copy of that as well. What staff is proposing is that the five acres adjacent to the church site on the east be limited to water management and preservation. Staffs recommendation will allow the applicant to become whole due to the acreage loss of the roadway expansion. Also, staffs recommendation keeps in mind the community's desire to limit conditional uses and commercial uses along the Parkway. And that's as stated in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. And I believe Rich had already mentioned the BCC Page 53 November 26, 2007 recommendation and the planning commission's recommendation was to recommend transmittal 7-0, provided that the applicant provide the needs analysis and the site plan, which in fact they did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michelle, were there any objections to your recommended language that you know of? MS. MOSCA: I know -- well, I don't want to speak for Rich, but I know originally they were not in favor of the recommended alternative staff language. Let me also -- I would like to put the -- if you all have seen the master plan. Let me put that on the visualizer as well. The additional square footage that's proposed, both on the existing site as well as the five-acre adjacent site to the church, really allows for so much more than would have been allowed under the existing conditions of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. I just wanted to point that out for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. MOSCA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, do you want to talk to us about what you don't like about the staff recommended language? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, if you don't mind. What we don't like is the requirement that only native vegetation and lake can occur on that five-acre site. Whatever we do on that five acres is going to require that we go through the conditional use process anyway, so we're going to have to go through the public hearing process to put any use on that five-acre parcel. Right now we have plans, the ultimate build-out as we see it right now would have us having a building on that five-acre parcel. And you've asked us to come back with a conceptual plan, which we have. We've located the building adjacent to Golden Gate Parkway with a lake behind us to buffer us from any residences. We're not in a position today to agree that five acres can only be used for native vegetation and for water management. We can't fit Page 54 November 26,2007 what we need to fit now and in the future on just the remainder, the remaining property. So what we're requesting is approval with the understanding that we're going to have to come back with a conditional use application to put anything on that five acres in the first place. So to decide today that you cannot put anything on that five acres as part of the comprehensive plan doesn't really make sense for the David Lawrence Center. We have to do another comprehensive plan amendment to allow a building in the future on that five-acre parcel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So to change the use on that five-acre parcel beyond what's in this GMP amendment, or actually even to use that five-acre parcel for this, you've still got to do a CD. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Conditional -- yes, we'll have to go through the conditional use process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But when you come in for your CU, what are you going to be coming in for then, just water management and native vegetation, or you -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, we would come through -- well, probably in the first phase, yes. That we would do -- well, probably in the first phase we would look at that. We may have a building already planned at that point, I don't know. But the conditional use would either be just for native vegetation of water management, but if we already know that we're going to put a building, we would ask for a building as well. I don't know if we know that far -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, on your other uses like the church and the existing David Lawrence Center, I don't remember, it goes back a ways, are they under conditional uses or PUD's or both? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Conditional uses, I believe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the language that staff has in here referring to the limitation of uses as a church on the church parcel and a David Lawrence Center on the David Lawrence parcel can't be Page 55 November 26,2007 changed anyway without a conditional use. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. And we're limited to those types of uses as well on this five-acre piece. If it goes through the way we're asking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michelle, why would staff want to force an applicant to go through the GMP process, as well as the CU process by the language you've inserted here? Because that's what you're basically forcing them to do if they go from a -- if they want to change any of the uses to any CU that they go forward in the future, they're going to have to change the GMP if it's inconsistent with a new CU. MS. MOSCA: Hopefully -- I think I understand what you're asking. The five-acre vacant site right now would not be eligible for CD's, conditional uses, under the existing Golden Gate Area Master Plan text. And that limits again conditional uses along the Parkway from Livingston Road to Santa Barbara. And that was in response to the community as part of the restudy plan amendments and so forth. What staff was trying to do was, again, keeping in mind the desires of the community for that corridor, we looked at what was lost from the right-of-way being taken and then allowing that additional building development to occur on the existing site and allow for that loss on the five-acre site. It was never staff's intent to allow -- or recommend the allowance of additional conditional uses on that five-acre piece. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can't remember back to the transmittal hearing. Was that building introduced to us during that time frame? MS. MOSCA: I don't recall. I'll have to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions of staff or applicant yet? Go ahead, Mr. 11urray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just the process here. I thought I recollected that the crux of the issue was that they had no place to put the water and they needed another building or buildings in the future. Page 56 November 26, 2007 And this master plan appears to help them with the water, certainly. Does it give them the building that they originally wanted? Or that's not included in here? MS. MOSCA: Originally staff had asked for the original site development plan that was submitted and I believe denied because the applicant didn't have adequate acreage for the water management, as well as the native preservation. And I also believe that with the GMP A, the Growth Management Plan Amendment submittal, that was one of the reasons that they were asking for the expansion. But what staff has tried to do is come up with a compromise that if the applicant locates those water -- the water management and preservation on that five-acre site, the applicant could in fact develop on the existing site. The loss was approximately I believe 2.2 acres only. What they're asking for goes above the 2.2 acres. So what we're doing is making an exception to that conditional use provision for this facility. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How far above the 2.2 acres does the building footprint in the parking lot go; do you know? MS. MOSCA: I don't know. I'd have to defer to the agent. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's less than half of that site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to use the speaker. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry. It's less than half of that five-acre site, so it's probably in the same range of 2.2 acres of building area to what was lost. Now, keep in mind, it's a combination of not only the loss of 2.2 acres, you have native preservation requirements you've got to meet, water management requirements you've got to meet. So it's not really a one-per-one. But if you look at that, that's roughly 14,000 square feet of building with parking on a five-acre parcel. It's probably right in the 2.2. It's certainly no more than 2.5 acres of development, if you Page 57 November 26, 2007 will, on that site. And the concerns -- the people who spoke said they didn't have any objections to the David Lawrence Center or the church using that site. The objections were to the more public facilities like libraries and other governmental uses that the group objected to. It was not the David Lawrence Center, because the David Lawrence Center has proven itself to be a good neighbor to the neighbors and to -- the services obviously are needed. And they've already got a campus there. So it just made sense to keep everything in the same neighborhood, if you will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: But currently what shows on this plan is -- is it building E? On the original site. It's very difficult to read. It's on the southeast corner. It's in blue. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm with you. COMMISSIONER CARON: That currently is all native vegetation. So that's all new development there. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Okay. I also have another question on your needs analysis. You give a list. The David Lawrence Center offers the following services, and there's a list that goes from 24-hour crisis stabilization all the way down to therapeutic foster care. And anything that's starred on that list, it says indicates this service is provided only by David Lawrence in Collier County. Since when is David Lawrence the only facility offering affordable housing? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Where's -- COMMISSIONER CARON: It's number three. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's a typo. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thanks. MR. SCHIMMEL: We offer -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can't speak from the floor. I mean, Page 58 November 26, 2007 you can, but you're not supposed to. MR. SCHIMMEL: David Schimmel, CEO of the David Lawrence Center. Our affordable housing is for people who suffer from a severe or major mental disability. So I'm not sure there are other organizations in town devoted to that type of affordable housing, so -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Michelle, I have a question. You're looking at this from a replacement value based upon acreage from what was taken, correct? Is there a hardship factor in here based on the fact that they planned to go one way and now they have to go the other way, or do you have to stay just to the numbers? MS. MOSCA: I probably need to defer to Rich on that. I'm not certain. MR. YOV ANOVICH: For that. MS. MOSCA: Again, time looking at this from the loss. I don't know if there's a hardship based on what they could have developed with the existing Golden Gate Area Master Plan language. They would have been able to expand -- we didn't receive the site development plan, so I'm not certain how much they would have been able to expand, if they had not lost that 2.2 acres. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But you're looking strictly at the numbers. MS. MOSCA: That's what I'm looking at, yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. And keep in mind, when we came through at transmittal we talked about it was a combination of the loss of 2.2 acres and the change in county regulations from when David Lawrence originally bought the property in the early Seventies that's affecting the plant expansion. We were asked by you all to bring a conceptual site plan as to what we think the build-out will be. And the build-out has it at Page 59 November 26, 2007 roughly, you know, almost -- it's 85,000, I think 580 square feet shows the build-out for the entire campus, which we think will meet, you know, today's need and future needs. And again, we're looking into the future for our services as well. And that's why we can't agree to just say no, we're just going to take away that 14,000 square feet from the ultimate development of the site, because we know we're going to need to provide those servIces. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I hope I'm not being premature, but I know as a mental health -- as a health professional in this county that community mental health services are severely constrained now and they will be in the future, and I really think that they need to be able to have the flexibility to build on that five-acre parcel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments or questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michelle, if they were to get this approved, all that does is give them the right to come back in and ask for a conditional use for the uses contained in this GMP amendment on that parcel. So we get a -- this will be a third or a fourth bite at the apple by the time they come in for the conditional use. MS. MOSCA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And it's at that time that-- because the plan they're showing here is pretty intense on that five acres in regards to the front half of -- the buffers and things like that. We can always institute those kind of recommendations at that time? MS. MOSCA: That's correct. Again, staffs concern was dealing with the integrity of the plan and what was spelled out in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan based on those communities' desires. And Page 60 November 26, 2007 that's where we're coming from. It was difficult, after reviewing the needs analysis. And definitely, based on what was provided, there is a need for those services in the community. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If staff did not have the language added restricting the uses on the property in the red that you've added, would you still recommend approval? MS. MOSCA: I'm sorry, the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You passed out a sheet -- MS. MOSCA: What I provided? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. MOSCA: No, we would not, based on the existing language in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One question. Is there a reason why you're not connecting the drives -- interconnecting the driveways on that building -- well, the far east building. MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is very conceptual. We have not -- I mean, this is not the ultimate site plan. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you probably will when you come before us. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sure there'll be some revisions to what you have in front of you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You wouldn't want to make everybody go -- so we don't have to make that a stipulation. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I would -- no, I don't think you need to worry about that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, I notice some of the uses that Page 61 November 26, 2007 you'd be allowed to do are private schools and day care centers. Is that one of the intended uses you're thinking of in this five-acre tract? MR. SCHIMMEL: Dave Schimmel again, David Lawrence Center. No, those are not the intended uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about a library? MR. SCHIMMEL: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Government office? Those are out? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Those have been removed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the paper I have still has-- so those last four have all been removed? And you're not going to put in private schools or day care centers? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we had the ability to do a day care related to the David Lawrence Center only. It couldn't be a standalone CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I realize that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- day care. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I'm thinking of that location on the front of that five-acre tract. If it's within the subdivision that David Lawrence has created there, would that then be considered part of the David Lawrence Center that remote to it? That's what I'm asking, because that's going to have a higher level of intensity for noise to the neighboring residential than it would be if it was in the campus part of the David Lawrence Center. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we would expect that level of analysis to occur during the conditional use process. So right now we don't have plans to do that, but if we did bring a day care on that five-acre piece, we would expect conditions -- to address those concerns as part of a conditional use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I certainly agree with Mr. Midney that health care is a priority and we need it. But I don't see the need for the private schools and a day care in particular on that five-acre tract Page 62 November 26, 2007 that you are claiming to need to make up for lost acreage. So that's kind of where I'm going with it. I don't know what the rest of the thoughts of the board are. Ms. Caron and then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think your reference earlier to the need for some sort of specificity of these things, based on past actions by certain members of the community bringing forward things and then claiming that they had a right, once we got to conditional use hearings, is important. And I think we need to be specific on this one as we were specific on the last one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would like to hear Mr. Schimmel's view of what premises there are for such things as the day care centers and a school associated with it, ifhe'd like to talk to that issue. Inasmuch as it was concluded, one would assume that there was a need expressed. So is it something that you would want us to consider or is it something you feel you can eliminate? MR. SCHIMMEL: I would like to not eliminate it. But I would assure you that any type of day care operation would be related to the mental health function that we currently provide on our eight acres. It would not be a preschool or anything like that. And we're not in the private school business, we don't have any intention of getting into the private school business. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't think so. So I think maybe any restrictive language might be applicable to that so as to assure -- MR. SCHIMMEL: Well, the only thing you have to remember is this is a joint application with us and the church as well, so -- this is a PUD. MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is our district. And I think that's where the concern came was, remember, because this applies to all the Page 63 November 26,2007 acres. So if you were talking about limiting the use, like saying no private school, you need to be very, very specific on that. Because you don't want to affect what the church can already do on the church parcel and what we may already be able to do on our existing -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I fully agree with you. And I was attempting to try to determine the full need. And I could see it as based upon services provided ancillary to those services, you might want to provide those two other things. But since it's conjoined, that becomes a question of wording now. That could become difficult, couldn't it? MR. YOV ANOVICH: And again, the conditional use, one of the criteria of the conditional use application is compatibility. So we can address the compatibility issue through the conditional use process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michelle, if we were to suggest language that said the following: Limit parcel 66 to all uses allowed except the private school and day care centers, would that be appropriate language or at least close to language you could wordsmith to be appropriate? MS. MOSCA: Yes. This might also be a good time to bring up an additional use, which was proposed by the agent, which staff in fact does not object to. This is also I believe in your executive summary. And that would be medical offices associated with the David Lawrence Center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Okay, are there any other questions of -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just have a question. Are we intending to limit -- 66 is the one furthest to the east, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what we're saying, we don't want a private school on 66? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or day care. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or day care. I mean, what would Page 64 November 26, 2007 be wrong with a school for autistic kids? What would be the -- why are we eliminating that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My thought would be that there's plenty of room on the remainder of the campus to put those kind of uses. There's already a day care or a private school or something going on at the church. The more you put those intense uses closer to residential, the more disruption to residential that would be when they weren't even supposed to be there in the first place. Because this was supposed to be residential, not conditional use, not GMP amendment change. So in order to give them something to work with, that's where I was going. At least that minimizes the noise and congestion impact to the adjoining neighborhood. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And these are residents that live on Golden Gate Parkway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a lot of them along Golden Gate Parkway. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I think we should give David Lawrence every opportunity to do whatever they want to do. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And again, I'd point out we did have a neighborhood information meeting and there was no objections from the neighbors to any of these uses, as long as they were related to the church or the David Lawrence Center. They were very -- they did not want another entity to come in and develop either one of those uses on that five-acre piece. They were comfortable with the church doing either of those two uses or the David Lawrence Center doing either of those two uses. So again, we would like to not have that restriction, because it was not objectionable to the neighbors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions of staff or the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public speakers, David? Page 65 November 26, 2007 MR. WEEKS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything that you want to add at all? Or Mr. Vigliotti, you had something? . COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me close the public hearing first. David, did you have anything else you wanted to add to it? MR. WEEKS: I was just going to make the one comment and that's that if this is ultimately approved, then your next step would be either a PUD zoning or conditional use for the property. And at that time of course you evaluate the very specifics of the site. And the concern for what types of uses would go on that easterly most track could be addressed at that time, as well as appropriate limitations to ensure the integration of that use with the remainder of the campus. As an example, perhaps limiting signage and/or requiring vehicular interconnection and maybe even prohibiting access on the Parkway. But those types of things could be addressed at the conditional use stage to make sure that that's easily tracked and its use does in fact function as part of the campus overall and not an independent use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right, thank you, sir. With that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a motion for recommendation. And I think at this point they need all the flexibility they can. We're going to get another bite at the apple, they're going to come back, and at that point we'll have the ability to change anything or adjust it as need be. But for now I think we should give them all the ability they can to make this as good a project as possibility. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second. Page 66 November 26, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was seconding. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made the motion, Mr. Schiffer (sic) seconded the motion. Now, discussion. I think my position simply is going to be the Golden Gate Master Plan had laid out what could and couldn't be done. There had been -- the one before this one and this one in particular and there are others today that have come forward with reasonable changes. And where they've been unreasonable, we've tweaked them. We just did that very clearly on the one previous to this, just on the premise that maybe the terminology could be taken wrong. And because of that, we've struck the terminology so that we ended up with a pure medical and clinical. This one, if David Lawrence wants to use it, that's fine. But private schools and day care centers are not bad things, but in some locations, especially when the neighborhood only expected them to be residential, could create more disruption than needed when they've got a large campus where they could put these uses on. So I'm going to be voting no on the motion. Any other -- Mr. Midney, Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'm wondering if maybe the motion maker and the seconder would agree to what Mark had said, that just on that one parcel that they not put a private school or a day care center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you want to hear from the rest of the board first? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, I'd like to hear some more input, if I can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I have a question. Is the language then that we would be voting on Page 6 of our packet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it would be-- COMMISSIONER CARON: Is part of it on Page 6? I'm trying to Page 67 November 26, 2007 get to the list of permitted -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it would be Page 6 with staff recommendation changed to reflect that tract 66 -- well, first of all, the other references to the tracts in the staff recommendation I didn't hear addressed. So basically staffs recommendation would not be part of the motion. What I'm suggesting we add to the motion, a limitation to parcel 66 only. The rest of the staffs recommendation I'm not suggesting we move forward with that. Just parcel 66. Because the rest of the uses that are there are there already. So that was what my suggestion was. COMMISSIONER CARON: I think you're correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. One thing, Mark, is I had brought a question up, Margie did some research. There is a way we can divide a motion where we move on the issue and then we could divide the motion to just carry whether Item E and F go forward. That way you won't have to vote against it and only that element of it would be addressed on the divided motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, the way I look at it is my ability to vote for this is contingent upon that issue. So I can't make a decision to vote for it if we separate them out. But if you -- I mean, if you -- okay? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to hear from the petitioner. I believe he's -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: The giving up the private school on that parcel, although we don't want to, we can. The day care is something we want to be able to have. The uses on the main -- I'll call it the main campus for now, all those buildings are basically spoken for. Ifwe were going to -- if we're going to provide the day care for children, it would probably be on lot 66. And we need to have that flexibility. The private school, although we don't want to give it up, we certainly would -- it's not an issue that we're going to, you know, stick Page 68 November 26, 2007 to if we don't -- if it's going to affect the outcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER CARON: I thought you already had day care on the campus site. You do not? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. MR. SCHIMMEL: No. And we have -- David Schimmel again. I'm sorry. And we don't have immediate plans for that building for day care either. But when you're the primary provider of mental health services in the community, we could have an opportunity to develop some type of a day program for kids who suffer from severe mental illnesses. So I would hate to give that opportunity up, even though I don't have any intention of doing that right now. Private schools is not a business we're in. I mean, we don't operate private schools, so I really don't have a problem with restricting the private schooling. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do you have -- sir, do you have currently a license for day care? MR. SCHIMMEL: We do at another site on Santa Barbara. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Would that license apply to this site? Does it -- MR. SCHIMMEL: No, I don't think so. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you'd have to obtain another license? MR. SCHIMMEL: Yes. The -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's another hurdle. MR. SCHIMMEL: The day care we operate on Santa Barbara is a day care, a typical day care. Anything that we would do on this site would be related to our mission of providing services for children and adults who suffer from mental illness. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Does the church have a license to Page 69 November 26, 2007 provide day care? MR. SCHIMMEL: I couldn't tell you if the church -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm trying to understand the rudiments of this, because it's speaking for both entities. It's an advocation to have something for both entities. You've indicated that it would be nice for one, you don't care about the other. You're not familiar with what the church wants? MR. SCHIMMEL: I don't think the church currently is operating a day care. I can't be 100 percent sure of that, but I don't think they're operating a day care. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do we have any indication that they wish to operate a day care? MR. SCHIMMEL: I don't, no, sir. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And the difference being we own parcel 66, we being the David Lawrence Center. So we can agree to a limitation on parcel 66. We can't agree to a limitation on the church parcel. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can appreciate that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But we can agree to no -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You could modify your motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, it seems to me that if they eliminate the private school on parcel 66 and limit the private day care to only mentally ill children, that it wouldn't be that intrusive to the community. Because it's not like a big day care where there's going to be lots of people going in and out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A long time ago we had a church in the north part of Golden Gate Estates come into this committee and looking to expand a day care. Actually, they wanted to start a day care because their conditional use didn't have it allowed at that point. We went through this -- this is years back. We went through this many, many times. The neighborhood came out very strong against Page 70 November 26, 2007 the day care. So it had to be severely limited to work a compromise. And the reasons for that was that sound travels out in the Estates. Sound travels in areas that are more non-urbanized than this is. And when people living next door have to hear kids playing outside, that may be a nice sound to a lot of people, but day in and day out it may not be. And I'm thinking certainly not restrict their ability to do day care, but just on parcel 66. They have an existing campus in which they could fit it in. It may not be in one of the buildings they have now, but they could take the stuff that's in a building they have now, move it to parcel 66 and then open that building up. Because the day care wouldn't need to be that large. So I didn't see the necessity to use day care next to a residential in an area that was never supposed to have it to begin with. So that's where I'm coming from, Paul. Mr. Schiffer, did you have something else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I just -- I still want to fight to see if we could keep the private schools. Because first of all, this is a mental health institute. There are some -- you know, the statistics on autism are shocking. So why would we want to take away the potential for something that would be so unique in this community? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No one's taking it away, though, Brad. We're -- just simply one parcel is all. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But that's the only parcel where it really makes sense. To build a private school on the other parcels doesn't. You don't have the area for the playgrounds, you don't have the area for everything. This is the only parcel that would make sense on. And we're going to review it when it comes before us. At that time we can discuss buffers and sound and everything at the appropriate time. So I think we should fight to keep those two uses on that site. Page 71 November 26, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: In response to that, Brad, the school system already is providing services for autistic children. So it wouldn't be that this would be the only way it could be done. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So there's too much? Oh, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think the gentleman even said they're not intending to do a private school, so -- Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll amend my motion to pull off private school and everything else will stand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about day care? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Day care stands. They have the ability to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the motion maker amended his motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I'll yank my second. The private school means something. It's a shame to remove that potential. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion maker amended his motion to exclude private schools on parcel 66. The second declined to endorse it. Mr. Murray has stepped in to be the second second, and he has endorsed the new motion. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm still inclined not to vote for it. So David? MR. WEEKS: For clarification, please, then the motion would be the language as it was transmitted, as is reflected on Page 5 and 6 of your staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WEEKS: Which a question is, does that include item G, which is what staff had indicated no objection to? And that is the medical offices associated with the David Lawrence Center. Page 72 November 26,2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I believe it did. I didn't see anybody opposing that. Is that -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, that was part of it. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was affirmative. The language that staff recommended, subjecting the parcels to restrictions did not carry, with the exception of tract 66. The motion maker accepted a restriction on private schools there and it was done by the seconder as well. Now, all those in favor of the motion as stated, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three opposed. Motion carries 5-3. We did it by one vote, Margie. Okay, thank you. PETITION #CP-2005-9 Next item on today's agenda is Petition CP-2005-9. It's an amendment to the future land use element map series, Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict. 70,000 square feet of lower order retail. Go ahead. MR. ARNOLD: Good afternoon. I'm Wayne Arnold, Q. Grady Minor and Associates. I'm here with the property owner Bobbie Page 73 November 26,2007 Williams and Rich Y ovanovich, representing the application for the new comprehensive plan district. You had previously heard the item, and we had originally requested 90,000 square feet of C-2 and related retail and office uses on the property. We have subsequently reduced that request by 20,000 square feet, 70,000 square feet. The item went forward to the Board of County Commissioners and they voted 4-0 to transmit the item to the Department of Community Affairs. At the time we had no objections to the application at the BCC transmittal hearing. We did have several neighbors in the audience that were in support of the item, although they did not speak on the record. Mr. Williams I know has talked to other members in the community, and as far as I know there is no opposition largely to this project. And I think we still stand with our various meetings with the neighborhood, the Corkscrew Island neighborhood association where there was support for converting what is essentially four acres of mobile home zoning to four acres of more commercial zoning, keeping in mind that we are already a little over three acres of C-2 zoning on the property, and essentially the rear half ofthe property is zoned mobile home. We believe that the application to provide more commercial opportunities in the eastern part of Collier County makes sense. Going back and looking at my notes, I've reflected that some of the opposition by the planning commission at the time was we got into this debate about the East of951 study. And I think since that time, we've had further dialogue, and I think that -- and maybe Rich can correct me if I don't speak it properly, but I think there was an idea that the East of951 study was going to be much more inclusive and more forthcoming with land use recommendations with respect to commercial. It's my understanding that that's not essentially what that East of Page 74 November 26, 2007 951 study is going to accomplish, at least in the initial phases as it moves forward. But as it stands now, I think the East of951 study would not be expected to address the specifics of something like this. So to wait for that would be meaningless to us, and we believe that the merits of having four acres of more commercial adjacent to commercial zoning so that we can make it a more viable commercial site makes sense. Again, I think that we had reduced our square footage. And again, we've worked with the community and we believe there's support for this and believe that there's also support at least from the county commission level to have transmitted this. So we would urge you to I guess go against staffs recommendation not to adopt and find a way to make a recommendation to the board that they would adopt the plan amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions of the applicant at this time? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Maybe just a recitation of information that you can tell me I'm right or wrong about. As I recollect, the issue was it was not a neighborhood center to begin with. It was not really at an intersection. Was larger. There was a concern because of the curve about dece1 and capability to get in and out. And it's a mobile home overlay that was there. And the general thought was the community -- and there's a wellfield issue, the Corkscrew Sanctuary not too far away. There was a concern that I thought I remembered that this was changing the character of the community. And I think I remember that although it wasn't 100 percent, it was most of the folks out there were disinclined. But it also -- I think our biggest problem was that we were concerned about changing this to a neighborhood center. Am I on target on most of those, if not all those? MR. ARNOLD: I would agree with you on some of the points, Page 75 November 26,2007 but I think I would disagree with regard to the community support for it. There was a vote of the neighborhood association of their group, and I believe the vote was 22-4 to support the application as we brought it forward with 90,000 square feet of commercial. And I think the idea was that we would continue to work with them through the zoning process where we converted the mobile home to commercial to make sure we addressed buffers, the appropriate types of uses that were there, keeping in mind C-2 commercial is what's there presently on the front portion of the site. And I think I recall Nick testifying that there was adequate room for us to put in a decellane and likely the access would be required to be off of Platt Road and not off of Immokalee Road. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I recall that part of it, too. Just that I remember, while I now have a recollection of what you said about the numbers who supported it in writing, but I thought I remembered that the people who spoke were more inclined to be against it. But however, I wanted to get clear in my mind where you were going with this. And this reduction in overall usage, what is it that's lost as a result of this? What was planned was one thing. What was lost? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think not knowing the final end user. And if there's more of an inclination toward lower parking generation uses, you could achieve close to the 90,000 square feet. If you look at something that's more neighborhood center when we look at the 70,000 square feet, we're a little bit less than 10,000 square feet per acre. When we come back in for the zoning and we get a more finalized site plan, that number could even come down further. But it wouldn't exceed 70,000. And we do have considerations for our septic system and water management, things of that nature, with respect to dealing with not only environmental considerations but just pure Page 76 November 26, 2007 infrastructure issues. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So in other words, the plan is just to develop it. You don't really have any view about what kind of development you're looking for, no big Publix or -- MR. ARNOLD: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So maybe a small Sweet Bay or something? MR. ARNOLD: I think there's been an expressed interest by -- I wouldn't say specifically on this site. I've talked to several people looking at the area east of 951 and their needs for things like a hardware store. Not a Lowe's and not a Home Depot, but more of a real hardware store. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ace. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, something of that nature that's -- the 25 to 30,000 square foot type box that would be that would be that type of user as opposed to the 100,000 square foot user. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: And there are other uses that fit that could be community oriented. You know, could there be a restaurant? Perhaps. I think that there is a market for that. Convenience store or something that could serve daily needs I think as well. But I really envision this to end up with probably several buildings that make up and comprise the almost eight acres, and then we could provide for adequate buffering and septic drain fields and things as a buffer to some of the surrounding -- no immediate neighbors. I think there's one neighbor that's adjacent to us, and he's a trucking business out of his home. But other than that, we have no immediate neighbors. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Have you any problem with restricting heights of structures? MR. ARNOLD: I think within reason we'd be happy to. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Tell me what reason is. Page 77 November 26, 2007 MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think we would like the opportunity for potential a two-story building, but beyond that I don't see a need for something beyond two stories. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Those are my -- thank you for the dialogue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, your language talks about C-2 uses. Do you have any problem restricting the property to just C-2 uses? MR. ARNOLD: Would that include the potential for conditional uses in C-2 as well, permitted and conditional? I don't have my list of -- out of the LDC in front of me, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I think anything under C-2 uses would be the -- see, what you're saying is -- let me read the language. The purpose of this subdistrict is to provide neighborhood commercial uses-retail office and personal services uses that are generally consistent with those found in C-2, commercial convenient zoning district. I heard you just say a hardware store. And that I would think is a C-3. So I didn't know that was in a C-2, unless it qualifies as something of a personal service or convenience commercial. If you're saying you're going to do C-2 -- on another page you said you're going to -- services typically found in C-2. If it's C-2, it's C-2. Let's not use the ambiguous terms. Because I know certain attorneys that will argue that ambiguity means something more intense than we ever intended. MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think the only -- yeah, I won't even go to speak to the retail. But I think from the office type uses that you find in C-2, our districts are not very inclusive when it comes to the C-l, C-2 when you start getting into the order of what I see as typical office type uses. You don't find them all in C-l. I mean, there's some general Page 78 November 26, 2007 references, but if you look purely at the SIC code for C-l, I'm not sure that a lawyer's office, for instance, can be permitted there, or an engineer and surveying office, because they're more of a personal service use than they are strict C-l or C-2 use. So I'm just saying, I think there needs to be a little flexibility in that. I don't know all the retail uses in C-2. I have my LDC in my other briefcase in my car and I'm happy to go and look at that in detail to see what we might be conceding if we say that. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. WEEKS: If I may, the language as transmitted by the board does include a limitation that's paragraph D in their subdistrict that uses, shall be limited to those permitted and conditional uses set forth in the C-2 zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then can we strike the words generally up above under the paragraph, introductory paragraph, second sentence? MR. WEEKS: I'm sorry, I'm not seeing that. I'm looking at the ordinance Exhibit A. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm looking at the staff report, Page 12. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, that's different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think I see what my problem is. It's the old staff report. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What page of the new staff report is the language on, David? MR. WEEKS: It's not there, Commissioner. It's only found in Exhibit A behind the ordinance, which is -- this is being the third petition, it's about half a dozen or so pages in. Behind the ordinance tab. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's where it is. Page 79 November 26, 2007 MR. WEEKS: By way of explanation, the staff report only contains language where staff is proposing revisions. Otherwise, we would simply fall back to the ordinance language, which is what the Board of County Commissioners approved at transmittal. MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. ARNOLD: In might, I think with the clarification that David added, I think -- I consulted with Mr. Williams. He's fine living with that language that would limit it to permitted and those conditional uses. And again, you're going to see that when we come back for the zoning for the entirety of this property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that would work. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Question, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is Page 12 the page we should be looking on? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, turns out it's page -- Exhibit A of the ordinance section. All those documents that were reissued to us apparently were just copies of what we got during the transmittal, and the revised language was in the back of the ordinance book. MR. WEEKS: Right. What we provided to you is the applicant's original application, as they were originally requesting, and then we also provided you the staff report from the transmittal hearing, to give you the full analysis that staff made at that time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Somebody give me -- how many inches in is it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's under the third or fourth tab. COMMISSIONER CARON: About a dozen pages in. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Only a dozen? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: After the tab ordinance. MR. WEEKS: The ninth page behind the ordinance tab. The title Page 80 November 26, 2007 is Exhibit A and the upper right-hand corner is CP-2005-9. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, in the original transmittal document there was a concern that the TIS did not include the analysis typically provided in the GMP amendment application. Did that ever get straightened out? MR. ARNOLD: I think it did. I had a brief conversation with Mr. Casalanguida out in the hallway and I believe that that has been satisfied and that they understand they'll be seeing another traffic analysis at the point we come back in for the zoning change, anyway. I think it was well documented there were no capacity issues on this portion of Immokalee Road for the level of commercial we were seeking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got no sewer or water capacity from the county services. You're going to do your own on-site sewer and water? MR. ARNOLD: At the present time we do not have sewer and water availability. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, your comments about the 951 committee, I would agree with you, I didn't know they were getting involved in other things, although I've heard some people tell me they may be, so -- MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, I've placed on the visualizer the language as it was transmitted. That might be helpful. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions of staff -- or the applicant, I'm sorry -- on this issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, how about staff? Thank you, Wayne. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. MR. SCHMIDT: All right, thank you. For the record, Corby Schmidt with the Comprehensive Planning Department. Just to begin quickly, yes, those transportation issues were Page 81 November 26, 2007 worked out. I think you've heard some information about that during your transmittal hearing from Nick. The reason for the staffs recommendation for not transmitting and for denial had a number of things to do with comprehensive plan. And of course since the time of transmittal hearings we have backed away from the statements regarding the East of 951 study as well. Information given at that time had to do with the scope of that project and so forth and not being necessarily premature, so those statements were removed. But in this case the market study identified needs in the area but not necessarily at this location. The scale of the project fell into a neighborhood commercial development in the high range of size. The intersection with Platt Road is a unpaved, dead-end roadway and access could be a problem there. The proposed expansion of Immokalee Road went only to a certain point and had yet to be programmed for this segment. Certain land uses weren't authorized and are not authorized in neutral lands in the rural fringe mixed use district, and that being commercial development, one of them. The likelihood that a petition like this would lead to similar requests was reminded. Rural villages, picking up on the commercial uses, in the future was a reason for not proposing new and unplanned uses at locations like this. And that certainly the property was already viable for other permitted uses. With those reasons, the staff recommended against transmittal and for denial. And transmittal, you recommended to not transmit. And part of your initial recommendation was to reduce from 90 to 70,000 square feet for commercial area. You did have a speaker at the CCPC, and that person spoke in Page 82 November 26, 2007 opposition, talking about the characteristics of the neighborhood, the wildlife in the area, and talking about the letter of opposition, or at least group opposition from the civic association. Since that time at the BCC the leader of that civic association spoke and talked about the non-opposition to the expansion of the commercial area. And that was taken as a vote by that Corkscrew Island Civic Association. The BCC did act to transmit, that's why you have it here in front of you now, with no changes to the rationale. The present recommendation from staff is certainly not to adopt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And David, if this was existing zoning, would it be eligible for the density bonus if you were going to take it in the residential for the spot zoning density bonus? MR. WEEKS: No, because it's not within the urban area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER CARON: Did you just say that this was part of neutral lands? MR. SCHMIDT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. You recited a whole bunch of items, and you brought back a lot of my memory about -- none of those things have changed for the comprehensive planning department, have they? MR. SCHMIDT: Other than backing off of the stronger statements earlier about the East of951 study, that's correct, nothing else has changed.t Page 83 November 26,2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Viable use is still possible, neutral lands and all the other things. Thank you for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like to ask, since Nick has been so nice to sit here all day, I can't wonder why he's here, but I'd certainly like to ask him a question while he is. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good afternoon. For the record, Nick Casalanguida. I know you want to take a shot at me, Mark. Go for it. Let's go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You wait till we get to number 15, Nick. The location of this on that curve along Immokalee Road coming off Platt, I looked at their traffic study, it was for ITE 820. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Usually you look at the most intense use when you do those ITE studies, or at least you claim to look at the most intense use. I can't -- haven't seen one yet that applies that way, but that statement was provided to us a long time ago. How do you feel that fits with the C-2 uses that they're currently requesting? MR. CASALANGUIDA: There's plenty of capacity, he's correct. Even if you up that by 30 percent, you'd have plenty of capacity on that road. Access issues, as discussed, would not be off the primary -- it would be off Platt Road. We would not give them access off Immokalee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The speed limit on that corner is 55? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it is. I was there Sunday-- Saturday. So coming around that corner, is there any concern from a traffic point as far as traffic entering or leaving? Page 84 November 26, 2007 MR. CASALANGUIDA: They probably have to make improvements to provide a turn lane so they could see and make sure those site distance issues would be resolved as well, too. But that would be handled at a conditional use or a site planning stage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anything else of Nick? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I just wanted to understand. Appreciate it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of staff or the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we have any public speakers? MR. WEEKS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Don't all jump at once now. Mr. Midney, Mr. Kolflat. Mr. Midney first. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay, I make a motion that we forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial, as we did before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Was for denial? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Denial. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion made and seconded for denial. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signifY by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. Page 85 November 26, 2007 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Vigliotti, were you opposed? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was unanimous. Recommendation to oppose. David, you seem puzzled. THE COURT REPORTER: I saw his hand go up after the question to oppose. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's just do it again. The motion was made for recommendation of denial. Motion was made by Mr. Midney, seconded by Commissioner Kolflat. All those in favor of the motion, signify by raising your hand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those against the motion, signify by raising your hand. (No response.) COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so good catch. 7-1. Mr. Vigliotti was the lone vote for non-denial. Thank you. Cherie', I'm watching the clock. About another half Page 86 November 26, 2007 hour would be okay? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm getting to our next item. PETITION #CP-2005-13 The Petition CP-2005-13. Amendment to the Future Land Use Element to create the Collier Boulevard community facility subdistrict. And it's a -- it's also known as The Lord's Way, the church and 368,000 square feet of church sponsored institutional and residential uses, and up to 150 of 296 affordable work house market rate housing. It's along 951. MR. SCHMIDT: Just as a remainder, as the petitioner and the agent step up, this was one of the items where there was a hand-out for you earlier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, petitioner want to come up for a presentation? MR. DUANE: Yes. For the record, Robert Duane from Hole-Montes and Associates. I have Pastor Reverend David Mallory with me representing First Assembly. I have Robert Price from TR Transportation Consultants. And Bill Klohn, my client from MDG Capital, is here. I'll be very brief. There are two or three minor changes that have appeared since this petition was before you last. One to address the temporary use of nine trailers that have been relocated on the property that will be used as temporary care units. That matter has been discussed before the BCC and that has worked its way into your -- into the proposed language. We also have done some further site planning since we were before you last, and we're reducing our first phase to 147 units, because that's how many units we could fit in that phase of the project. So it's changing from 150 to 147. And then we're increasing the Page 87 November 26, 2007 number of market rates from 146 to 149. Another component of our proposal, as Mr. Schmidt did indicate to you, is to try to add some language in here allowing our second phase -- you may recall, we agreed to limit our first phase when we were before you last to 150 units, now 147 units, to allow that second phase of 149 units if they are CWHIPP units or they're essential service personnel, to allow those to be considered to go forward. You will be seeing a zoning petition for this property in the foreseeable future, probably early over the summer. My understanding is that making this change to this language is something that transportation staff can now support, knowing that they're going to get another bite at the apple, since we're all using that word it seems like today. He can speak for himself regarding that matter. But our thought is if we're successful on our first phase with CWHIPP for essential service personnel, we want to have the opportunity as a public benefit to allow those units to go forward, even though Davis Boulevard improvements may not be complete. And that completes my presentation, unless you have any questions of me. Rob Price can be addressing any questions you have about traffic agam. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good afternoon, sir. MR. DUANE: Good afternoon. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm looking at a document that was passed out to us. This document, can you look up and see that we're on the same page? MR. DUANE: Okay, this is the one I have. It was from Corby Schmidt to myself with a copy to David Weeks, and it was dated on Tuesday, November 20th. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mine says November 26th. And I hope it's the same. Corby can verify that that's the same document if Page 88 November 26,2007 it's so. MR. SCHMIDT: It is the same. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. Okay, let's refer to that then. The added -- mine is in blue, the addition here, at least part of it. And it's toward the end of the paragraph. And it says, unless the 149 units are designated as community workforce housing innovation program -- project or are available and offered first to persons involved in providing essential services in Collier County. Tell me how that would work, please. Offered first. There are a number of people who might be in essential -- who are designated essential services personnel. Does that mean that one family representative comes up and says nah, never mind? MR. DUANE: No, that isn't my understanding. We have a sequence of various things that could occur here. First, the 150 CWHIPP units. And I think Mr. Klohn has spoke to you that he has put a group together of a number of essential service providers, hospital, sheriffs department, fire districts and the like, and he will offer to those groups additional units, up to 150 initially, if we're not successful with CWHIPP, or the additional 147 units, should we be successful in having their group entertain wanting additional units. And if neither one of those people step up to the plate, we're committed to construct I believe at 40 workforce housing units and 25 gap units as a minimum. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Be mindful, I'm not hostile to the project. But I am asking what I think may be a legitimate question. If I'm in error, you'll correct me. MR. DUANE: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What I'm looking for is to determine the methodology used so as to assure that the housing units that were intended for essential services personnel be in fact made fully available to those persons. Page 89 November 26,2007 Now, if you were going to tell me that the organization that represents those, the -- if you will, the umbrella organization is responsible to act on behalf of all of those other organizations and they will perform that function, that would be something I would like to see on the record, if I may. MR. DUANE: Okay. Mr. Klohn, I think on the record I represented that the umbrella group will have the opportunity to step up to the plate on behalf of their member organization. And that's your under -- and that is my client's understanding. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So we are reasonably assured that those who need this housing, should this go forward, will in fact be able to at least take a shot at it. MR. DUANE: That is correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And if they decline, and if the rest of them decline, then and only then would it be offered to another person. MR. DUANE: And that is correct. And then the 140 or 149 units, if they were ostensibly market rate housing, would have to be phased till the completion of Davis Boulevard. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, you've made that clear for me. That was my question. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of the applicant at this time? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the question is essential services. So what we're going to do is discriminate against everybody else who's not in essential services to give them first option on this? Isn't that kind of a civil rights slippery slope? MR. DUANE: I don't believe it is. But remember, CWHIPP is the grant application that we're trying to get from the State of Florida. Page 90 November 26, 2007 the grant application that we're trying to get from the State of Florida. And we're hoping that that will be our initial funding for 150 affordable housing units which mayor may not be, you know, available, depending upon whether the essential service personnel want to step up to the plate. And if they don't want to step up to the plate, then we've made another commitment, like I told Commissioner Murray, to have a certain percentage as affordable and gap housing. So we have really three tiers to our proposal. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it, Brad? MR. KLOHN: For the record, my name is Bill Klohn, with MDG. To clarify essential services for your benefit, sir, this has been adopted by the BCC for Collier County's definition of essential services. It reads as follows: Those individuals employed in the community as teachers, educators, other school district employees, college -- community college and university employees, police and fire personnel, health care personnel, skilled building trades personnel, government employees, and employees associated with health, safety and welfare agencies within the county. If that helps to broaden. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I knew the definition. I'm just -- the concept of discrimination is what makes me wiggle about it. But we can move on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have anything else, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm not done with the applicant yet, Corby. MR. SCHMIDT: Fair enough. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Duane, you had a -- I don't know if you saw the letter from the Division of Forestry about the prescribed burns in the area. Did you guys take that into consideration, or do you Page 91 November 26, 2007 have any disclosures or anything else that you're going to be doing that will let people know that they might be inhaling a lot of smoke while they're living there? MR. DUANE: No. The site by and large is cleared with the exception of our conservation area that comprises about 13 acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. But see, what happens is according to this report they're going to be routinely using prescribed fires in that area to clear. Does that -- do you guys have any issues or concerns with that? Does planning staff -- I'm going to ask you the same question when you come up. I'm just wondering if it's been an issue with anybody else. It's the first I'd seen it written like that, and it surprised me so I thought I'd ask you about it. If you got 120 camp sites there and 23 have been developed and are occupied, and you're going to be eliminating those in three years. MR. DUANE: 24 months. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 24 months. How are you going to do that? MR. DUANE: We're going to enter into a three-party agreement with the church, MGD (sic) Capital and Collier County, which has agreed to allow -- now nine of those trailers are all what remain to be used on a temporary basis to house their individuals that are in needs of care facilities, subject to approval of a site plan and/or subdivision plat or both. So they're in the process right now of trying to get their approvals. But my understanding is based on the direction that was provided by the board, they can continue to occupy those units on a temporary basis for up to 24 months after the time we obtain our zoning. Then those facilities are going to be replaced by up to 10 multi-family units to assist providing the church the services they need. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have -- is there some contractual Page 92 November 26,2007 agreement with the people living in those sites now that allows you to force them out if they refuse? MR. DUANE: I could not speak to that. The church has title to all the trailers. They were subject to some grants that go back to some period in time. It's just trying to find a place to occupy them until they can get some of the other facilities up and running. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staffpoints out that the agreements to provide affordable and workforce housing to essential services personnel is not on record. Has that changed since the transmittal? MR. DUANE: I believe we've made it part of the record today and part of our other presentation we made in front of you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll ask staff that. But I'm assuming the language incorporates it strong enough so that that will force it into actually happening. The status of the agreement between Collier County essential services personnel housing group and a housing developer establishing the program linking the housing to the proper personnel and constructing these residents is unknown. Does anybody know how that little tool is going to be put in place? MR. SCHMIDT: How it will be put in place? Well, it is one of the -- sorry, Corby Schmidt for Planning Staff. It is just one of the three options by which there would be housing provided for essential services personnel. And certainly the CWHIPP program was the first. The county affordable housing density program would be the second choice. And third, if neither of those programs' requirements could be met, there would be some other arrangement. That's why it's not known at this time. The status of that hasn't changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I have one question about your density. It might be more than one question by the time it's done. On F of your future language, you have 296 affordable workforce and Page 93 November 26,2007 market rate housing units. On G you're talking about 192 non-related church units. Are they two separate numbers or is one part of the other? MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you. Yes. In the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. That answers both of them. That makes sense, Corby. MR. SCHMIDT: There are two separate numbers. There's a number of different calculations in front of you in one subdistrict. There's calculations for entire density on the property. There's calculations for those, minus the dwelling units they already have rights to build. And I believe that was 57. There's calculations in there for the number of church or non-church units and so forth. But in the mix, yes, there's 296 total units not related to the church units. And of them there's -- some of them will be affordable, some of them will be work force, some of them will be market rate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But there is an additional 192 units on top of the 296? MR. SCHMIDT: There is not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what you've been trying to-- okay. Go ahead, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Because in point of fact, the total dwelling units on the property are 306. MR. SCHMIDT: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was trying to find out, make sure we -- COMMISSIONER CARON: It's like could we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's all the questions I have. Corby, you want to provide a presentation, or your answers to the questions is all you wanted to do? MR. SCHMIDT: Briefly, yes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There you go, answering yes to two Page 94 November 26,2007 questions. MR. SCHMIDT: I don't mind making it easy for you. The initial revisions that were brought as part of your staff report this time, talking about the reduction in the number of trailers that are on-site, identifying a change in number there, the length of time they would remain on the property has been reduced from five to two years. And some of that language has changed to clarify the floor area for the institutional uses. There may have been, and there had been confusion about the group quarters and the care units being part of another calculation. So the clarification is there. And today you heard the proposal, and I believe you saw it in an e-mail earlier, and that is part of the handout to include from the applicant another revision that would allow, if in Phase 2 those were also CWHIPP or ESP homes, that the improvements to Davis Boulevard would not be the waiting or the holding factor. There was a question from earlier, I'm sorry, that -- regarding prescribed burns in the area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SCHMIDT: This is a piece of property that had development permission, a subdistrict already in place -- or I'm sorry, a PUD. There will be another one. The only concern would not be with the burns themselves but because of the increase in density from one version to this that has changed. Otherwise, those prescribed burns are usually to burn off the fuel that would otherwise be there for wildfires. So they're not full burns as you might be imagining an out-of-control kind of afternoon situation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, you said something a minute ago about if the CWHIPP funds were provided, the transportation issue wouldn't apply. Can you elaborate on that? MR. SCHMIDT: That's correct. In the handout version, that small letter L, it was the planning commissioners, yourselves, who Page 95 November 26, 2007 asked for that phasing of the project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SCHMIDT: And Davis Boulevard can only hold the capacity until improvements are -- or I should say and its connecting segments can only accommodate the capacity for about half of the proposed development. When the improvements have been made to Davis and the capacity is there, then Phase 2 would be allowed. And what you have on the handout and what was proposed by the applicant is that those improvements to Davis not being the factor that would hold up Phase 2, if it was a CWHIPP project or if its housing was for the essential services personnel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So basically the entire development, if it becomes a CWHIPP funded project, can go forward without-- irregardless of the traffic issues involving the Davis/951 interchange-- or intersection? MR. SCHMIDT: That is what's being proposed, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we're back to almost nothing. In your mind, what does the language, when it says -- and Mr. Murray started -- got into this a bit, talks about the 296 affordable workforce and market rate housing units, as they become available and will be offered first to persons involving and in providing essential services. By offering first, does that mean you can offer it in a market like today where we don't have as much of a need for affordable housing as we may have had a year ago, no one takes it so they can go market rate on it? MR. SCHMIDT: I'm sorry, we're talking apples and oranges in one statement, Mr. Chairman. Whether it's market rate or not isn't relevant. Whether it's part of the CWHIPP program or offered to essential services personnel is what's relevant. Because some of those units will be affordable, some of them will be workforce rated, and some of those are market rate Page 96 November 26, 2007 units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you look at Item F in your text, Exhibit A. MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the one I was referring to. MR. SCHMIDT: There were some discussions between myself and the applicant over this. Because that third option for some other yet to be agreed upon program for providing the housing is still out there, what would be an acceptable program that provides the same options and offerings as the CWHIPP program does? And that program offers those homes first to those people for a period of 15 years. And what we tried to do with this provision is guarantee that that would be in place for 15 years, that those essential services personnel would have those available throughout that time. It has more to do with the 15 years than it does the first offerings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was concerned about. This locks it in for 15 years. MR. SCHMIDT: It would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't think I have any other questions. Thank you. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? Then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: Let me just ask a quick question here. So staff has no problem with the fact that three essential services units are lost before this GMP amendment's ever gotten through. That they've suddenly become market rate. They've been transferred. Just because they can't seem to fit them in Phase 1, right? Isn't that what that -- MR. SCHMIDT: I'm sorry, we may be losing three essential services personnel housing, but they're picked up in the second phase, regardless. Because they would be market rate homes in the seconds Page 97 November 26, 2007 phase. It's a matter of delay, not a matter ofloss. What you're losing is the fact that they're available in Phase 1, not that they're not there at all. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: If Phase 2 is not related to essential services personnel or part of the CWHIPP program, yes, you've lost three. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Then and only then. MR. SCHMIDT: Then you've lost three. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Adelstein. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm still having a little trouble with the -- first of all, what is the CWHIPP program? Make sure I understand. Twenty-five words or less. MR. SCHMIDT: It's a State of Florida program that deals with people who provide essential services. And I'll let the agent answer the other 20 words of that. MR. KLOHN: CWHIPP is some legislation sponsored by the late Mike Davis. It stands for community workforce housing initiative pilot program. In the CWHIPP program, we have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Collier County Sheriffs Office, the Collier County school system, Physicians Regional Hospital, NCH Hospital, and the City of Naples. They are our public partners in the public/private partnership comprising CWHIPP. In the CWHIPP program those counties that win the grant receive a $5 million trunch (sic) of money, if you will, to help buy down the high cost of high cost counties. That's CWHIPP in a nutshell. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And these would be rental units? Based on the fact that you're controlling them for 15 years, are they rental? MR. KLOHN: No, they're ownership units in the form ofa Page 98 November 26, 2007 residential cooperative, and not rental units. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the 15 years that it has to be available means that if somebody was selling it they would have to sell -- MR. KLOHN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- to sell to somebody for essential services. And how does this kind of work? You have two people standing in front of you; one of them is a carpenter, fits your description, one of them works in a Laundromat. What happens, you deny the person in the Laundromat, even though they're the same income and everything? MR. COHEN: The income criteria for CWHIPP is any employee under 140 percent of average median income. The definition of essential service personnel and those CWHIPP occupants is essential services personnel. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then Collier -- essentially our average income is 60 thou, somewhere, 63 something -- MR. KLOHN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So this is like somebody making $90,000 would be-- MR. KLOHN: Just over 89,000. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- the occupants. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Am I getting this straight, that the fact is that no homes will be done on Davis Boulevard? Or will there be homes built on Davis Boulevard? MR. SCHMIDT: There's no construction on Davis itself. It's the construction of Davis improvements that is a requirement that halts construction on this site for a period of time. The traffic, that is the matter there. MR. WEEKS: The subject property lies south of Davis Page 99 November 26, 2007 Boulevard, what is it, a mile or so? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good mile or so. MR. WEEKS: But the linkage is to the necessary traffic improvements to Davis Boulevard that must occur before this total project can be developed. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm going to try to jump in a little bit and I'm going to get some help, I think, from Nick. Let me just -- I'm aware that there are other organizations that have joined this group that are not yet -- they're not part of the initial CWHIPP program, but they may be part of a second CWHIPP program, in which case the essential services personnel numbers will be expanded. Anchor Health is one of them, East Naples, North Naples Fire Departments, they're a part of it. The whole idea here is as opposed to punishing those who might not be in government service or other service for the benefit of mankind, it's instead to try to hold onto our society and make sure that we always will have those people who provide those services. And so what I'm attempting to say to help perhaps any commissioner who might not be clear on it, that while, you know, this is an effort to make something work, the government in Tallahassee is going to decide whether or not the $5 million happens. There's a very good chance of it. I believe the county commissioners are behind that as well. But if it doesn't work, then there is at least an effort to try and provide essential services personnel with homes. And that was the intent all along, to try and make that happen. And if I've said anything that helps commissioners understand a bit more about the program, I'd be happy. But I do have a question for Nick. The issue of the segment -- now, I recognize their desire and there's a balancing act here. You Page 100 November 26, 2007 know, if they're essential, do we want to get them in there right away. But what is the time frame for the Davis Boulevard segment? Does that in any way coincide with their desires? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's still in design right now. And I want to clarify something I've discussed with county attorney's office and with the applicant. We don't support the language where they're exempt from concurrency. We can't do that. They're still subject to concurrency. What the initial discussion with the applicant was, was the first phase would be consistent with Collier Boulevard. The second phase would wait until Davis was complete, because that was the board's direction. What I've agreed with the applicant was that if they wished to discuss this at the Board of County Commissioners with the PUD process discussing CWHIPP, I don't have a problem with that, because we're really doing a consistency review at compo planning. So they're not exempt from concurrency. They're tying themselves to the second phase of Davis and they want the ability to, if they make it all CWHIPP, to be able to be exempt from that restriction. I don't think the board will go with that. Davis time frame is right now looking to go to 100 percent next spring, go to construction sometime in the middle of summer or next fall of next year, and it's a two-year project. So you're looking somewhere around 2010. And I don't think the board wants additional units, CWHIPP or not, to impact that link. But they would like the ability to discuss that with the board. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I could appreciate that. Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of applicant or of staff at this time? Page 10 1 November 26, 2007 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, David, do we have any public speakers? MR. WEEKS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll close the public meeting and entertain a motion. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: First of all, I make a motion to approve. I think it's a great project here. We're tying the private developing community with the church and the county all working together to give us workforce housing, which is fantastic. We've been talking about workforce housing for a long time and it's nice to see a project come before us. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion made by Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Commissioner Murray. Discussion? David, do you need any clarifications on recommendations or anything like that? I'm sure you do. MR. WEEKS : Yes, sir. MR. SCHMIDT: Yes, at least for my purposes, I will ask only that the handout version of what you hadn't seen before in your packets, is that included as part of your motion? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion maker indicated yes. Does Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Agreed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second agrees. MR. SCHMIDT: I'm sorry, just a moment. Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. SCHMIDT: And to clarify further, the other changes that Page 102 November 26, 2007 they -- as they appear in the staff report? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Motion Maker, there are other changes referenced in the staff report. I'm assuming you meant those to be included with the motion? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: -- included. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm just trying to think ifthere was anything in there that creates a problem. I don't think so. That's good. Second's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the staff report is included. Go ahead, Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Thank you. Clarification. The motion is to include the revised language in the handout? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay. I just want to make sure. I discussed this with Mr. Casalanguida, that this in no way is trying to exempt them from concurrency. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Right. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Correct. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: So as long as that's the case, then -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there any other comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is staff now clear? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody on the commission need anything further? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My comments, simply I will not support it. I don't care if it's CWHIPP, I don't care what it is. The second phase shouldn't go forward because Davis Boulevard is a disaster. And it Page 103 November 26, 2007 will be until it's finished. So I can't support the motion for approval. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: May I just respond to that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not sure that by suggesting that, that it would go that way. I think it was clear to me anyway that they wanted the opportunity to voice that desire. And okay, fine, you don't want to support that. But if it were close enough in time, I would think that it wouldn't be the worst thing. And I think that the commissioners themselves will look at it as critically as you are and as we are. But okay, I can appreciate you want to decline. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments from the commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, call for the vote. All those in favor, signify by raising your hand and saying aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER CARON: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two, three, four in favor. All those against, same sign. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (Indicating.) COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Four against. Oh, Ms. Student leaves. All day long she's been waiting for a question. This is an adoption hearing and I now have a question for her and she walks out. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's no recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just want to make sure we can do Page 104 November 26, 2007 that with an LP A. So that may have a different connotation. Cherie', let's take a IS-minute break, we'll be back here at 4:30 to resume the vote on this issue. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's try to resume the meeting. We've just got to find the county attorney. This is getting -- poor Margie, she's sat here all day waiting for a question. Now that we have one, she's disappeared twice. Paul, did you see Margie out there anywhere? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, she said that if -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, here she is. Well, Paul was going to comment on your legal analysis, Margie, but we figure we can hear it directly from you. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Thank you. The question was -- I understand this was a motion in the affirmative, and it was a tie vote? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Okay, a tie vote does not carry the day. And in this case, as I have advised, the special act requires that there be five affirmative votes to carry a compo plan amendment for adoption. So that would mean even if there were six planning commissioners present, five of the six would have to vote to approve it. Or if there were five present, all five would have to vote to approve the amendment under the special act. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In order to move this forward, can it be moved forward on a tie vote? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No -- oh, I'm sorry, yes, it goes to the board, but your recommendation shows that it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there is no recommendation then. MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yeah, there's no recommendation, right. But it can still go to the board that way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we took a vote, it was a tie vote, which ends up no recommendation on this particular GMP issue. Page 105 November 26, 2007 Does everybody -- MR. DUANE: Mr. Chairman, can I -- when you're finished, can I make a suggestion? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go ahead. MR. DUANE: Perhaps there was some confusion. Everyone on this board except yourself approved the original proposal. I think when we got discussing this language today, some felt comfortable with it, some didn't. If we can retrace our steps, I would suggest that you vote on everything but this language and then take a second vote on this language. And it may be 4-4, it may turn out different. But again, what we wanted to do was be in the position to ask the board that if for any reason Davis Boulevard falls down one year behind or two years behind, if I'm hamstrung by this language -- I mean, I can fix it with a zoning change, propose some additional mitigation. I have other options that I can address in the future that I am precluded from enacting upon unless we adopt this language that the staff handed out to you today. I would just encourage you to -- we've come a long way with this project. We think we have some unique benefits to offer the community . You are going to see this again later. I just want to preclude and not get hamstrung by at least not having the flexibility. And you can consider splitting your motion. I think it can avoid some confusion for the BCC and at least get behind the amendment that I think we all can support today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, I'm not in favor of splitting the motion, because as I told Mr. Schiffer in prior attempts to split motions, any motion I make is contingent upon the whole. And to piece it up so that we can come in through the back door to get semi approval to argue we have approval and then sort out another issue politically to me is not a solution. Page 106 November 26,2007 And I don't care if it's two years, three years, 10 years or 20 years that you're held up on Phase 2. If Davis is not refined, you shouldn't go forward. That was the same position I had originally in transmittal and it isn't changing today. It may for the rest. At this point, though, I don't see any need to change the motion at all based on what you've just suggested. I was thinking you were going to suggest something else and that is eliminate the language entirely. But if that's not the way you want to go, then I see no need to change the motion. MR. KLOHN: Bill Klohn, MDG. I'm happy with eliminating that sentence that is troublesome, but I didn't want -- and then I would discuss it at the BCC level. But I thought it was fair and prudent that whatever we're thinking, my goodness, we're going to tell the planning commission and the BCC and not sneak around or tap dance. If you're happy with deleting that one last sentence, I'm happy to accept that and ask the BCC, and if they don't like it then I won't get it. It's just something that I thought made sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, such language going from here to there with or without our consideration, what does that -- how does that change anything in regards to it? Should it be reheard by us because of the significance to the change at the BCC level, or should the BCC entertain language that we have not really heard? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, I think he's talking about-- and I want to make sure I'm clear on it before I give any opinion. I think he's talking about taking it out here to gain favorable recommendation from the planning commission and then bringing it back up to the board. I don't see a whole lot of difference between what happened just now, you know, and doing that. Because it's still going to come back up to the board. So I don't really see a whole -- to gain your approval here because it's out and then bring it to the board, I don't see a whole Page 107 November 26, 2007 lot of difference between it being in here and not having your approval and having it still going to the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You might be better off just leaving it with a tie vote. David? MR. WEEKS: I was just going to comment that either way the executive summary going to the board is going to reflect your motion and your vote. So whichever way that is, should you revote with the language being removed, that will be reflected in the executive summary, so the board will be aware of it. Similarly, the language in the ordinance exhibit that goes to the board, we always modify to reflect the planning commission's recommendation as well. It would no longer be staffs or the applicant's, it will be yours. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does the motion maker want to change anything in regards to their motion? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's negative? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, I do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that then, we will leave it as it lies. It fails recommendation of approval or denial, it's a 4-4 tie vote. MR. KLOHN: Very good, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next item. Give me a minute to change books. PETITION #CPSP-2005-14 Okay, this is a petition requesting amendment to Future Land Use Element in North Belle Meade overlay map in the Future Land Use Map series. It's CPSP-2005-14. And it's to redesignate the rural fringe mixed use district sending lands to either neutral or receiving lands. Page 108 November 26, 2007 And this is a staff initiated amendment, so I'm assuming that it's going to be staff making the presentation. MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. And I'm going to keep this brief. Commissioners, what this amendment is all about is the provision in the Future Land Use Element for these properties within the rural fringe mixed use district that are designated as sending lands that abut properties that are designated either neutral or receiving lands. And the provision provides that the owner of those properties on that border have the opportunity to submit data to the county that shows that the designation as sending lands was not warranted back in 2002 when the property was so designated as sending lands. You might recall, back at transmittal we were dealing with -- I believe it was 96 parcels. That has been whittled down significantly because county commission did not approve that many, they only approved I think it was 20 properties. And between the time of transmittal and now, eight parcel were withdrawn. So we're now down to only 12 parcels. There is a spreadsheet in your packet that identifies the recommendations of just well, what was 20 properties. So you can see what your recommendation was, the EAC and the Board of County Commissioners. For the 12 properties we're still dealing with today, all bodies, staff, planning commission, EAC and Board of County Commissioners, all supported the redesignated of those properties. The ORC Report, objections, recommendations and comments report, from the Department of Community Affairs did raise issue with two sets of properties. One no longer applicable, those eight parcel were withdrawn, and the other applicable to properties I'm going to place on the visualizer now. There are a total of eight parcels together comprising this request. The Department of Community Affairs made an error in believing that two additional properties to the south that are clearly vegetated -- and Page 109 November 26, 2007 I'll put another aerial up. Two properties with an "X" through them were part of the original request but were not approved for transmittal. And in the ORC Report, the Department of Community Affairs makes reference to an acreage figure that clearly included those two parcels. Nonetheless, there are about 3.7 acres of vegetated property, as you can see, at the southeast corner of this aggregation of eight properties that this department has recommended remain as sending lands. Staff is acquiescing to their position, and we are recommending that with the exception of that 3.7 acres, all eight of these properties and the balance, the other four to make a total of 12, be redesignated as either receiving or neutral, whichever they're abutting. The reason staffs doing that is we don't want to risk a noncompliance finding over this 3.7 acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, David. This basically remains the same in a lot of ways than what we had during transmittal for planning commission's effort. MR. WEEKS: The only difference is this 3.7 acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any public speakers, David? MR. WEEKS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a rec -- we close the public hearing. Is there any recommendation from the planning commission? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I move that we forward a recommendation to adopt as the staff describes in the recommendation. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion has been made by Commissioner Page 110 November 26, 2007 Schiffer, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My first question would be of staff, are you clear on the motion? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, any other discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. That takes us to -- no, there's been a requested change. Nick has suggested that he can hear his transportation element Item 2005-15 after 2006-4, because that's a public petition and there are people here who could be on their way if we would get through this particular petition. So if there's no concern from the planning commission, we'll move to 2006-4. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 4 or 14? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2006-4. It's the very last one in the book. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Very last one. And that's presented by Page 111 November 26, 2007 Mr. Arnold. MR. ARNOLD: Good afternoon. Wayne Arnold for the record, here representing the First Congregational Church of Naples. And this is revisiting the transmittal that you previously did for the item. It's approximately a 2.6-acre site located what essentially would be the extension of Valewood Drive on Immokalee Road, just east of Oaks Boulevard. And the request was to amend the Golden Gate Master Plan so that there could be the opportunity to have a transitional conditional use for a church on this tract 22. You all unanimously recommended the transmittal of this, as did the BCC. We're continuing to work with transportation staff on the north-south road corridor, if you recall, that would sever a portion of this property. But again, there's no opposition to this. We think it makes sense. Staff had supported this with some of the revised data and analysis that we brought before you at your last hearing. We have a fairly recent letter of support from the Oaks Neighborhood Association, and we think that goes a long way toward moving this forward. I don't have a lot have to add, presuming that nothing has changed since the last. I hope you would agree that this should be adopted and recommend so to the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just for the record, I received copies of the recommendation from the Oaks Advisory Board. And I told them -- I told the church I would pass those out at the meeting today. And I have one, Cherie', for you, when you -- before this is all over. Okay. Oh, thank you, Corby. I'll forget if -- appreciate it. MR. ARNOLD: And just so it's clear, the letter that you have, I think it's dated November the 7th of2007, it references the conditional use. After your transmittal, staff did permit us to go ahead and submit a conditional use application. Page 112 November 26, 2007 There are some reasons the church wants to advance this. They know they're taking a certain risk but we think a good one, that they need to be moving forward with construction as soon as they possibly can. So we're trying to coordinate the submittal of not only the conditional use but soon to be the site development plan as well for this, presuming it moves forward favorably. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If I remember, this was probably the only one that had unanimous support previously by us -- MR. ARNOLD: I think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and BCC as well. MR. ARNOLD: Yes, I think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we have any staff presentation? MR. SCHMIDT: I have that letter from advisory board as well. Now that you have handouts, I will not need to read it into the record. Otherwise, yes, this is one of items that came to you with unanimous recommendations for approval along the way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any public speakers, David? MR. WEEKS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any further questions of staff or the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll close the public hearing. Is there a motion? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll so move, make a recommendation for approval and transmittal to the board. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Commissioner Adelstein. Page 113 November 26, 2007 Any comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, gentlemen. Nick, thank you for accommodating the church. They sat here all day for five minutes. But hopefully it was worth it for them. PETITION #CPSP-2005-15 Okay, the next one is Nick's test by fire. It's CPSP-2005-15. It's a request for the transportation element for new policies introducing thoroughfare corridor protection plans and associated ordinances. And Nick is now planning director, or I'm assuming he's going to -- as the applicant, or is staff going to do it? MR. SCHMIDT: If it's all right with the Chair, we'd like to reverse order and the staff go first. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certainly. MR. SCHMIDT: All right. A quick history on the motions that preceded this and votes. This was one of those items that had been to the Environmental Advisory Council. And their recommendation to Page 114 November 26,2007 transmittal was to do so, as was yours. I take that back, your recommendation was not to transmit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Boy, Nick's trained you well, hasn't he? MR. SCHMIDT: Then the Board of County Commissioners did recommend to transmit. Upon transmittal, we did receive back the objections, recommendations and comments report from the DCA. And the ORC Report included a number of statements regarding why they were objecting to this, including environmental concerns. I believe your staff report includes those explanations. I may not need to go through them again. But the adoption version has been revised by staff once and then a second time. And the second time is the handout that you received earlier with the green print, based on verbal comments after the written comments from the Department of Community Affairs. The version you have in front of you with the green print is what is being forwarded to you for your recommendation to adopt. You can see the changes that were there in the staff report and here as well. Additional language 3.5, not on your hand-out sheet, but their -- additional language at the direction of DCA with their assistance to ensure that the corridors are appropriately planned and that the location of land uses and the direct -- and to direct incompatible land uses away from the environmental sensitive resources. There was similar language in 3.6 ensuring that the protection of natural resources and again directing incompatible land uses away from the sensitive resources language going further, that there would be standards and priorities, some already found in the conservation and coastal management element, more in the capital improvement element. And DCA said that's not enough. They were still concerned about the environment. That is why you have the green language going a step further. Page 115 November 26,2007 What was added to that? Whenever reduction of standards occurs it shall be mitigated on-site when feasible through the appropriate mechanisms, such as purchase of additional land or other means. Then lowest on your sheet is what was taken away, the discussion of the county board to modify or eliminate the requirements or environmental protections. There was clarification added in that second full paragraph, this policy is not applicable to the expansion of transportation facilities and environmentally sensitive areas, as described in the rural land stewardship area or the rural fringe mixed use district. And the standards for environmental protection shall be maintained during the acquisition or reservation ofright-of-way. That leaves nothing to question in the eyes of DCA and clarifies all the environmental protections that were intended to be there the first time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go to transportation staff, I want to make sure there's no questions of comprehensive planning staff. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do. The ORC Report goes to DCA, DCA comes back and the only thing they're concerned about is protection of habitat for endangered species. What about homeowners? What about people's properties that are in line where corridors are arbitrarily placed? DCA had no concern over that in regards to the language that was presented to them. You gave us the ORC Report results. I was wondering, did the ORC Report -- did DCA comment at all on people's personal property in regards, or were they more simply concerned about the environmental issues? MR. SCHMIDT: None of their concerns had to do with the properties that were not environmentally sensitive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the state protecting its citizens. Page 116 November 26, 2007 Thank you. I hate to do those commentaries, I know. Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Before Corby leaves, just a quick -- in Policy 3.5, the intent is that within one year to prepare and adopt. Is that enough time? And what process does that go through? Does that come before us? Because -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- if ever there was a planning instrument, it's going to be these corridors. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And I'd like to address some of the comments, Commissioner Strain. When we spoke to DCA -- for the record, Nick Casalanguida, Transportation. They were very supportive of what we're trying to do. They understood what West Palm Beach had done and the Center for Urban Transportation Research recommended is to identify these corridors, map them out so people are well aware of what they're up against in the future. We went to the civic association meeting, to the EAC, they all said the same thing. The biggest complaint we get is we don't know where these roadways are or what these intersections look like and how they affect our properties. And I don't want to get caught up in the how -- or the -- the why is here, and I keep getting this backwards. But to clarify, this says you're going to come back with an ordinance that defines what you're going to do. You're not going to -- this ordinance is going to be very comprehensive. It's going to be vetted with comprehensive planning, zoning staff, the planning commission and the Board of County Commissioners. It will go into detail. The concept is simple. Once you've gotten to the point where you know where the road's going to be -- and that point is not at long-range transportation plan stage, it's when you've done a maybe 30 percent design and you can map out that corridor, it's to let the Page 117 November 26,2007 people know where it is and say set back farther away. It's also to say when you're at an intersection, and today's intersection improvement -- and I'll use Collier and Immokalee as a perfect example. Identifies an improvement that's going to handle for the next for the next five or 10 years. But we've done planning 15,20 years out for, say, another overpass in that area. And if we can put a footprint down and tell the people in the future, don't build within this footprint, we'll compensate you for it through the ordinance. We'll figure out a way to do that. That's what the ordinance will do. If you can't use your land, we'll pay you for it, we'll give you a credit, we'll figure out what that process is. But don't put a mall or a shopping center where there's going to be an overpass in the future. And developers want to know that as well as residential homeowners want to know that. Policy 3.6 goes on, and we discussed with Bernard at DCA as well. This concern was environmentally sensitive land. When we looked at this, that the issue that we had, Commissioner Vigliotti, where someone wanted to help us out with property and they couldn't because they were being punished for it is exactly what this GMP amendment talks about, is that when you're willing to work with the county on certain donations of land or reservations of land through Policy 3.6, there can be discretions that are made. Because through the condemnation process you're doing the same thing. It's costing you more money as taxpayers, as boards, and it's also affecting what's going to be on the ground. In other words, if you've got a buffer or a parking lot that's going to be condemned anyway, right now the developer says condemn me. I get punished if! give it to you. With this respect with 3.6 you can take an agreement to the board and the board has the ability to say a buffer can be from 20 to 10, a landscape buffer can be condensed and we'll allow you the reduction of four parking spaces, and you've probably saved the county hundreds of thousands of dollars of Page 118 November 26,2007 right-of-way acquisition. Right now they have a hard time doing that under the current laws that you have under the codes. So policy 3.6 gives you that ability and Policy 3.5 says intersections and roadways where you know where they are, map them out, define them and restrict uses in those areas. Commissioner Strain pointed out, well, how would you compensate people for that? You'll have to do that through the ordinance. If for a reason a homeowner can't build his property or develop his property the way he wants to, whether it's a single-family home or a commercial development, he will have to be compensated. And that ordinance will be coming to you, so we'll make sure that that happens. With that, I'll address any questions you have. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, let me-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, then Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, okay, I'm just going to say, when I first came down here and got involved in this stuff, I asked the question, show me the paper streets. And people looked at me, what the hell are you talking about, paper streets? Where I came from, good planning says you pattern in for your grid or for your major highways, and they're commonly called paper streets, and that way everyone knows that okay, maybe that person who has that property may feel there's a diminution or a reduction in their value. But at least they know where they are. And the county has to find a way to facilitate movement because we know that eventually, whether we like it or not, eventually you're going to have people who need to go from points A to B, C, D, et cetera. So I fully appreciate where you're going with this. I recognize people's property rights as being primal but not sacrosanct. So that's Page 119 November 26, 2007 my view, my commentary. MR. CASALANGUIDA: CUTR said the same thing. CUTR said it's irresponsible planning not to define these corridors in detail. What we do now with the long-range transportation plan is there are lines on a map, and they're not defined. So when we bring an ordinance forward or we bring a corridor on, we'll have to go to that extra planning stage of hiring a designer to take us to a more critical design stage so we know where that roadway is. And you'll get rid of that problem by doing so. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Nick, back to my original question on 3.5, do you think you can do that within a year? I mean, is that -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: We have the West Palm Beach ordinance that's very similar to what we want to model after, and I think we'll take a draft and then take it through the commissions and through the appropriate departments. I think we can do that within a year. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then in support of what you're doing, I mean, I've worked in many communities, what they call zoned right-of-ways, which are essentially what Bob's calling paper, which is what you want. And from a design standpoint, it really helps, because that means you can position your project so that it will look good, it will be positioned properly in the future, rather than have a road running 10 feet off your front wall. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Half the garages you see on the Parkway, that's right up on the Parkway line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Would this have prevented some of the problems with the Vanderbilt Extension? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Absolutely. Page 120 November 26, 2007 MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would have. Yes, it would. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And it would continue to, now that we go to 30 percent. And the comments we're received in the past eight months going through the process is, don't put these on willy-nilly. Go through the design process so you know where they are, so when you tell somebody this is the new setback line, you're sure that that's going to be where that new setback line is. And that's our goal. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it can be debated way in the future. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And I would imagine it's going to have to go through -- our ordinance will have to be a board adopted corridor. It's not going to be something that staff just does arbitrarily. It will probably have to -- if you'd like it to come to the planning commission, I don't have a problem with that. We want to do our homework on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, a comment that you just made about the Vanderbilt Beach extension. I don't see how these lines -- mapping this out would have prevented any problems there, because you were working off of platted property that's already there and platted. So why would you have avoided -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: You have a 75-foot rear setback right now. You're behind 12th and 10th right now. If you would have mapped out that corridor and defined it -- done a planning study and said it's going to be 186 feet wide on center and said this will be the future right-of-way line. If someone was to go put up a garage or a shed in the back, they would have known the setback farther away from that. Not diminishing the use of the land, they would have known to put the garage in the right place. So those rear lot lines would have been defined better so you Page 121 November 26, 2007 knew where they were. And it helps -- homeowners have said that, we put up garages next to what's going to be a highway. We still don't qualify to be taken out because we're not close enough. But if I had known, I would have set back even farther away. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Donna, let me follow up. I think there -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna's not done yet, Brad. Let's let her finish first. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'm not done, because I do have another question here on Policy 3.6. It sounds like we're talking out of both sides of our mouth here. Because in the blue portion of this policy it says you can reduce, modify or eliminate. And then supposedly in the green portion in this paragraph, you're taking that elimination right away from yourself. MR. CASALANGUIDA: DCA's concern was specifically environmental. And they wanted us to focus on the ability to try and keep mitigation on site. One discussion I had with Bernard was two points: In the first part we clarified it's in the expansion of existing facilities. Because 3.6 only happens on roads where you're stuck. I'll give you an example: On Immokalee Road or even Golden Gate and Wilson, at that corner lot, that's an existing roadway grid right there. You can't go to a new roadway grid. If there was a preserve right at the corner, if they had developed the property and stuck the preserve right at the corner, I'm going to condemn that preserve, regardless. What the green had said below is where feasible you will try and maintain that preserve on-site or buy some additional land adjacent to it. And I explained to Bernard at DCA, sometimes that's not possible. And he said, well, just put where feasible. I'd like you to still maintain that. And in discussions with environmental staff, having a 30-foot Page 122 November 26, 2007 wide preserve that gets eliminated on 20, that preserve is not functional anymore. So in Policy 6.1.1 right now they talk about buying mitigation lands off-site. So you could include that in your ordinance as well, too. So there are ways around that. Policy 3.6 is existing facilities only. And that was a big flag to DCA, because their concern was this would be on new roads. No, it's on existing roads where we're already constrained. You can't go any farther. You can't expand the roadway, other than the network you have right there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Donna, the reason I think the Orange Blossom is a good example, there were buildings that were given permits 18 months, two years before that roadway was built that would have to be removed. So that would avoid any kind of people wasting their efforts on that. . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That was the point, the follow-up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes, suppose you had -- there was just an access road, a dirt road or, you know, very unimproved road. And suppose they wanted to put a four-lane road through there. Would that qualify as an already existing road? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think if it's identified as a public road. I think probably maybe that would be the key, if it's -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What if it's private? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I wouldn't think that would qualify as an existing facility. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What if it would be like an airport access road that was limited to only people that were going in to work on the airport? Would that be considered a road? Page 123 November 26,2007 MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think we'd have to have direction on that, but I would say public facilities would be the ones that -- existing public facilities. If it's a public road, then I think that would qualify. If it's private, it probably would not. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Or limited access, it would not qualify? MR. CASALANGUIDA: If it's public. I would probably draw the line as public. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And what if you had, say, a xeric scrub preserve on both sides of a road and you would be destroying it by putting this four-lane road through there and you couldn't mitigate for it, you couldn't find a similar habitat somewhere else in the area, then what would happen? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Same process that happens when we do four-lane roads now. You have to go through the Corps, South Florida, any environmental permits that you would do right now. Nothing would change. The way we permit roadway facilities would not change. See, this policy is internal to the county. It still does not have the jurisdictional review of the district, the Corps and South Florida. Would not allow them to make reductions, they would still permit us like we would any other road. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Does xeric scrub still go under the Corps, even though it's not a wetland? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm not sure about that. Whatever permitting we do now would not change. So in other words, this policy would not change the existing permitting process of public roads right now. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But in other words, it would allow you to eliminate a preserve. MR. CASALANGUIDA: If there was a dedicated preserve that you were going to condemn anyway against the public road, it would Page 124 November 26, 2007 give you the ability to remove that. As this requires it, and DCA's biggest concern was environmental, is you would try to mitigate on-site if you could. And if not feasible, off-site. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And what if you couldn't mitigate off-site either? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You would have the same issue with condemnation. You condemn right now preserves. You pay more for them than you would maybe under this scenario. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Just one question. Don't you always have to mitigate, no matter what, if you -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, through any road projects, we have to pay for mitigation. This doesn't change. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But if -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I'm sorry. As an example, if you had a preserve site which contained the only population of scrub jays in the county, you couldn't mitigate for that, you'd have to go out of county, then what would you do? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's a tough scenario. I think -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But it's true. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. If -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And there's actually a road being contemplated to go through this place that I'm talking about which right now is a one-lane unimproved dirt track. MR. CASALANGUIDA: By the airport? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Um-hum. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Again, this policy does not change any permitting we do right now, and it does not allow -- see, the board doesn't review the permitting. This would not change any of the permitting that's required or the mitigation that's required for any roadway at all. Page 125 November 26, 2007 COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But if you at all designated it as a future road corridor, then that would eliminate some of the barriers to it, wouldn't it? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would not. The permitting does not change at all by this policy. If it's a public existing road -- I mean, the concept of this policy is primarily in the urban area or in areas where you've got defined existing arterials and collectors that you have no choice but to expand. When you look at Wilson Boulevard and you look at Golden Gate Boulevard to the east, I have no other place to go but that existing roadway. I have Vanderbilt, which is a new roadway. But if! have to widen that roadway, that existing roadway right now, I have no choice but to expand out maybe 20 to 30 feet. And to say you can't do that because of environmental habitat, you're sacrificing your whole transportation network for that. Now, DCA's concerns were similar to yours. They said make it a priority. And that's why we've put that language in there that says in the RLSA area in defined corridors that you know there are environmental issues, be conscious of that. And we are. I mean, all of our permitting processes go through those reviews. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What about the State Road 82 extension where they're planning to go around the Immokalee Airport through the panther habitat, there is no road there whatsoever at all, but yet it's contemplated. Would this relate to that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir, it would not. That's not an existing facility. That would go through the brand new permitting process of a new road. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, it's my turn. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. Page 126 November 26, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Policy 3.5. Let's start right from the top. Number one, it says identifies in detail corridors necessary to develop county roadway network shown on the county's long-range transportation plan. Yet the item down below where it says, for the purposes of this policy protected thoroughfares shall include. And number two concerns me, required corridors for right-of-way of alternative transportation networks for which no center line has been established. How does the in detail aspect of number one above qualify number two below? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You would have to go through an in detailed study to get that to be a part of this preservation network. If I do for instance the Wilson Boulevard extension or the Benfield Road corridor study, before I could put that on a protected corridor I'd have to take that to the next level. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it says that the protected thoroughfares shall include, number two, required corridors with no center line that's been established. Well, if you haven't even established a center line, how does that provide the detail you need in which to establish the corridor? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, in the first part it says identify in detail and provide process for (sic) advance for the reservation, provide for an approval process by the board. So I have to go through that process. The second part just talks about which ones I would do. Talks about new corridors. In other words, if I wanted to do my Benfield Road, like you're talking about, I would do the corridor study that gives me that rough footprint. If I want to bring it into the corridor preservation map, I'd have to go to the next level stage to do that. I think that when we do the ordinance, you'll find that we'll have to take each one of these in detail to the board for review. My priorities would be intersections first, because that's where most of Page 127 November 26, 2007 your conflict points are. Corridors that I have well defined I would bring in. And ones that I could not define, I couldn't preserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I know that we're going to get to an ordinance. I fully expect that this will probably pass, although I'm not in favor of it. Item number three, I still want to go through the record so that everybody knows what we're buying. Limit the uses of land within the required corridor. Within a year you're going to list all the potential corridors that you feel you need on some kind of plan that's going to go through approval process. Are you buying all those the day you put them on that plan? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. And that's why I don't expect to put a lot on day one. I think we're going to have an ordinance in place -- THE COURT REPORTER: Would you slow down, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm setting the preced -- the tone, so I've got to slow down, too. I already was told that. So it's your turn to slow down. MR. CASALANGUIDA: He's like a court attorney, he wants to get me going, you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, we're not even started then, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think when the ordinance comes through you're going to find a process that's cumbersome and difficult for staff to follow through. It's going to require us to do a lot of work to get a property defined on that ordinance. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And it should. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And it should. I agree with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: So I think the ordinance will come Page 128 November 26, 2007 forward and it will say you'll have to follow these processes. And if it impacts a homeowner, you'll have to deal with that. And the details will be in that ordinance. I fully expect that ordinance to be very detailed and difficult, but worthwhile for the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The corridors that are on this ordinance, to whatever extent you minimize them on this particular ordinance, you put them on there. The time frame to purchase those properties that are on those corridors will start when? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would depend on how we draft the ordinance. Some concepts were that they may get a tax credit for donations. In other words, if they know that that land would be given away, we could find a way to do that. Some would be to recognize that they're reserved and if they ever go to develop them, at that point in time the county would have a certain amount of time to take action on that land so that the homeowner could recoup. One thought would be, Commissioner, would be if you've got a 50- foot reservation and that land is vacant. Right now that reservation is not hurting the property. But if the homeowner says I now want to develop my property and that 50 foot is hurting -- that reservation is hurting the value of my property, you have to take action within a certain amount of time to acquire that land or release me from doing that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, by limiting the uses of the land, then if someone -- if you paste a quarter on a plan and someone's got a home or a property that they own that they wanted to put on that piece of property and now they go in for a building permit and they find out they can't use a portion of it, whatever portion they were intending to use, so when they go in for the building permit, that's the time you buy the property? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would depend. If it's a single-family Page 129 November 26,2007 home, you are defining a new setback line. If they can still build the single- family home, you are not impacting their ability to develop that land. If they can no longer develop that land, then you are impacting them and you would have to take action. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but to have a plan that you start putting corridors on where they don't exist today, you've automatically, immediately, the day you put that plan on a piece of paper, you've impacted their land, you've devalued it tremendously. And you're not going -- and then you're going to purchase it after the devaluation. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. Because on Wilson, for example, the day they found out that there was going to be a new road out there, the land values went up -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- because they didn't have access to those properties. So it depends on where the property is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's talk Vanderbilt Beach extension. How many property values do you think increased that were being bisected by that extension? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think in day one the property values went down that were there. But if a homeowner built a garage and he could have still built that garage 20 feet farther away and he would like to have, he would have done so. I've heard numerous comments from residents that said that, if!'d only known I wouldn't have built so close to the new road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, you just said something that I wanted to clarify earlier. You said that there was a 75-foot rear yard setback in Golden Gate Estates for that Vanderbilt Beach corridor. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe it is 75 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're 100 percent right. But if you remember nothing else about our conversation today, when you leave here sometime, could you tell Joe Schmitt you know that to be true? Page 130 November 26, 2007 That's 75 foot. No, it's an important point. If you don't mind-- MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- letting Mr. Schmitt know, I'd appreciate it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's another whole issue. Under your purposes for this policy, the protected thoroughfare shall include the required corridors. What is the basis for the requirement? How do you determine what's required? I mean, right now there's a strong suspension that Vanderbilt Beach extension is to service a development out east. Now, of course everybody's going to run to deny that. But that road will ultimately be used to offset traffic impacts on Immokalee Road so development out east can move forward. Even though they may say they don't directly want it, the impact of it's going to be to relieve congestion on Immokalee Road, which will free up more area for development. So how do you determine required? MR. CASALANGUIDA: My long-range transportation plan in the model. I mean, the frustrating part about Vanderbilt Beach Road, and I've been here three years, is people say we did it for the developer. We did it for the land use plan that's adopted by the board, the future land use plan. Who develops out there I have no control over. There is a population that's going to be grown based on development based on the future land use map. You run than model, you need a new road based on that. Not for one specific developer. That road will be shared for the public, both sides. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Nick, the idea of putting corridors on a map is a good thing, because it lets people coming in to buy know ahead of time what to expect and they can avoid it. I don't disagree with you there. Page 131 November 26, 2007 My concern is compensation for the people that are already there and the properties that are already there that all of a sudden are going to find a six-lane road going through their backyard. That's a huge disruption to someone's life. I don't see in any of this where that's being addressed. I know you keep saying we're going to develop a plan to address it, but at the same time you're not going to buy these corridors early because you don't have the money to do it. So how are we being fair to the property owner? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would not put a corridor on the preservation map, and I don't think the board would adopt a corridor on the preservation map until we were close enough to start to act in that corridor. And that's part of the ordinance that would go through there. The difficult part, the irony is you're told there's not enough detail in the GMP amendment, but then when you do too much detail in the GMP amendment you're told there's too much detail in there that it should be in the ordinance. And the ordinance will be comprehensive. And again I want to stress, you're not going to put an intersection that's a preserved intersection or a roadway until you've done your homework. And when we draft the ordinance, we'll ask for your help and guidance to say what that requirement will be. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I fully expect that people are going to hope that you follow through on everything you're going to say. Because my concern is for the property owners that are going to be burdened by these road systems. And they're burdened by them because they're going to support developments far beyond theirs. They're not going to help them in their backyard. And for that reason, I'm very concerned about this ordinance. So I'll leave it at that. I could belabor the point with you all day long and no sense of going any further. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm sympathetic to what you say. I Page 132 November 26,2007 understand. I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then do one thing for me. That thing about Joe Schmitt, would you tell Joe about that 75 feet? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any other comments? Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nick, 3.5, item three. Is the intent of that that as you're planning these corridors to pull areas that will be developed away from environmentally sensitive, or is it just referring to within the required corridor? MR. CASALANGUIDA: One of the thoughts was that when you identify a corridor, we don't want developments sticking their preserve in the future roadway, because that's what they tend to do. And they say, well, we'll put our preserve over there so that it will be purchased by the Highway Department when they come through and widen the road. So when you define a corridor, you're going to say move away incompatible land uses in that area. Don't put your preserve right next to the road. So DCA was very strict in their recommendation to say that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I kind of agree with you, I think that you'll be under a lot of influence to pull corridors into people's land, not to keep it away. That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of either members of staff at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we have any public speakers, David? MR. WEEKS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Page 133 November 26,2007 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Motion to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- adopt the -- what is it we're on -- 2005-15, as recommended, with modifications in this little piece of paper we got dated November 26th, 2007. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second to the motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Schiffer. Staff, are you clear on the motion? MR. WEEKS : Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there -- any discussion? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My position's going to be the same as it was in transmittal. This isn't needed. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed, same sign. COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Motion carries 5-3. Thank you very much, Nick. We look forward to seeing the next round, I'm sure. PETITION #CPSP-2005-16 Okay, next item on today's agenda is CPSP-2005-16. It's a request for the change of the future land use map series for the Page 134 November 26, 2007 proposed wellfields and ASR maps. And presentation will be by staff. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, I made some reference to this petition in my opening remarks. Briefly, this amendment is regarding the wellhead protection areas map and the Future Land Use Element. And I mentioned earlier how this was not viewed by you at transmittal hearings. It's simply coming to you at the adoption hearing today and then of course on to the board. The Environmental Advisory Council did review this on November 7th, and they unanimously recommended approval for adoption. And in short, the wellhead protection map and the Future Land Use Element depicts wellfields for the entire county that are beyond a certain capacity, public wellfields, on an eight-and-a-halfby 11 map. I would say that it is representative in the sense that you cannot tell a lot of detail. There are maps in the Land Development Code that do have much greater detail, and further, we actually get down to the individual zoning maps that depict where these wellfield boundaries are at. And that's where the rubber hits the road in the sense of regulatory impact. This is the first step. And then the next step, if this is approved, will be to amend the maps in the Land Development Code and the individual zoning maps to show these new boundaries. The Growth Management Plan and a couple of different elements, conservation and coastal management element and the natural groundwater and aquifer recharge sub-element requires the county to go through a modeling exercise periodically. Whenever wellfields are newly created or expanded or modified in some way, the modeling work is done to identify any changes in the boundaries of the protection zone that should be there. And it's based Page 135 November 26,2007 on technical information, technical data. That's what the report itself is all about. And that's why Ray Smith is here, he's the pollution control and prevention department director, to answer any questions you might have about that report that's in your packet. That forms the basis -- that report forms the basis for the map amendment that's before you today. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I've got a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In this map, or on this map, rather, there are areas that say areas of interest and it points to various locations on there. Would you like mine? MR. WEEKS: I have it, thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: See them? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The areas of interest, I'm fascinated, because I don't know what the impact of that is. I don't know what the result of that is by putting that on there. Is that similar to the road, the effort to do a paper street type of thing, or is that just saying to the property owners in that area, look, we may make yours a wellfield some day? MR. WEEKS: I'm going to respond and ask Ray to correct me if I misspeak. I do believe it's as you stated, Mr. Murray, that these are areas where the county is looking to either expand or place new wellfields. And that is to put the public on notice that that's where new well -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it's not unlike -- if that's true, it's not unlike what we just did. MR. SMITH: Hi. Ray Smith, director of pollution control for the record. There is some additional note that I'd like to make about that-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Please do. MR. SMITH: -- is the wellfield protection zones specific to the Page 136 November 26,2007 Land Development Code are specific to those wells that are in the surficial aquifer system, those wells that are not very deep and fall within the lower Tamiami or the water table aquifer system. There are wells identified as wells of interest that are from the -- that are deeper wells than the Hawthorne aquifer system that are not plotted in this wellfield protection zone. Because -- just to give you a little bit of background on that, because there's a real good confining unit between the surficial aquifer system and a positive gradient pushing up so no contamination can get down into those systems. But they are identified here in addition to what Dave has identified. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So those are those areas. MR. SMITH: Some of the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry? MR. SMITH: Yes. And some of the areas also identify ASR wells. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So whether they be ASR or surficial or below the surficial, those are areas of interest. And the impact of that, in other words, what I'm trying to determine is by stating them as areas of interest, that puts everybody on notice that that may eventually become or what? What does it really do? MR. SMITH: It may eventually become wellfields or they're -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that -- MR. SMITH: -- existing wells in the Hawthorne. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- should it be on private property, that means that those parcels may be ultimately occupied by pumps? MR. SCHMIDT: I'm not very specific to what the utilities department does, but they are areas of interest. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. That adequately answers my question, I think. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff? (No response.) Page 13 7 November 26,2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a follow-up question on that. MR. SMITH: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're using three-dimensional computer models to determine the range of these wellfields? MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where do you get the data from for the three-dimensional computer? MR. SMITH: What we do is we contact each utility and speak to their representative and ask them specific questions pertaining to, you know, how many wells do you have, ifthere's additional wells we go to remodeling, if their pumping rates change or the location of the -- and information regarding the location of the wells. But to answer your question, Commissioner, we go directly to the utilities and ask them and place that information into the model. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where do they get their data from? MR. SMITH: They get their data from their permits that are issued by the South Florida Water Management District, or if they have any engineering reports on those wells, they'll use that information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So like an Ave Maria on your new map, it has a really radical shape to it, it's like a giant bird's wing going out north. What decided where the outside boundaries of that well field were? MR. SMITH: Well, if you take a look -- if you take a look to the west, because our eye caught that also, you have the Corkscrew swamp area, which is a large recharge area, which the wells are drawing from. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Well, the data it seems -- the reason I'm asking this is I'm trying to see where on here you've got new wellfields. It seems like the data is generated by existing wellfields for this map. MR. SMITH: The -- where we have new wellfields is obviously Page 138 November 26,2007 the Ave Maria wellfield. That's a new wellfield. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it existing? MR. SMITH: It is existing, but through this process we've remodeled it. We're taking it through this process, and then we'll bring it through the LDC. If you were taking a look at the LDC 3.06 under groundwater protection, you would not see this as an adopted wellfield. Through this process I'm going to be -- we're going to be getting to that point. If approved by the board and with the Growth Management Plan amendment, then to -- and DCA, would then take it through the LDC process and have that amended. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was some language that was included in the modeling aspects, it was written in italicized print in our document. And one of the paragraphs I found interesting, I want to read it to you. It says, potential groundwater contaminants are as numerous and as vary (sic) as the land use activities that produce them. In addition, each contaminant behaves differently; i.e., bacteria, dissolved solids, petroleum products, pesticides, fertilizers, septic or sewage waste in the water system, in terms of its residence, time, movement and other poor fluids. It goes on a little bit past that. And reactivity to chemicals within the aquifer system. The reason I'm reading that is we recently had an aqua-farm or aquaculture process come through here for approval. They were digging a lake 20 feet deep in one of the wellfields. Ten feet of that lake was over-dug. It was only needed to be a 10 foot deep lake, according to the applicant. They went 20 feet. It was going to be the collection area for the feces and whatever else would happen. Well, obviously that produces a lot of nitrogen algae blooms, which start chocking out oxygen in the water, and that has to then be treated with chemicals to offset that. This board voted that recommendation down, for different Page 139 November 26, 2007 reasons, including the impacts on the wellfields. I'm just wondering why it got so far with staff recommendations of approval to us without considerations of that in mind, in reading that language I saw here in this GMP amendment. MR. SMITH: I can't answer that question. The only thing I can answer pertaining to the Land Development Code is there are specific requirements associated with stormwater systems and excavation. And if it fell within those criteria, it references specific ordinances that the county needs to follow, et cetera. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it also fell within a wellfield risk area, which now I assume you are somewhat involved in. MR. SMITH: Yes. In most cases -- my major role here is to go through the remodeling process, provide that information and get it approved through Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code. The Land Development Code then is used by the planners as they review these specific land uses, and if they have any questions pertaining to, say, an oddball usage, then they'll contact me and ask for my input. But they don't typically call the pollution control department regarding that, because the Land Development Code language is very clear and provides guidance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where I'm getting is where you're telling me, we don't have anybody watching the store is what it sounds like. You are only watching the store if you're asked and someone tells you something is coming through. And if they don't happen to call you because they think it's a necessity, you can't respond because you don't know it's there. MR. SMITH: I would disagree with that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well -- MR. SMITH: -- sir, respectfully. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- then why didn't you provide any input Page 140 November 26, 2007 on this aquaculture farm, as an example? MR. SMITH: I was simply not requested to provide that information. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we're back to my original statement. But in your second paragraph of the staff report it says the following: Section 3.06.0.0 of the Land Development Code contains wellfield risk management special treatment overlay zone maps, maps that are similar to but with greater detail than the map in the Future Land Use Element. What significance is it to have it as a special treatment overlay zone map? What does that mean? What's the special treatment that we're talking about; do we know? MR. SMITH: Special treatment overlay zone are the wellfield protection zones, the one-year, the two-year, the five-year and the 20-year protection zones. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SMITH: And those are the special treatment overlay zones. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but by special treatment, you know we have an ST area designation in our Land Development Code. Is that the reference to the ST area? MR. WEEKS: It's similar. They're both special treatment. What you're more familiar with I think is the special treatment that indicates environmentally sensitive lands. This is special treatment because it's in a wellfield protection zone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you familiar with the discussion that occurred here about a week ago in this meeting concerning permits being issued in ST areas for wellfields that are not going through the EAC or for other reasons staff -- MR. WEEKS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- decided they weren't worthy of the ST scrutiny that was needed in the other ST type areas and they by policy Page 141 November 26, 2007 differentiated those from typical ST's. Now, the reason this is important is we've got a huge amount of property in Golden Gate Estates, and now other areas by the map you're showing, that have this ST area that are special treatment. And on the zoning maps, they're actually ST-Wl, W2, W3, whatever. MR. SMITH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The county attorney, Mr. Klatzkow, questioned whether -- why we weren't treating these ST -WI's like we would treat an ST in any other area that was found on the map. And staff came back and at our meeting and told us they don't look at the ST in this area the same as they do in the others; it wasn't meant to be the same. I'm just trying to get to the answer of that by the reference I've seen here today in this amendment. If these aren't special treatment areas in the same sense as an ST, someone needs to correct that reference and make sure it doesn't happen again. Because ST areas are supposed to require EIS statements and they're supposed to require appearance before the EAC, unless waived by staff. Staff has refused to waive ST's in regards to wellfields because they don't believe the ST applies as it was intended to apply in the LDC in the first place. So I don't know how to get to the bottom of it, but this is a great opportunity for someone to look into and try to get the departments that are dealing with it, which is apparently comprehensive planning, your department and Bill Lorenz's department coordinated on what this ST means and how it should be treated in the future so we're properly protected. And the documentation you have here certainly highlights all that. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I was just going to say, and based on what I read in this document, the ST designation is certainly Page 142 November 26,2007 warranted and certainly should be scrutinized the same way we scrutinize all other ST's, if what I'm reading here can be taken. MR. WEEKS: The distinction is -- I believe is that the special treatment that the -- that is indicated on zoning such as A-ST as you would see on a zoning map, that is indicative of environmentally sensitive lands. And I believe it's based on soils data. But regardless, it's based on environmentally sensitive lands. These lands that are encompassed by the special treatment wellfield zones, they could be completely cleared of all vegetation. It could be a farm field, because it's not based on vegetation or habitat, it's based on what's below the ground. And that is the proximity of this site to a wellfield. COMMISSIONER CARON: Which can make it even more sensitive to human beings and should require maybe even more scrutiny. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what there might be, though, is a different distinction between environmental sensitivity. You're looking at one type in vegetation and maybe another in ground water. MR. SMITH: And just to give you an example, some of the things that the ground water protection Land Development Code requires is there's -- or looks at specifically are land uses such as solid waste disposal facilities, solid waste transfer stations. I'll move down the list. Nonresidential handling of hazardous products. And nonresidential generating storing hazardous waste, existing or future. Domestic wastewater treatment plants. So we're not really talking, as Dave's indicated, the type of plants and species of plants but we're talking land uses that are potential pollutant sources that are either -- and there's very few that are prohibited, but quite a few that require us to inspect on a regular basis and ensure that they're operating and in compliance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, I think that I've certainly made my point with David. And you guys, if you -- Page 143 November 26, 2007 MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- could follow with Bill Lorenz, that would really be helpful not to have another problem like we did have occur again in the future. Any other questions? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, in terms of when you were saying Ave Maria is a new wellfield, are there any others? MR. SMITH: No, ma'am. No new wellfields. Though there were three others that were requested and are recommending modification of. And the one is the Orangetree wellfield that in fact had two new wells added to those, to that wellfield, which changed the configuration of the model. The number two is the FGU Way at Golden Gate, which increased their pumping rates substantially, which changed the modeling. And finally, the Collier County Golden Gate pumping, which increased the number of wells -- or excuse me, Collier County Golden Gate wellfield, which increased the number of wells and also they have greater pumping. And again, that led to a change in their -- in the delineation of their wellfield protection zones. COMMISSIONER CARON: Where is that last one on the map? MR. SMITH: The Collier County Golden Gate wellfield. Just give me a second. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, on Page 14 of the report that's in your packet. That page identifies all of the wellfields and their status with the 2006 modeling, showing you where it's a new wellfield, greater pumping, new wells, no change, et cetera. Page 14. MR. SMITH: And if you take a look along the Golden Gate Boulevard area, you'll notice that there's a designee, Collier County utilities wellfield. That's in the Golden Gate area. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thanks. Page 144 November 26, 2007 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can see there can't be any public participation, unless they're invisible here today. With that we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Anybody have a motion? Anybody have a motion? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Move to adopt, as presented. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray made a motion, move to adopt as presented. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney seconded. Staff clear on the motion? MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All those in favor, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Let the record show Mr. Adelstein has left. Thank you, sir. With that, there's no old business listed. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Our meeting on Wednesday, I understand that starts at 8:30? CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yes, sir. Page 145 November 26, 2007 COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And then does it quit at 1:00 because we couldn't get the room? My records indicate it stops at 1:00. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know that it quits at 1:00. It might. I don't remember -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought it was 11 :00, actually. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know we'll go as long as we can. So I just don't know -- I don't think I even have a date in mind. I have it down all day. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So do 1. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I got an e-mail from Sharon, who gave me the information. That's what I'm relating to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's just hope for the best, we'll get through it and stay as long as we can. That's the best way to attack those, because they sometimes get lengthy. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I had a note we had to give up the room at 1 :00 from Sharon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just don't know, Tor, right now, so we'll just have to play it by ear. If we can keep it longer and we're not done, it would be to our benefit to finish that one up. So anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any new business? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, call for an adjournment. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. We're adjourned. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:36 p.m. Page 146 November 26, 2007 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 Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 147