CCPC Minutes 03/17/2008 GMP (am)
March 17,2008
TRANSCRIPT OF THE GMP MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida
March 17,2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning
Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION
in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida,
with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN:
Mark Strain
Donna Reed-Caron
Paul Midney
Bob Murray
Brad Schiffer
Robert Vigliotti
David 1. W olf1ey
Lindy Adelstein (absent)
Tor Kolf1at (absent)
ALSO PRESENT:
Margerie Student-Stirling, Asst. County Attorney
Randy Cohen, Director, Comprehensive Planning
David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning
Page 1
REVISED AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., MONDAY, MARCH 17, 2008 IN THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY
GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA.
NOTE: NO LATER THAN 3:00 PM, THE CCPC INTENDS TO ADJOURN THE
HEARING, THEN RE-CONVENE AT 6:00 PM TO HEAR ITEMS 4.8. AND 4.C.
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY
ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN
ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10
MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS
INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL
A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN
ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE
CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A
MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL
USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A
PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR
PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF
APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL
NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND
THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY
AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
4. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. CP-2006-1, [RE-ADVERTISED FOR 5:05 P.M. ON MARCH 24, 2008 AT THE IMMOKALEE CAREER & SERVICES
CENTER, 750 SOUTH 5th STREET, IMMOKALEE, FL 34142.] Petition requesting an amendment to the
Immokalee Area Master Plan and Immokalee Area Master Plan Future Land Use MaD and MaD Series
(IAMP/FLUM), to change the FLUM designation from Urban-Mixed Use District/Low Residential Subdistrict
to Urban-Commercial District/Commerce Park at Silver Strand Subdistrict to allow Business Park zoning
district uses; Industrial uses; select uses from the General Commercial (C-4) and Heavy Commercial (C-5)
zoning districts; and uses allowed within the General Office (C-1), Commercial Convenience (C-2) and
Commercial Intermediate (C-3) zoning districts of the Collier County Land Development Code, not to
exceed 1,000,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area, on property located on the East side of
Immokalee Road, approximately 11. mile south of Stockade Road, in Section 15, Township 47 South, Range
29 East, consisting of 164.87t acres. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AlCP, Principal Planner]
B. CP-2006-2, [HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THE PETITIONER] Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden
Gate Area Master Plan. includinc the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use MaD and MaD Series
(GGAMP/FLUM), to change the FLUM designation from Residential Estates and Neighborhood Center
Subdistricts to NEW Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict, to allow commercial land uses consistent with the
General Commercial (C-4) zoning district of the Collier County Land Development Code at a maximum
intensity of 225,000 square feet, for property located at the NW corner of Golden Gate & Wilson
Boulevards, in Section 4, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 40.6t acres. [Coordinator:
Michele Mosca, AiCP, Principal Planner]
- I -
C. CP-2006-5, [TO BE HEARD AT 6:00 P.M.] Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master
Plan (GGAMP), to change Conditional Uses Subdistrict by adding subject site as an exception to locational
criteria so as to allow expansion of the existing church use on the adjacent property onto the subject
property, iocated on the west side of Santa Barbara Boulevard, 1/3 mile north of Golden Gate Parkway, in
Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 3.54t acres. [Coordinator: Thomas
Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner]
D. CP-2006-7, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element. includinc the Future Land
Use MaD and MaD Series (FLUE/FLUM), to change the FLUM designation from Urban Residential
Subdistrict to the (NEW) Italian American Plaza and Clubhouse Commercial Subdistrict in the Urban
Commercial District, to allow a clubhouse not to exceed 20,000 square feet and up to 26,000 square feet of
commercial uses consistent with the C-1 through C-4 zoning districts of the Collier County Land
Development Code, for property located at the southwest corner of Airport-Pulling Road and Orange
Blossom Drive, in Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, consisting of 5t acres. [Coordinator:
Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner]
E. CP-2006-8, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element. includinc the Future Land
Use MaD and MaD Series (FLUE/FLUM), to change the FLUM designation from Urban Residential
Subdistrict to the (NEW) AirporllOrange Blossom Commercial Subdistrict in the Urban Commercial District,
to allow up to 50,000 square feet of commercial uses consistent with the C-1 through C-4 zoning districts of
the Collier County Land Development Code, for property located on the east side of Airport-Pulling Road,
330 feet south of Orange Blossom Drive and adjacent to south of Italian American Club, in Section 2,
Township 49 South, Range 25 East, consisting of 5t acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal
Planner]
F. CP-2006-9, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element. includinc the Future Land
Use MaD and MaD Series (FLUE/FLUM), to change the FLUM designation from Rural Lands Stewardship
Area (RLSA) Open to Habitat Stewardship Area, to make corresponding changes to acreage figures in
RLSA Policies, and to increase the cap on early entry bonus Stewardship Credits in RLSA Policy 1.21, for
property located west of Lake Trafford in the RLSA, in Section 33, Township 46 South, Range 28 East,
consisting of 191.80t acres.
[Coordinator: David Weeks, AICP, Planning Manager]
G. CP-2006-10, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element. includinc the Future Land
Use MaD and MaD Series (FLUE/FLUM), to change the FLUM designation from Rural Lands Stewardship
Area (RLSA) Open to Habitat Stewardship Area, to make corresponding changes to acreage figures in
RLSA Policies, and to increase the cap on early entry bonus Stewardship Credits in RLSA Policy 1.21, for
property located east of Immokalee in the RLSA and within the Area of Critical State Concern, in Sections
13, 14, 15, 22, 23, 24, 26 and 27, Township 46 South, Range 30 East, consisting of 2,431.80t acres.
[Coordinator: David Weeks, AICP, Planning Manager]
H. CPSP-2006-12, [TO BE CONTINUED] Staff petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use MaD
(FLUM), to change the FLUM designation from Urban-Mixed Use District/Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict
to Conservation Designation, and make correlating text change to reference a new map of the site, for the
County-owned Mar-Good Park property located on Goodland, adjoining Pettit Drive, Pear Tree Avenue, and
Papaya Street, in Section 18, Township 27, Range 52, consisting of 2.5:!: acres. [Coordinator: Tom
Greenwood, AiCP, Principal Planner]
I. CPSP-2006-13, Staff petition requesting amendments to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land
Use MaD and MaD Series lFLUE/FLUM). Caoitallmorovement Element. Transoortation Element and MaDs,
Recreation and Ooen Soace Element. Economic Element. and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element and
Future Land Use MaD Series, to change the allowance for model homes in Golden Gate Estates; to extend
the Transfer of Development Rights early entry bonus in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District; and, to make
corrections of omissions and errors and other housecleaning revisions so as to harmonize and update
various sections. [Coordinator: David Weeks, AICP, Planning Manager]
13. ADJOURN
3/17/08 CCPC AGENDA TO CONSIDER 2006 CYCLE GMPAs OWIOAK
- 2-
March 17,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Welcome to the March 17th meeting of
the Collier County Planning Commission. This is a -- not at special
meeting, but a GMP meeting. And we'll probably continue after we
get through part of the agenda today.
The meeting's going to be in two parts today: One in the
morning, one this evening. And I'll explain that when we get to the
agenda section of the meeting.
If everyone will please rise for pledge of allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
Item #2
ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, will the secretary please do roll
call.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat is absent.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Caron is here.
Mr. Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein is absent.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Present.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Wolfley.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein had called and mentioned
Page 2
March 17, 2008
he had some things he had to take care of this morning, so he couldn't
be here.
Let's talk about the agenda today. If you're here for Item A,
which is the Immokalee commercial center, that item was
readvertised. We're going to hear that on the 24th at 5:05 in
Immokalee. So if you're here for that one today, we will not be
discussing it today. You need to consider coming to Immokalee on the
24th in the evening.
Item B was a Golden Gate Area Master Plan change. It was for a
40-acre commercial site at the -- proposed commercial site at the
corner of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevard. That item has been
withdrawn.
When it was originally scheduled for today's meeting, we had
that one and another Golden Gate item for a church. The church is the
First Baptist of Golden Gate Church on Santa Barbara. Items Band C.
They were both scheduled to begin tonight in this room at 6:00. Since
Item B was withdrawn, it will not be heard tonight either. It may be
coming back in the future, but it is not going to be discussed.
Richard?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: May I?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go ahead, since it's your petition.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know what the technical wording
of what happened was, as we were pushed over to the '07 cycle. It's
my understanding that the '07 cycle and the '08 cycle will be heard
together, but if they split those again, the petition for the Golden Gate
area will be heard in the '07 cycle.
So I don't know what the technical wording is, I just wanted to
make sure that people understood that it hadn't been withdrawn, it had
just been pushed over.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I had gotten an e-mail and I
thought the word in the e-mail waswithdrawn.butif--okay.so
anyway, that particular Golden Gate issue will not be heard in this
Page 3
March 17, 2008
cycle, it will be heard whenever the next cycle occurs.
Randy, is that scheduled for this year or next year?
MR. COHEN: It will be next year, and it will be in the '07 cycle.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the '07 cycle will actually -- when
you said next year, it will be in the '09 sometime?
MR. COHEN: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So about a year away.
As far as the Santa Barbara church, the church on Santa Barbara,
that will occur tonight at 6:00. So if you're here for either B or C, B is
not going to be heard and C will be tonight at 6:00.
In another issue, we have items D, E, F, G and H, all of which
were received in the packets by the planning commission. One of
them had an updated version to it.
And Randy, I don't even remember what number that was, do
you?
MR. COHEN: Not right offhand. I know it's the petition that Mr.
Duane had provided.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm sure we'll come to it.
But what did not -- go ahead.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's 2006-05, the first -- that's the
one I thought we got updated. Staff report, anyway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifit wasn't, that's the one going on this
evenmg.
The other item that did not come in our packet, and Randy, or
David, I e-mailed both of you when I hadn't received it, is number 13.
Prior instruction was it was coming with the change in the one Mr.
Murray just mentioned, and it did not come by the courier. So that one
can't be heard today as well.
MR. WEEKS: That's correct. That staff report is -- David Weeks
for the record, Comprehensive Planning Department.
That staff report still has not been completed. I expect to have it
to you sometime within the next three days.
Page 4
March 17, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Today's meeting, because we've
moved -- we've had one change in the schedule and we've moved
some others to evening meetings, we don't have a lot left. We may be
able to get through those today, so I think we'd end up having to
continue this meeting to accommodate that number 13.
What day is after -- after this is open for this planning
commission? Has anybody researched that?
MR. WEEKS: The carryover date previously approved by this
board is March 28th, which is a Friday.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good, thank you.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, am I mistaken, but didn't you
not send out an e-mail that also continued 12? Or am I making this up
in my sleep?
MR. WEEKS: Twelve will have to be readvertised, so it cannot
be heard today either --
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's what I thought.
MR. WEEKS: -- due to an advertising error.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So 12 is continued, 13 has to be
continued because we don't have the information yet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So 12 is the one on the park in
Goodland.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you're here for the park in
Goodland, that's not going to be heard for sure today either. So -- and
we don't have a new date on that?
MR. WEEKS: That will be for the 28th as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're going to readvertise that one
for the 28th.
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that leaves us four items for
today: D, E, F and G.
Page 5
March 17, 2008
D is the Italian American clubhouse. E is the Orange Blossom
commercial subdistrict, F is for the RLSA change. There's two of
them. And G is for an RLSA change. One is called the Pepper Ranch,
the other is some property -- I don't even know the name of it offhand,
but it's out in that same area.
So if you're here for any of those four items today, that's what we
will be limiting our discussion to. And the others have been changed
and modified.
Item #3
PLANNING COMMSSION ABSENCES
With that, I'll next go into planning commission absences. And
the next meeting we have is this coming Thursday. Everybody
planning to be here Thursday? It's our regular meeting. Okay.
Item #4
PETITION: CP-2006-7
We'll go into our hearings. The first one is CP-2006-7. It's the
Future Land Use Element change to the map in the use series for the
new Italian American Plaza and Clubhouse commercial subdistrict.
And from the county attorney's perspective, do we need to do
swearing in for transmittal -- or disclosure?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: It would be at the option of the
Chair. This is legislative and not quasi judicial. But we have had
situations before where we have sworn in. It's at the option of the
Chair.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd just as soon we swear everybody in
for everything.
Page 6
March 17, 2008
So if you all please -- any of those wishing to participate in this
item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, David, do you want to start with
the staff presentation or presentation by the applicant? What's the
preference?
MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, your protocol is to go with the
applicant first. I would like to make a few introductory remarks, as we
usually do for these hearings.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead, sir.
MR. WEEKS: First, to make sure that everyone is aware that this
is a growth -- a hearing for Growth Management Plan amendment.
This body usually deals on a more routine basis with rezonings,
conditional uses, variance and other types of land use petitions that are
processed through the zoning department. These are growth
management plan amendments.
Secondly, for these types of amendments, that two sets of
hearings are required.
Today's hearing and the one to follow by the County
Commissioners is known as a transmittal hearing. And should
ultimately the Board of County Commissioners vote to transmit a
given petition, you could think of it as a preliminary approval, because
a second set of hearings would follow. And those are the adoption
hearings, which will be held a few months from now. And that is the
time when this body would make its final recommendation on
petitions and the Board of County Commissioners would take their
final action on the petitions.
On the other hand, should the Board of County Commissioners
not vote to transmit anyone of these petitions, then that petition is
done; it is denied, it is over with, it does not go to the second set of
hearing.
After these transmittal hearings, those amendments that are
Page 7
March 17, 2008
approved for transmittal are sent to the Florida Department of
Community Affairs in Tallahassee, DCA, and other state and regional
agencies for their review. They will provide what is called an ORC
Report, Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report, back to
the county, and in which they identify any concerns they see relative
to any of those petitions being compliant with state statutes.
And at the adoption hearings we would need to address most
particularly any objections that are raised by DCA.
Out in the hallway on the table outside this room there is a
courtesy information sign-up sheet. This is something required to be
provided by state law. This is where any interested person may sign
up to receive notice from DCA when they have issued their notice of
intent to find the comprehensive plan amendments in compliance or
not in compliance. That would occur after the adoption hearing.
Though we're at transmittal hearings, we are nonetheless required to
provide that sign-up sheet at this time, as well as at the adoption
hearing.
As usual, we at the conclusion of probably not today's meeting
but the 28th meeting would like to gather any of the binders that you
planning commissioners have that you do not wish to keep. We do
reuse those to provide them to the County Commissioners and
ultimately to those state and regional agencies.
So if you have no need of your binders, after the next hearing we
would appreciate the ability to collect those for you.
And I think with that, we'll turn it over to the applicant.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, you probably saw a binder sitting
on the desk where Randy is when you came in, a big, thick lO-inch
one that you sent us. That's mine. I broke mine up into more palatable
smaller size binders. So I figured you guys can reuse that one.
MR. WEEKS: Yes, thank you.
MR. COHEN: Let me -- Randy Cohen, Director of
Comprehensive Planning.
Page 8
March 17,2008
Let me add one more thing. In each of your staff reports you'll
notice a paragraph in there from the Florida Administrative Code
pertaining to supporting data and analysis. Every plan amendment that
goes forward to DCA is required under the Florida Administrative
Code to have that supporting data and analysis. So keep that in mind
while reviewing the petitions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. COHEN: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we'll hear from the
petitioner.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich, on behalf of the Italian-American Club.
With me today are the president, treasurer and several board
members for the Italian-American Club. Bob Duane with
Hole-Montes and Associates, Professional Planner on the project;
Chuck Mohlke with Frazier and Mohlke, who did the market analysis;
and on his way I believe is Rob Price, our Transportation Consultant.
I'm going to go over to the -- well; I think there's a pointer here.
The property is this five-acre parcel at the southwest corner of
Orange Blossom Drive and Airport Pulling Road. It's been the home
of the Italian-American Club since the early Seventies. The building
and I think most of you are familiar with that structure, has been
around since the early Seventies. It takes up almost three of the five
acres on the property.
To the north of us is the government center that has the regional
library, over here, as well as a government office building over here. I
believe the -- I know the tax collector's in there and several other
government offices are in there as well.
As you can see, the government center parcel is larger than ours
and is well utilized by the residents of Collier County, and really has
assisted in changing that corner from a residential corner to more of a
commercial corner.
Page 9
March 17, 2008
On this parcel right here on the northeast quadrant is zoned
commercial, mixed use. On the southeast is also zoned commercial,
mixed use. So you have retail mixed use over here, you have the
government center over here, and you have the isolated five-acre
parcel on the southwest quadrant.
The request is to create a subdistrict for the Italian-American
Club. The club wants to basically replace its outdated facility and
clubhouse with a newer facility. And the question becomes what do
you do with the remaining two, two and a half acres that will be left at
the end of the day when you build the new club.
Didn't make any real sense to put residences on that two acres, so
the request was to come in and do a small retail building next to the
Italian-American Club. Because it kind of made sense with what's
around us and would make sense as far as what would be an
appropriate neighbor to the Italian-American Club.
Unlike the typical private sector amendments, the
Italian-American Club is a not-for-profit group, and they were going
to use the proceeds from the retail center to fund the construction of
their new clubhouse. It's expensive to build new clubhouses, so they
were looking for a revenue stream to go ahead and fund the new
clubhouse.
So that was the request. The request was for the 20,000 square
foot Italian-American Club and a 26,000 square foot retail center.
We got the staff report about a week or so ago, and for the first time
realized staff didn't support the request in any of the sufficiency
comments. We had no indication that the data and analysis we
supplied for the retail was going to be considered stale and outdated.
We submitted a request in 2006, and through no fault of our own
it's 2008 that we're here. And there have been some changes in the
economics but, you know, we're talking about long-range planning
here, we're not talking about immediate market planning. But
nevertheless, we got the information.
Page 10
March 17,2008
And I think Mr. Schmidt, Corby Schmidt, has provided you with
some revised language. If not, that's what I was checking in the back. I
have some revised language for you. And the revisions are fairly
simple and straight forward. Instead of doing a retail center, the
26,000 square feet of retail, we would like to revise that to office,
schools and financial institution. So it would be a smaller subset of the
C-1 through C-3 we had originally requested -- I'm sorry, C-1 through
C-4.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think I've gotten that paperwork.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Has anybody on this board?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I have it and I'll be happy to hand it out.
I know you don't like getting documents last minute, but from a timing
standpoint we really didn't have a choice in the matter in responding to
the staff report.
We believe, and Mr. Mohlke, you know, can get up here and give
you the presentation that, you know, we do believe there's a retail
demand on that particular piece of property.
We believe there is demand for a smaller subset of that of office
and financial institutions on the property.
We recognize that staff will probably require some additional
data and analysis, based upon the change to office use. And we would
propose getting that to staff, should we get transmittal, as quickly as
possible for them to review and analyze that new data and analysis.
We have also provided to transportation staff a specific fix,
instead of the general fix that we talked about in the subdistrict. The
general fix was basically we'll enter into a developer contribution
agreement to pay our fair share for the intersection improvements.
Late last week we submitted a sketch to transportation staff that
we think goes and deals not only with our specific traffic, but also
addresses existing deficiencies at the intersection. And I'll go back
over there briefly.
Page 11
March 17, 2008
And your staff said, you know, they need to look at it. And
hopefully, again, if we get transmittal by adoption we can have the
specific fix put into the comprehensive plan amendment.
But the thought is here, what you have with Orange Blossom,
frankly on both sides of the street, is you have on this side of the street
people who are heading east and want to go north on Airport Road.
Because of the limited length of the left turn lane, they back up into
the through lanes so people cannot continue east through the
intersection towards Livingston Road.
So our proposal would be to address the left turn lane by creating
a second left turn lane up there, so that would -- it would cover any
traffic we put to that intersection, as well as traffic that's already going
through there.
We've sent a sketch to the transportation department for them to
look at. We don't expect them to be able to say yes today, but we do
think that we're on the road, if you will, to addressing the intersection
issue, which we believe is the issue related to this project, as well as
what's already existing there.
And you have the same issue on the other side of the street, as far
as people are heading west and want to go south on Airport, the turn
lanes also back up in the through lanes. And there's another petition
winding its way through the process that will likewise provide left turn
lanes -- another left turn lane to head south.
So that -- the combination of those two projects should address
the intersection issues related to Orange Blossom and Airport Pulling
Road.
Again, the purpose of this petition really is a funding mechanism
for the Italian-American Club to continue its operations at this
location. It's been there, you know, almost 40 years. It's been an asset
to the community. Many civic associations utilize their facilities for
meetings. The county has built a small meeting facility in its
government center, but it certainly doesn't meet the needs of the
Page 12
March 17, 2008
residents around there. So the facility is available for use by others.
There's several -- every year you'll see different events that the
community goes to, arts and crafts, carnivals and things like that that
the community takes part in. So the Italian-American Club, it's not for
just the members, it's open to others. They have many other public
events that the public comes to besides just the members.
So based upon looking at that site, it doesn't make sense on the
last two acres to really put six residential homes on there. We thought
retail made sense. Again, we've scaled it back to office, a financial
institution on the remaining property.
And with that, that's in a nutshell our request, and we are
available to answer any questions you may have regarding our
comprehensive plan amendment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, before we get into questions,
just so everybody's clear, the paper you just passed out, items A
through F, I believe are no different than the ones that were here prior
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so the changes are all in that first
paragraph. Basically striking out all uses except the C-1 uses relative
to institutional and office -- or financial --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Bank financial institutions, correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, are there questions
from the planning commission?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know this is not site plan time,
and I'm not looking to really get in detail, but presumably from what
I've read, the new building will be further back and access to the street
will be back in the back, so to speak. The front or side front exit will
be closed off, if! read it correctly.
How will whatever financial institution or school or whatever
Page 13
March 17, 2008
will be placed, will they be used -- how will they exit or enter into that
space in order to obtain their use?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're correct, Mr. Murray, this building
would be razed and moved further back on the site. Access would be
where it currently exists here. The access point you were talking about
going away would be this one here.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So our only access would be off of
Orange Blossom. Right now there's a left in, and then this is a full. So
people would be able to come -- they'd come here, they'd be able to go
back to the west. They take a right to left and they'd be able to take a
left in as well on the site.
The question of whether or not we'll get any access on Airport
Road, we're not sure. At best we'll get in right in, right out. Maybe
nothing as far as on Airport Road goes, because it's a relatively short
distance; I think it's about 330 feet from the intersection.
So we -- you know, we don't know, we don't want to give up
hope on that access yet. But we can handle the access off of Orange
Blossom Road for everything that's going on at that site.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I believe I also read that there
was an attempt at some future point to get pedestrian access to --
unless that's the other item. But I thought I remembered it in here.
What are we going to do with interconnect with that rural agricultural
below it?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: This piece right here?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, your comprehensive plan requires
inter-connectivity, and we expect -- we would expect that that would
be a condition of any rezone we do, or site development plan when we
get further along past the rezone, that there would be interconnection
between the two sites.
This is the Carlisle right here. So vehicular interconnection, we
Page 14
March 17, 2008
don't think it would be necessary. But if we needed to accommodate
pedestrian interconnection for the Carlisle, I don't think that would be
an Issue.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So you have no problem
with inter-connectivity as being an issue at all.
And the important thing is to help that traffic over there, if we're
going to do anything. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, I would have had some
questions, and I don't have as many now. I think the changes that
you're suggesting are much more improved than what you had
originally suggested. I certainly agree with staff on the original
conclusion.
And I also believe that the Italian-American Club should be able
to have its ability to expand on that property. It's a natural for that. But
I didn't think the retail was appropriate. I like your suggestion for the
office.
My question's going to be for staff. How do you do these -- how
would you proceed, should this suggestion be acceptable to the
planning commission? Is that something -- because it's already been
reviewed by you under the prior premise. And now they're coming in
with a much less intense premise. So what does that mean from a staff
perspective as far as the analysis goes, whether it's for transmittal or
adoption?
MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Randy Cohen.
There's two different ways that we've handled these in the past.
There's been the possibility of an applicant presenting additional data
and analysis prior to the continuation date on the 28th, and we would
review if that data and analysis was adequate.
Absent that, it's been the practice sometimes of both this body
and the Board of County Commissioners to transmit -- you know; we
review the additional data and analysis between transmittal and
adoption. And that would be up to this board as a recommendory (sic)
Page 15
March 17,2008
body, as well as the Board of County Commissioners to either do one
of the two, if you so choose.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. From a perspective of DCA's
review, if you didn't do the data and analysis before transmittal was
sent to them, how would their review be done?
MR. COHEN: I would anticipate that you would receive back an
ORC comment that would say that you had inadequate data and
analysis and require it at the time of adoption.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the adoption process then in
actuality becomes both the transmittal and adoption on the new idea
combined in one going back as adoption.
MR. COHEN: In essence, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's see whether there's any more
questions.
And Ms. Caron, Mr. Schiffer, and then Mr. Wolfley.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, what's the size of the
Italian-American Club now? How many square feet is it now?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's about 6,500 square feet. Is that right?
Yeah, it's about 6,500 square feet.
COMMISSIONER CARON: 6,500 square feet. And it now takes
up two-thirds of that space. And you want to make it 20,000 square
feet, plus put another 26,000 square feet of something else, whether
it's a bank or an office or a school --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- or some combination of all the
above.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CARON: In terms of the surrounding area, do
you know how much office is out there?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Not really. I do know, based on the staff
report, there's a lot of retail out there. And I've had some experience in
a few of those rezones to know there's a lot of retail. I don't remember
Page 16
March 17, 2008
there being a lot of office associated with those retail PUD's. But I
have --
COMMISSIONER CARON: There's certainly plenty of bank out
there.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I could tell you from a market standpoint
right now, there's a lot of demand from banks. So that's why we scaled
down our request to bank, because we know there's a lot of demand
for banks, out-parcels, if you will, right now. Particularly in this area.
And we believe that there's sufficient demand for general office and
potentially, you know, smaller schools on that site.
COMMISSIONER CARON: 26,000 square feet isn't exactly a
small school, so --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I don't think we're going to be
26,000 square -- I think this school would be a potential tenant within
COMMISSIONER CARON: Give me a visual. If it were to be a
bank on that corner and you use the 26,000 square feet for that bank,
what other bank in this town would that look like? Would it look like
the Bank Florida that's in the activity zone just to the north of it?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry, which one are you on?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Would it look like Bank Florida, or
would it look like the -- what is it, Fifth-Third, that's in where
Calistoga is?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I'm familiar with neither one of
those, but it would be a -- it would be two -- you would have the bank,
which would be about a 4,000 square foot user, and then you'd have a
separate office building from the bank. So you'd have two buildings.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So you're talking about multiple
buildings as well.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Multiple buildings comprising the 26,000
square feet, correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So a bank only requires about
Page 17
March 17, 2008
4,000 square feet.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: They're generally around 4,000 square
feet.
COMMISSIONER CARON: For a branch.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: For a branch.
COMMISSIONER CARON: This is getting very intense on that
little tiny five-acre piece of property.
I guess actually the rest of my questions are for staff, so --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: From an intensity standpoint I would
point out that you're talking about -- it's about two and a half acres that
we have left. From an office perspective 10,000 square feet, you
know, and a couple of stories are really easy to achieve. From an
office perspective. I would say from a retail it might be getting a little
intense, but from an office use on the side, I would not -- I don't think
it's a very intense use.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But again, we have office, not
counting what you've already gotten approved in your Buckley and
Longview -- is that what the other one is called --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- across Airport?
Not counting anything, any office you might have gotten
approved in either one of those, there's office at both activity centers
that is brand new and unfilled, never mind the future, which is your
Buckley and Longview.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I wish it were mine, but --
COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't mean you personally, I
mean your client.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You're right. But we believe there's a
sufficient demand on this little piece of property to support more
office in the area, certainly the bank. And we would obviously phase it
in. The bank would probably go much earlier than the office building
would go. That would give us some of the cash flow we would need to
Page 18
March 17, 2008
build the new Italian-American Club on that particular piece of
property .
It makes no -- we can't afford, frankly, to tear it down, sell it for
15 residential homes and go move somewhere else in Collier County.
I mean, if you want the Italian-American Club to stay -- and I think
most of the neighbors would agree, that building's a little dated, they'd
like to see something a little nicer looking. And we did show a
rendering of the Italian-American Club that I think the neighbors were
appreciative of.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that all?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, the rest of my questions are
for staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer then Mr. Wolfley.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And actually, Donna, I'm
coming from the same question on square footage but actually the
other way. My thought is why do we have 26,000 in there? Wouldn't it
be better to wait and see what the design's going to bring forth? I
mean, 26,000 with office retail is different than 26 thou of office. So
why are we actually pegging down the number right now, as opposed
to just leaving it office uses of C-l ?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I mean, I'd love that. But typically
as we've gone through this process we go through -- seems like we go
through cycles. Sometimes there's a lot of detail on the comprehensive
plan amendments and sometimes it's not. We're not required to peg the
amount of square footage.
We would like that decision left until zoning, if that's possible.
But we started under the old school of including detail.
And I know there's been concern, I think from the commission,
planning commission, before when we've had those numbers in there,
that meant that we would get all the 26,000. So maybe taking the
detail as to square footage would make some sense as well.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the concern I have is that to
Page 19
March 17,2008
me it's not a virtue to underutilize a site. I mean, sprawl is a big
problem. We're suffering it. And to underutilize a site causes that.
And then Rich, the other question is, is this the end of the
carnival then?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think so, is it? No, I think we
would still have the ability to -- my waistline needs it anyway.
COMMISSIONER CARON: They'll have no space left to have
the carnival.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That could sway my vote.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It can?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just kidding, just kidding.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Rich --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which way?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Rich, I may have been taking
notes while this was mentioned. Were you going to tear the
Italian-American Club down and move it to the rear, or are you going
to leave it in the same location?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We would tear it down and move it to the
west.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Real good.
Another thing that I was thinking about was in the C-l we have
schools, churches and day care. I feel that that may be a little
inappropriate since I think Italian-American Club still serves alcohol.
Do they?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Would that be a little
inappropriate to have a day care, school or a church on that same
property? I mean, you're thinking about a bank anyway and some
other retail. I'm just concerned about --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, most of the functions that we have
Page 20
March 17,2008
where alcohol is served are evening functions, so we don't see those as
incompatible with day care or a school.
But Mr. Wolfley, we really expected to make those kind of final
decisions during the rezone hearing, where you'd probably have a
much more specific master plan to where we could show you a better
location of everything.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Sure. But also, I think in C-l is
nursing homes and assisted living facilities, which are a 24-hour type
servIce.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We -- I don't think we'd be able to get a
nursing home or an assisted living facility that would make sense on
the remaining two and a half or so acres.
So I know that's a broad -- the C-l is still broad as to potential
uses, but we would expect at the rezone stage that a lot of those uses
would fall out by the time we came through with the rezone.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Those are all very good points, and --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I'm in agreement, and was
that the biggest thing was putting the retail on the frontage portion,
which would make more sense.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of
the applicant at this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll hear from any questions of
staff -- or presentation by staff first, then questions.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, while Corby's coming up to give
the staff presentation, I would mention in regards to Mr. Schiffer's
question that Florida statutes do require that the parameters of the
project needs to be included in the comprehensive plan. And that's
why we require square footages, why we require some type of
Page 21
March 17, 2008
explanation of use intensity, be it a reference to zoning districts or
some type of category of uses. So it is necessary to give that square
footage. And if we don't, we can expect DCA to take issue with that in
the ORC Report.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, David.
Go ahead, Corby.
MR. SCHMIDT: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record,
Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner with the Comprehensive Planning
Department.
You've read the staff report, so I won't go over it in detail, unless
you need me to.
Otherwise, just to summarize, the property is at a location where
it's surrounded, if not nearby and adjacent to, a number of planned
commercial locations. We talked about Longview, we talked about
Buckley. Those areas have yet to develop.
In the staff report we've also shown you that there's ample
inventory across the spectrum from C-l, C-2, C-3 and C-4 of possible
uses in a reasonable study area.
The market study for this piece of property showed you generous
distance from which to draw a neighborhood commercial support base
for customers for your retail uses. We showed you that even within
one mile there is enough inventory of commercial and retail and office
opportunities for this subdistrict to be unnecessary. That's just one of
the points.
You've also seen that not just the inventory of possible and future
uses, but existing and present uses, both at the mixed use activity
centers north and south and again in the immediate vicinity.
You also have been shown that -- or you will be shown that you
have an adjacent property here, a neighboring property, with a similar
request. And again, both of them came to you with similar or
somewhat similar recommendations.
Again, the opportunities are already out there for present
Page 22
March 17, 2008
commercial customers and future customers.
You also saw in the staff report there are some traffic problems.
Those have been addressed by the applicant's attorney already. If there
is change to the proposal, staff would be -- we would carefully add
those changes, especially because of the transportation issues that are
taking place at this intersection.
Access itself was an earlier concern, and it remains a concern, but
not as much.
These pieces of property are being studied and looked at and
proposed to you as individual five-acre parcels with individual and
separate accesses.
There may have been and there might be opportunities to share
access with those cross-interconnections, depending on the end mix of
uses and the intensity of traffic on the properties. We'll be looking at
that closer, too.
I'd like to touch for a moment again on the market study that you
saw for this piece of property. The study area was larger than -- I'll
call it larger than what would otherwise be necessary or followed by
staff for the urban land institute area for a neighborhood in the
commercial center of just a mile and a half.
The study area here was almost twice that. It may be one of the
reasons that staff looked at this property carefully, because it was at
the intersection and the traffic problems at the intersection were being
asked to be mitigated with simple proportionate share pay as the
solution to the problem.
We make the point that simple mitigation is not the reason to not
rezone but to plan for a new subdistrict and to amend the
comprehensive plan when you still have the traffic problems. If the
traffic problems themselves can't be solved as part of the proposal,
staff would find it difficult to change a recommendation to approval,
or to transmit.
You also saw a lot of data about population and growth. We
Page 23
March 17, 2008
made the point that those were ambitious statements to be used at this
time. The information would have been timely from the 2005
inventory for commercial uses in the population projections. But at
this time more than two years later another commercial inventory is in
place. The population projections have changed, and we've provided
that information for you as part of the staff report, that in fact the
customer base that would have been projected to be there to support
the commercial activities at 2006 time window have certainly changed
significantly, enough to change the approach from staff that we can
see that customer base is no longer there to support that amount of
retail and commercial activity.
You've already heard the findings and conclusions, so I'll not go
through those again. I'm prepared to take your questions, however.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron, you indicated you had
questions of staff, so why don't we start with you.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I guess my first question is
do we usually amend our Growth Management Plan as a funding
mechanism for people?
MR. WEEKS: No.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
Secondly, I left you a message Mr. Schmidt, and asked if! could
get a breakdown of the office that is currently available and
potentially available within the activity center to the north and the
activity center to the south, primarily, because that's within the mile,
mile and a half.
MR. SCHMIDT: I did not receive that message. I was away from
the office at the latter part of the previous week, so I -- if there's some
breakdown that I can pull together quickly, I can do that in the back of
the room. I have that commercial inventory with me, and perhaps I
can provide that at a later time.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. It's the office that I'm
concerned about, it's not the overall commercial. You've given us the
Page 24
March 17,2008
overall commercial, which combines retail and office. Well, they've
taken the retail out of the equation, so we need to compare apples to
apples here.
MR. SCHMIDT: David can --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Weeks?
MR. SCHMIDT: -- will make clear if I'm wrong, but the way our
commercial inventory is broken down, it's by the zoning district and
perhaps offices still in a mix of commercial uses available in C-l. You
may clarify that.
MR. WEEKS: That's essentially my point, is that our zoning
districts are for the most part an inverse triangle, C-l at the bottom,
C-5 at the top, as I think most of you know, for the most part. There
are exceptions, but for the most part they build upon one another.
Which would mean, for example, the C-3 is going to allow the C-l
office uses, in addition to allowing retail and other uses.
So while we cannot specifically answer your questions, say this
many acres of office, you have to keep in mind that those zoning
districts such as C-3 that allow retail also do allow those office uses as
well.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I think that might be true if
everything were undeveloped as is the Buckley property, for example.
But that's not true when you get up to the activity centers. Those are
all under construction, so there are SDP's out there. We should know
how much office is there. That's not true at Naples Boulevard where
we know what the mix is there and the rest of the activity center, I
don't know what the number is, down at Pine Ridge and Airport.
MR. WEEKS: So your point there is vacant land is one thing, but
looking at actual developed parcels, that's what you'd --
COMMISSIONER CARON: What's there and --
MR. WEEKS: -- like to know.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- already approved. And we know
that there will be some component of office at Buckley just to the
Page 25
March 17, 2008
north. We know that there will be some component of office just to the
east in the Longview. We may not know exactly how much, because
nothing's come through on those properties yet. But at the activity
centers within a mile of this proposal, we do know what's out there for
office. Those are already in, they're being developed. Some of them
are all developed at this point. Completely developed. So we would
certainly know what's out there or not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And let me comment on Donna's
thing.
Donna, you remember just recently we purged a lot of office out
of the Naples Boulevard area. We accepted that into retail rather than
office.
David, to answer your question, so what the state requires is we
have to actually define the exact square footage we want, or can we
define, like for example, a C-l, a conventional zone kind of mentality?
They don't accept that?
MR. WEEKS: Our past experience is they do not. They want
some use parameter. Not just the types of uses, but what is going to be
the intensity there, the square footage.
At one time -- you know, the plan's been around since '89 and
with its original adoption we do not have square footages for most of
the subdistricts. But over time the state has said we need to see square
footage.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then if we do that and we add
these numbers up, essentially we're putting in a floor area ratio of .2.
So is that good or is that bad? Or is that considered -- or in other
words, since you're defining it, you're defining it. So isn't .2 -- I mean,
if you're an anti-sprawl guy, wouldn't you waive that as a flag of
sprawl maneuver to be below .4?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Totally.
MR. WEEKS: We don't usually look at the FAR specifically one
Page 26
March 17,2008
way or the other to say that's too high or too low. If anything, we
might look towards the too high, if we think it is for putting too much
intensity primarily from a perspective of either a public facility impact
or compatibility with surrounding properties. But generally we don't
look at it to say that's too low.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So there is no such thing as too
low?
MR. WEEKS: It's not something that we usually consider. Not
that we would say that this is sprawl, not when it's within the midst of
the urban designated area.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If there's no such thing as too
low there is. I don't agree, but go ahead.
I'm done, Mark, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron's got another question.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I just said -- I want to ask
transportation a question, if it's time for them to come up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This time is a good time, I guess.
You've got a question, Bob? Okay, after we get done with--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Do you mind if! put the fix up on the
visualizer?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't matter.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning. Nick Casalanguida
with Transportation.
I haven't been sworn in. I don't know if you did that.
(Speaker was duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We only swore you in, nobody else.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You swore at me is what you did.
Buon girono. Nome dispiaciere cos' de Italiano-American Club.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You must be in favor of this.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I should waive my right to review this.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Nicola.
COMMISSIONER CARON: With your built-in bias, will you
Page 27
March 17,2008
talk to us about the transportation?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Full disclosure here, right?
You know, there's a need opportunity here. The problem is it is
fragmented. There are various proposals, whether it be that Buckley
project zoning application at the northeast side of the intersection and
this project here. They need to do a unified design. Because the
improvements that are being presented are really neat and would
benefit the county, the dual lefts opposing directions.
The problem is they have to be done at the same time, designed
at the same time, because it means modifying the small heads, mast
arms, the alignments of the intersection. So the proposal that was
provided to us about a week ago was very interesting. But it can't be
done in a vacuum. And I don't really know how to stipulate this. I
know, understanding from Randy's comments, we may have the
ability to put a limited recommendation of transmittal, subject to a
final design being proposed.
Most of the intersection issues or capacity issues on the roadway
are because the intersection can't handle the capacity of the turning
movements.
So if they were to come in and, as the viewer shows, provide
property on the south side of the intersection and then the property to
the northeast corner do the same and provide a dual lefts and
expanded intersection, you'd really have a fix here that goes way
beyond their impacts, which would be a good thing.
The problem is, how do you combine an SDP phase application,
a PUD phase application, a compo plan application at the same time.
Now, we have ways of doing that. Probably in the form of a
developer contribution agreement or some sort of unified approval.
You can't do that in a week. So our recommendation would be maybe
to proceed forward with this, subject to having an intersection with a
unified fix contributed by all parties.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron, did you have any
Page 28
March 17, 2008
questions to follow up with Nick?
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I wanted to hear what his
thoughts were on how he would pull it all together, because it is only
one piece the puzzle.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, I think you had questions.
Then Mr. Vigliotti, did you have some, too?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, after--
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Thornton wanted me to stay prior
to adoption so we would have that on the record.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just wanted to -- you agree that
invasion is a good approach whenever you can get a DCA, the county
taxpayer doesn't have to come up with money to do things.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that's an advantageous way
that we go about doing things, and I'm glad to see you doing that.
That really was the only question I had, except one that I do have for
Mr. Cohen and for our attorney.
I noted that in each of the items that are in the approval section, it
indicates that it was reviewed by the Office of the Collier County
Attorney, but within the body of the staff report it says it was
approved by the Office the Collier County Attorney. And I wondered
if that was an issue. I know that -- says here this staff report has been
reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office. Is that --
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yes, I did review it, and I probably
should say --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As to form?
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: -- we need to fix the form and say
reviewed and approved, I guess, on where it's signed.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. As long as that doesn't
muddy up the waters in any way. That was my issue. I just appreciate
Page 29
March 17,2008
that, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Nick, question.
With all the developments coming on line eventually in that
corner, we're going to need to do this, the widening and the length. Is
this something county could ever pay for by themselves or do we have
to have the developer participate?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You'd have to have the developer
participate. Right now we're going through an extreme funding
crunch, as you know. Priorities to capital improvements wouldn't fall
for this intersection for quite a while. So without the developers taking
a lead on this, I wouldn't recommend approval.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And what I'm concerned about
is if we scale this project way down, it's not going to be cost effective
for them to do the widening here. So we're caught in a Catch-22. I
think we're going to have to go ahead with all the projected expansion
if we want them to do all that extra work on additional lanes.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's a fair assessment.
And one thing we've looked at is the traffic that they would put
on the intersection versus the value of the capacity improvements
would be greatly weighed in our favor. So the improvement would be
much, much more than what we -- the burden that we would put on
the intersection.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And we're really not adding a
lot. The Italian-American Club is there anyway. It's kind of dated,
which I'm kind of concerned about. I'd like to see something nice. And
then a bank on the corner and the other office space, rather than retail.
I was concerned with retail.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If the site was master planned with the
intersection improvement, you'd have a benefit to what's there.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff?
Page 30
March 17, 2008
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not of you, Nick, but I wanted to run
something by Corby or David, whoever.
One of the bullets that you have under your findings and
conclusions, I think it's the fifth one, it says the subject site has
residential development options of up to 16 units per acre, utilizing the
available density bonuses.
Now, let's start with that. So you're saying that they could qualify
for 16 units per acre, based on the bonuses currently on the books; is
that a fair statement?
MR. SCHMIDT: Sixteen, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And it's eligible for institutional
uses (adult living facilities, child care, churches, private and public
schools), social and fraternal organizations, parks and recreational
facilities, agricultural uses and other uses generally allowed
throughout the urban mixed use district.
So without coming in and asking for a GMP amendment, is it fair
to say that they would qualify for most of those uses now; is that what
you're trying to tell us?
MR. SCHMIDT: That is what you're being told, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's what I'm getting at. So
the proposal they're seeking in my mind is much less intensive than
what they could put on that property by right, plus they're throwing in
some benefit to the public through the use of the increased capacity at
the intersection and work that they're planning to do for the road
system. And by taking the retail out and putting office in, I think
we've minimized the amount of negative impact that this project could
have on the system, and it's far less than what I think they could have
qualified for without coming in for a GMP amendment, just by what's
there now.
So overall, this seems to be a large improvement. And I -- and
that's kind of where I'm standing on it. And I kind of wanted to make
Page 31
March 17, 2008
sure I understood that bullet right, and thank you, Corby, for that.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just want to make a
comment. If you are relating especially to the 16 units an acre for
residential, again, that's not an entitlement, that's potentially if they
have the right mix of every bonus that we might possibly have.
They're also in a traffic congestion area, and the chances of them
getting 16 units an acre on that property are nil. So --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think if they were --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Slim to none, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think if they were to suggest just like
they have -- like projects to the south have suggested, high intensity,
low income -- or medium income projects, like there's one called Bear
Creek or something like that, three or four stories apartments, I think
they'd pass through the system with flying colors in the end. So --
especially in this particular area, because it's a working area. It would
be great to have affordable housing near businesses that are now said
to be in that area, plus the amount that they've now said are within a
mile to come up.
So I think this is the best of all worlds we could hope for a
property like this. So on that end, I would encourage it to go forward.
Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I have another question for
Nick, when you're done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm finished. Nick gets to walk back up
here again.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Y ovanovich brought up the
possibility of access off of Airport. Do you foresee that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not in the -- we may evaluate an out
access only. We wouldn't give them an in on Airport Road.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So then all the -- not all, but
Page 32
March 17, 2008
most of the traffic is going to come in through Orange Blossom.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. Your approach in the
turn lane requirements at Airport are too close to the intersection. So
you may give them an out only to head southbound, but not an in.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. I'm sure like you, you'd
much rather see an access somewhere off airport so we're not
overloading Orange Blossom.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And the problem -- we definitely want
to interconnect, as mentioned by Commissioner Murray. So if the
project to the south was approved, we would put an interconnection
design in there.
What might happen is that once the project to the south is
developed, you would have an access point there that could be shared.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: What if it's not developed?
Then we're just going to have to sit and wait?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, the access would be up Orange
Blossom, and maybe an out only on Airport.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay, thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: David, one of the staff
recommendations is that if we go with this, it's the second alternative,
to merge these two applications into a single district? Can you explain
that to the advantages and disadvantages?
MR. WEEKS: One presumed advantage has to do with the
interconnection between the projects. A second from an administrative
perspective, our Future Land Use Map is getting filled up with these
tiny little colors for these individual subdistricts. And because these
two projects are side by side and at least, based on their initial
submittals, they were asking for virtually identical uses, with the
notable exception of the Italian-American Club use itself, but as far as
Page 33
March 17, 2008
the commercial uses, they were very similar. Combining the two made
a lot of sense to us.
There could still be the individuality in the sense of treating them
as two separate parcels of land, each with their own allocated square
footage. And if there are distinctions in the use, that could be spelled
out as well.
We have precedent for that already where a subdistrict references
more than one property, but yet being combined into a single
subdistrict means less mapping to our Future Land Use Map, and also
less text in the element itself. But that might seem like a trivial point.
But again, if you look at that Future Land Use Map, it's getting
cluttered. Any time we can cut down, that would be a preference.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Corby, appreciate it.
Are there any other questions of the applicant from the planning
commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: One.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is the applicant averse to what
was just related to -- averse to the second alternative, or are they open
to the second alternative, combining?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: What we don't want to see happen is that
we're somehow forced into some type of partnership between the two
five-acre parcels. If you're simply saying this one district is going to
be the X, Y, Z district and we get what we've asked for and they get
what they asked for and there's no requirement that there be a joint site
plan and that there be a, you know, joint development order or a joint
rezone, we could probably work through that. But if we get to where
Page 34
March 17, 2008
we have to come in as one 10-acre project, we don't want to be forced
into that situation, and I don't think the property owner to the south
wants to be in that situation either.
We have different goals and objectives, I think, and it might be
hard to put that kind of a partnership together. But if you were to
simply call it one district and it's essentially two separate parcels with
everybody gets their own stuff, they come in with their own rezone,
probably not an issue.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: One second then. If! may,
David, is the intent to draw them together in the manner in which he's
just concerned about?
MR. WEEKS: I'll admit that if it came in as a single rezone, I
think that would be a benefit to that as well, but that's not something
staff is pushing for. Principally it's to have a single subdistrict and to
have a firm requirement for interconnection between the projects.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. That limitation seems
reasonable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, David, if your alternative was
suggested, how do you see us proceeding with that? How does that
happen between -- in this cycle?
MR. WEEKS: A question first, and actually it's going to tie in
with the next petition as well, but the first would be to Mr.
Y ovanovich.
When do they anticipate submitting their data and analysis for
this petition with the changes that have been made? And then we'd
have the same question for the next applicant. My understanding, I
hope it's correct, is that they also are interested in rolling back their
use intensity as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But David, before he answers
your question, let's roll back some time.
MR. WEEKS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The 28th is our next meeting. That
Page 35
March 17, 2008
means we'd have to have our packages by the 21st.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Not going to make that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's six days away. That means they'd
have to submit and your department would have to analyze, provide in
writing the analysis to get it to us by the 21 st. Knowing from past
experience, I doubt if that will happen.
MR. WEEKS: That's not going to happen.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the data and analysis, if Richard's
going to respond to you, certainly isn't going to help to have it -- we
can't do it by the 28th. So I think it's an adoption data and analysis
package that you'd be seeing. And you'd have to have it received in
enough time to provide you time to get back to us prior to our packet
being distributed for the adoption hearing.
MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Richard -- yes, sir?
MR. COHEN: If you did decide to recommend transmittal, it
would have to be done with the caveat of the modified data and
analysis, as well as with addressing the unified transportation plan, as
set forth by Mr. Casalanguida.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, understand.
Now, can you, by the adoption process time frame, provide the
information needed that Mr. Weeks is looking for?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Regarding the data and analysis, that's not
an issue. Sure, we can have that in plenty of time for the staff report to
be prepared for the adoption hearings to the planning commission.
One other issue. Let us not forget that your comprehensive plan
already requires interconnection. So to put us together into one
subdistrict just to say you're going to do interconnection is really not
necessary, since the comprehensive plan already requires the
interconnection.
What I don't want to be is in a situation when we get to the
adoption hearing and for whatever reason we haven't reached an
Page 36
March 17, 2008
agreement with our neighbor as to exact design of that
interconnection, where the -- because I don't think either one of us are
far enough long in our site plans to identify how the roadway system
will be laid out as part of the comprehensive plan. I know -- and it's
tough to see the different colors, especially at that scale. But to just put
it together simply because of an interconnection issue doesn't make
any sense, since it's already required. And we understand that and I'm
assuming our property owner to the south also understands that we do
have to interconnect for their traffic to come through us and for us to
go through them.
I'd just as soon leave it alone. Because again, I don't want to get
-- what happens if we get transmitted together and then at adoption for
whatever reason you decide to scale back and give one and not the
other adoption? I don't want that -- I don't want -- and I don't think the
property owner to the south wants to be tied to us and we don't want to
be tied to them at the adoption hearing. Because I'd hate for you to say
well, it got transmitted as a 10-acre subdistrict, we'd only like to adopt
one or the other, and now what do you do? You're going to scale it
back? I think they could be analyzed separately with the
understanding that that interconnection is already required under the
compo plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, you had a question?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Pursuing that further, because it
is -- I could appreciate what your concern would be. But I'm just
wondering, if we were to take that premise and go forward with it for
every person who came here, every petitioner, we'd have dots all over.
Little tiny dots would be representing subdistricts. There has to be at
some point something that makes sense. And I'm trying to understand
the real validity of your concern.
David is on record as indicating he doesn't want to -- he'd like to
Page 37
March 17, 2008
but he's not inclined to make it a matter of you being -- of conforming,
okay, under one rezone. So that identification seems to be valid. What
-- really, what basis do you have to assume that there may be a
lopsided situation developing? I mean, I want to understand that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I didn't say it would develop, I just don't
want to have it all done by adoption. I mean, I think -- I don't know
that it will be able to get the details done as far as the intersection,
where, what it will look like at the adoption hearing. If we're simply
getting pushed together simply because of interconnection, it doesn't
make any sense to me, since your comprehensive plan already
requires interconnection.
And virtually every rezone that's come through in the last several
hearings, there have been -- you have forced interconnection through
those rezones. And I'm not -- you're implementing that compo plan
provision. So I think that they could still be analyzed separately, even
though you end up -- all he was really suggesting is instead of, you
know, a purple box and a yellow box side by side, he'd like to have
one big yellow box.
The uses would be separate anyway and the rezones would be
separate anyway. So what have we accomplished other than we have
one yellow box instead of a --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I could think from a tracking
point of view, from an administrative point of view, it certainly is
logical for them to want to keep the districts and subdistricts down to
where they can manage them. Because as we go forward, the growth
of them -- I'm not going to make it a big issue for me certainly, but I
think that your concern, and you're always a good person for that, you
have good concerns, but it might be a little bit excessive in this case.
I would like to -- I think staff has provided an alternative that
seems reasonable, and I thought that there's a greater potential for true
inter-connectivity with them being in the one subdistrict. Maybe I'm
wrong, but that's my thought.
Page 38
March 17, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, the applicant's concerns could be
valid, especially if there's a modification of one or the other as it goes
through the process. Are you -- is this something that you feel is an
absolute necessity, or can we continue as we have in the past and let
each applicant stand on its own subdistrict? Because we've had a list
of them already in the FLUE. Is there something that makes that just
problematic?
MR. WEEKS: It's not a necessity, it's a preference.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the preference is mostly for the
appearance on the graphics for this subdistrict?
MR. WEEKS: The graphics as the main concern, the text as well.
Each time we do this, we're adding more text. The elements getting
thicker and thicker, but the elements are the biggest concern.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The graphics being the FLUE map, so--
MR. WEEKS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- when you look at the map, instead of
seeing two colors, you see one color.
MR. WEEKS: And one listing instead of two over in the legend.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. WEEKS: Because eventually that box at the legend is
getting fuller and fuller. It's going to force the legend box to get larger,
the map itself to get smaller.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. And you could put the legend
box on a separate page, right behind the map.
MR. WEEKS: Ifwe have to. That's less convenient. Convenient,
that's less --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just think what's driving your point is
interesting.
Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: On that same note, David, I
don't know if we have the right to force property owners to join
together where each other I'm sure knew they were all coming in here.
Page 39
March 17, 2008
If they sat down together, if they could resolve something, they
would have. I don't know if we have the right to force them to do it
just so we could have pretty colors on a chart.
MR. WEEKS: I think we can. I think what we cannot force them
to do is develop together. I would agree with that. I don't think we can
make them come in as a single project for rezoning; I don't think we
can make them come in as an individual site plan; I don't think we can
force that at all. I think our attorney's office will agree with that.
But as far as putting them into a single subdistrict, I don't share
Rich's concern.
Again, I want to make it clear that the intent of staff would be to
keep -- if it was combined into a single subdistrict, to keep it as two
separate tracts, two separate identified uses and use intensities.
Because there are differences, most notably the square footages and
the fact that again, that the subject site has the Italian-American
Clubhouse as a use, which the southerly tract, the next petition, does
not.
But again, I stand by our position, our preference.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And it's a preference only.
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In a worst case condition for the
petitioner, if the subdistrict were formed with the two and one of them
should fail, not this petitioner, but the other, the subdistrict would
nevertheless remain, would it not, because it would have -- or would it
not? What would happen in that instance?
MR. WEEKS: If -- back up. Which are you referring to,
transmitted --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah.
MR. WEEKS: -- I mean adopted as a single subdistrict or as two
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let's say -- I failed to give you an
Page 40
March 17, 2008
adequate description, sorry.
Let's say we went ahead and we approved, we agreed to a unified
subdistrict with the intent of developing the two tracts separately,
okay, and it went forward. And for whatever reason it -- one of them
didn't work out. In other words, at the rezoning or whatever, that didn't
work out.
That still remains that subdistrict then, does it not, if it were
approved by the DCA?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that would remain and it
would be a whole new set ofwhoevers that would come in to play.
Okay, so I don't see a down side on that, necessarily.
MR. WEEKS: I don't see that as being any different than if two
separate subdistricts were approved, one rezone got approved and the
other denied.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. I'm just trying to figure
out ifthere's anything that's significant to this that we need to relate to.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And David, this thing, the
five-acre site, would it be eligible for a PUD? So the 10-acre
requirement --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's infill.
MR. WEEKS: Yes. Yes, it would, qualifying as a -- under the
infill exception in the PUD definition in the LDC.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think we've -- unless anybody
has any other questions of anyone, I think we've exhausted our
questions here today.
With that, we should have some discussion before I ask for a
motion on this matter.
As far as discussion goes, I would suggest that if we want to go
Page 41
March 17, 2008
with the affirmative for transmittal, that we would recommend that
new data and analysis be provided by the adoption hearing, and that
the conceptual intersection plan be worked out and presented by that
time frame as well.
David, did I miss anything?
MR. WEEKS: The requirement for interconnection. I know Rich
has mentioned that that's something that's already required, but
typically we place that right into a subdistrict, if that's the desire of the
county, to place it right in the subdistrict, that interconnection be
required.
The second thing has to do with the language itself. The language
that has been submitted to you not -- to go on to the point if staff has
not reviewed their data and analysis, but their language itself is a
modification of their originally submitted language. And as you look
in your staff report, the first alternative of staffs is that recognizing --
and we do this for all the petitions. If we do not recommend approval,
we nonetheless will tweak the language that has been submitted by the
applicant, just to put it into proper format, code language, sometimes
clarity.
That objective not being to change the intent, simply to clean it
up, if you will. And that's what appears in your staff report as that first
alternative.
What has been submitted to you today again is a modification of
their original language. So I'm hoping that there's a way -- and that's
what's difficult about having language at the last minute, is try to
merge the newly submitted language with the modified version that
staff has recommended as their alternative, that cleanup.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, so on top of the other two
things I mentioned, you're suggesting that requirements for
interconnection be included in the subdistrict language; that the -- we
would use the applicant's language, if we so choose, subject to staffs
cleanup by the adoption hearing. Is that a fair statement?
Page 42
March 17, 2008
MR. WEEKS: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There are -- those four criteria
would be ones that if we saw reason to transmit, that would be
suggested as being included. We could also find a reason not to
transmit. I don't have any. But if someone does and wishes to make a
motion in that regard, in either way we are looking now for a motion.
Is there any other discussion before the motion?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll make a motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray -- go ahead, Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing I'd like to talk about,
and maybe get your response, is that I still have a concern in terms of
the density. This is an urban area; we're putting in almost a suburban
kind of density. Is that good planning or is that -- what is that? I mean,
just look at the drawing we have on the thing, we have six lanes
heading west. That means that residential properties heading west to
go shop, to go to offices and stuff. I mean, that's a sign of sprawl, just
having that drawing that's on the monitor.
So am I wrong in having that be a concern, or --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Brad, if you were to try to increase
the intensity on this to try to remove the maximum square footage, I
personally would be voting against it. I don't follow your philosophy.
So I don't agree with you, okay? Now, others may, and that's up to the
motion maker, if you want to -- Bob at least was the first one to make
the motion, but you're more than welcome to make a second motion if
the first does not survive and put your criteria on there.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, and it's not that I want to
mess up the motion, I certainly support the thing. It's just that I have
that concern, and I'll let that concern lie.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we'll ask for -- Mr.
Murray, you had indicated you wanted to make a motion?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I would -- get my house in
Page 43
March 17, 2008
order here. And we're referencing CP-2006 --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seven.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- what are we referencing?
Seven.
I would recommend that we approve or recommend approval to
transmittal, or as transmittal -- I'm not quite clear on the language on
how to relate to this. But in any event, subject to the four criteria that
have been cited by the Chair and are part of the record.
And I would just make a comment or ask for a second first.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's get a second first before we go to
discussion.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti seconded it.
Okay. Now, discussion.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would just make a comment
with regard to this. It's an interesting question that Brad raises,
because I tend to understand the smart growth parts of it; however,
there have been other statements made regarding the urbanization area
and how much -- the urbanization of the area and how much that
really represents. But I also wanted to make a comment about what I
thought was a truly innovative way of making something happen. The
physical plant of the Italian-American Club is old now. It needs to be
changed, it needs to be upgraded. It's a great community service that
they provide. It's a not-for-profit. They're going to -- by upgrading
they're going to use the value of their property to get something else to
occupy it. That will generate some money that would allow for some
work to be done on our roads. I think it's a win/win all the way. And
I'm very happy to see this here. So that's my --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, there's been a motion seconded.
Mr. -- go ahead, Mr. Cohen.
MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, we did have one speaker on this
item, which was a Mr. Joseph DeNunzio.
Page 44
March 17,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm sorry, sir, were you on--
MR. DeNUNZIO: I don't know that I need to speak, if the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to apologize and tell you
we're sorry, we will hold off on the vote until you spoke. But if you're
-- the recommendation is for approval, so you may want to see how
this goes before we on --
MR. DeNUNZIO: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
The speaker has declined.
Any other discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I will be voting against the motion,
because I have a fundamental problem with amending our Growth
Management Plan as a funding mechanism for someone. Wonderful as
the Italian-American Club is, I just have a fundamental issue with that.
I also think that intensifying the uses here in terms of
commercial, in this case office and -- is not needed. We have more
than enough planned, approved and built within a mile of this area. I
think they should be using the uses that they're entitled to now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other comments?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just maybe to help Donna come
this way.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't think you need me to.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When -- you know, when you
asked that answer -- you know, that question being do we ever do
Growth Management Plans to help people fund projects, the answer
was no. But I think absolutely yes. Everybody's building buildings to
fund themselves or their projects. I mean, I can't see where this is any
different.
Page 45
March 17, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And my position on this, as I
stated earlier, I certainly am in favor of it. I think that the uses that
could go here under the current zoning without this GMP could be far
more intensive than this. I think this is a good compromise to what
was originally suggested. So I heartily support it. And I guess that's
the last comment.
I'll call for the vote. All those in favor of the motion to transmit,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
MR. MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
MR. WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion carries 6-1.
Did I count that right, Cherie'? Thank you.
Thank you all for attending. And with that, we're going to take a
break till five after 10:00. And when we come back, we'll resume the
Orange Blossom commercial subdistrict. Thank you.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if everybody will resume their
seats, we'll go on with our meeting.
Item #4E
PETITION: CP-2006-8
The next petition up today is CP-2006-8, the Airport/Orange
Blossom Commercial Subdistrict Growth Management Plan
Page 46
March 17, 2008
Amendment.
Would all those wishing to speak on behalf of this amendment
please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Okay, does staff have any opening comments on this one?
MR. WEEKS: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, then the presentation
by the applicant.
MR. WHITE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
planning commission.
Under ethnic diversity I'm going to wish you all a happy St.
Patrick's Day. I know Nick spoke up for the Italians, that's part of my
heritage as well, but by namesake I have to at least put on the record
wishing you all a happy St. Patrick's Day, and Erin Go Bragh.
Present today representing the owner of the property, which is Corradi
Airport, Inc. Its president is Michael Corradi. He's here today. He's
owned the property close to four years.
I am newly retained as of late last week as land use counsel on
the project. We have letters of authorization that are being provided to
staff and to your minute keeper.
Probably goes without saying, I'm with the Naples office of the
Law Firm of Porter, Wright, Morris and Arthur.
With me today is Dwight Nadeau ofRW A, is our Principal
Planner. We also have present Russ Weyer of Fishkind and
Associates, one of their senior associates doing our needs analysis.
For transportation analysis purposes we have Bijay Cornala with
David Plummer and Associates. And I believe that completes the
team.
My point before you today simply will be to give you a brief
overview of what we're proposing. I guess to some degree the cat's a
little out of the bag, that like the prior petitioner we are similarly going
Page 47
March 17, 2008
to be proposing, I guess the phrase may be, a rollback or a less intense
proposal.
I'll give you a brief overview of what those changes are. Then our
team members will give more detailed presentations in their area as a
professional expertise. And lastly, I'd like to reserve some time to
come back and respond to certain questions that -- not only of
substance about the proposal as we're suggesting to modify it, but also
about the process in terms of how we would proceed in some fashion
to move forward in this cycle, if possible.
As the last person on to our team, I've had the challenge of
getting up to speed on not only the application as originally proposed
but as well modifications.
As we'd indicated, our five-acre site, roughly 330 feet south of
the intersection of Orange Blossom and Airport, the southwest quad, is
one that proposes a subdistrict that is essentially a commercial set of
uses. We're proposing to reduce overall those commercial uses in
terms of their intensity to a maximum of 12,000 square feet, one-fifth
roughly of what we previously were proposing as our actual office
uses. Because all of the uses that we're looking for at this point are
ones that are essentially professional office and in that category. And
Dwight will give you the details of those parameters.
There would be no change to the subdistrict title. We do have
text changes that we were able to provide your staff electronically
latter part of last week. They've only had an opportunity to make a
very cursory review. And we've only had some preliminary
discussions with Mr. Cohen and Mr. Schmidt about how we might
proceed after today.
And as we go through those aspects in our presentation and the
staff presentation, I'm hopeful that we'll be able to not only give them
the hard copies of the changes today, which we do have available, but
also the one or two pages I believe in the actual application that
otherwise as well would have to be changed.
Page 48
March 17, 2008
We have prepared a revised needs analysis based on our change
to the proposal, as well as a transportation analysis. And I'll allow
each of our experts to talk about those. But I think there's clearly
sufficient evidence that the needs that we're proposing for the balance
of the site as a type of assisted living facility or senior living facility is
one that we have presently an end use for and believe is one that the
needs analysis will demonstrate in detail to both the staff and
hopefully to this commission soon that are supported by the record.
We understand that any discussion certainly would include a
review as well by the county attorney's office, and we're optimistic
that we potentially can make a time line to come back with a more
detailed -- excuse me, or a more -- I guess a final presentation, if it
would be this commission's desire on the 28th.
We would prefer if we can to not have to do this on a kind of
if-come basis, similar to the prior presentation, believing that we have
gone the distance to obtain the necessary data and analysis, and to
have done a revised transportation analysis for trip generation as well.
With those comments made, I'd just simply like to reserve some
time at the end of our presentation, even if necessary after the staff, so
that we can have a conversation about how we might hopefully
proceed with this, with what I'm also hopeful will be a
recommendation of approval for transmittal.
If there are any preliminary questions, I'd be happy to try to
address them now; otherwise, I'd just turn things over to Mr. Nadeau.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it's okay with the planning
commission, we might be better served to listen to the whole
presentation before we -- some of our questions may be answered
then. So why don't we just continue.
MR. WHITE: Okay, thank you.
Dwight?
MR. NADEAU: Thank you, Patrick.
For the record, my name is Dwight Nadeau; I'm Planning
Page 49
March 17,2008
Manager for RW A. I'm representing the applicant this morning,
Corradi Airport, Inc.
I have a small housekeeping matter I'd like to identify on the staff
report.
The staff report identifies the applicant and owner's address to be
Michael Corradi at 1580 East 40th Terrace Southwest, Naples,
Florida, 34116. In fact, as stated previously, the applicant is Corradi
Airport, Inc., in whose address is correctly identified in the application
to be 740 West Street, Naples, Florida, 34108. And that's just provided
for the record.
The proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment CPO-68 is
a five-acre parcel located approximately 330 feet south of the
intersection of Airport Road and Orange Blossom Drive. It's in
Section 2, Township 49, Range 25 east.
As you know, this petition was submitted in April of2006. And
the basis of approval was, and data analysis was, based on the
information that was available at that time, and had no foresight that
there would be a change in our market conditions that have recently
occurred.
So with those changes, significant sufficiency effort was required
to address the transportation economic market demand issues to
support the original request for a commercial subdistrict of up to
50,000 square feet, of which 30,000 square feet would be of retail land
uses and 20,000 square feet of office land uses.
Recent developments, including the staff report recommendation
not to transmit the proposed amendment, has given the applicant cause
to formally request an intensity reduction for the proposed subdistrict.
We have formally noticed staff of the reduction and have provided
new subdistrict language to staff, as well as supporting documentation
from a transportation and an economic standpoint.
Just want to let the record show that the proposed Airport/Orange
Blossom commercial subdistrict is now to provide for elderly housing
Page 50
March 17, 2008
in an institutional type of land use, such as assisted living or
continuing care retirement communities, as well as to provide for no
more than 12,000 square feet of professional office.
We currently have a letter of intent from an elderly housing
assisted living facility provider, and they're looking at approximately
four acres of the five-acre parcel.
The remaining slightly over one acre of the remaining five-acre
parcel would be that -- those lands identified for the professional
commercial office land uses, not to exceed 12,000 square feet.
We've concluded that while the ALF is not a -- is a conditional
use in the agricultural zone, it would not require the Growth
Management Plan Amendment that's before you today. But for the
purposes of the subdistrict providing for the professional office land
uses if the elderly housing use were not identified in the subdistrict,
they may not be permitted. So this is just providing for the opportunity
in the proposed subdistrict that could be followed through with a PUD
zoning at a later date, should we be successful in the Growth
Management Plan Amendment process.
The language of the subdistrict related to compatibility measures
with adjacent properties would remain and would restrict building
heights to be comparable with the -- excuse me, to establish setbacks
that would be comparable with the building heights themselves.
Therefore, there would be a one-foot setback for every one foot of
building height, with a minimum being added into those standards of
15 feet.
We would be limiting our -- still and continue to limit our
building heights to three stories. And that our access would remain on
Airport Road in potentially a right-in, right-out condition, which
would be shared access with the ALF user, as well as the professional
office type user.
And from a perspective of professional offices, we're looking at
either regular professional offices or medical offices. Potentially a
Page 51
March 17, 2008
financial institution, but as was stated in the previous petition, it would
be a usual branch bank, three, 4,000 square feet and potentially
professional office associated beyond that financial institution bank
use.
The proposed language will incorporate four of the five
conditions attached to the staff report.
This petition was found to be consistent with Policy 5.1 of the
transportation element and that no mitigation was offered as a part of
those analyses or updated transportation analysis. Therefore, we
would object to condition C where the district would require a
proportional share payment or participation in the intersection
improvements for Airport/Orange Blossom Road.
We feel that based on the fact that the proposal, in its original
form and certainly in the amended form, would have less than a
significant impact on either Airport Road or Orange Blossom, that
being less than two percent, that mitigation wouldn't be required, and
is premature in this Growth Management Plan Amendment process.
While we don't do concurrency reviews and zoning, it would be a
better indication as to whether or not there was going to be a
significant impact on those roadways. And we'd like to defer that
commitment for participating in the intersection improvements until
it's been found that we are required to participate in those intersection
improvements.
To discuss the effects of the proposed subdistrict intensity
reduction, I'd like to introduce Bijay Cornala of David Plummer &
Associates. He'll be followed by Russ Weyer, of Fish kind, and he'll
also discuss the demands for office space and the senior living and
why it's appropriate at this location.
Following Mr. Weyer's presentation, Pat and I will discuss any
procedural issues or matters that we should talk about.
I'd be happy to answer any questions right now, if you have any.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question.
Page 52
March 17, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Hello, sir.
MR. NADEAU: Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Your applicant, do they
understand and agree to the concept of inter-connectivity?
MR. NADEAU: We understand that it's a growth management
mandate and would be a part of the zoning. We have some concerns
from our proposed land use of the senior living having interconnect in
a manner that would be something more intrusive than potentially a
frontage road. They would like to keep as much non-project related or
non-ALF or medical office traffic, vehicular traffic in no more than a
frontage road configuration.
So we wouldn't want to loop outside traffic through the private
facilities of the assisted living. That's their greatest concern.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you're saying that the assisted
living facility is an absolute, you're going to get that?
MR. NADEAU: Well, we feel--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're not going to come up to
us later on with another alternative?
MR. NADEAU: We feel fairly confident that this will work. It's
just that they wouldn't be integrated into the -- the vehicular
interconnection would not be a direct tie to the senior living parcel. It
could be created in a form of a frontage road and allow the proper
throat depth off of Airport Road --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay.
MR. NADEAU: -- to allow for the interconnect.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good. I'm glad you clarified that.
Because irrespective of which way you go, inter-connectivity is the
criterion that I'm citing as you have to -- you acknowledge.
MR. NADEAU: Absolutely. Understood.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Predicated on that, don't
you think that inasmuch as some of the traffic that you're going to
Page 53
March 17,2008
have going out through the other parcel potentially, don't you have
any impact on that intersection?
MR. NADEAU: Currently our analysis does not have any
interconnection to Orange Blossom. We in discussion with staff have
limited all of our trips only to Airport Road.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. All right, I see where
you're going. I'm not happy about it, but I see where you're going.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant
before we hear the rest of their presentation?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, you're next.
MR. CORNALA: Good morning. For the record, my name is
Bijay Cornala, and I am a Transportation Engineer with David
Plummer & Associates, Fort Myers.
We prepared the traffic impact statement -- the traffic analysis for
the Airport/Orange Blossom compo plan amendment in April of 2006.
Based on the changes, we were asked by the staff to revise that report
this year early on in February.
So we prepared an updated traffic analysis and provided it to the
staff on February 1 st. And the staff reviewed it and they had a few
comments.
We had a discussion with the staff and tried to resolve some of
the issues, and we prepared a sufficiency response to address all those
comments and provided the staff with an updated report again on
February 19th to address all those comments.
The staff reviewed the updated traffic analysis and provided us
with a satisfactory -- and found us to be consistent with Policy 5.1 of
the transportation element of the Growth Management Plan.
The project is now proposing a reduction in intensity of the uses
on the site. And we evaluated the number of trips that would be
generated by the new uses, and we also prepared a memo and
provided that to the staff again to compare the trips that were
Page 54
March 17,2008
estimated as part of the earlier submittal, as well as the new reduction
in the intensity.
We found out that with the highest intensity possible under the
reduced intensity, we would be generating approximately equal
number of trips to the earlier submittal. And with the lower threshold,
we would be generating approximately 29 percent reduction in the
number of trips.
So we provided this analysis to the staff and that's where we are
as far as the traffic analysis is concerned.
If you have any questions, I would be glad to answer those.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions on the traffic issues?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, sir.
MR. WEYER: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
planning commission.
For the record, I'm Russ Weyer, I'm a Senior Associate with
Fishkind & Associates. And we've also been working on this project
for a couple of years and have been going back and forth with staff on
sufficiency. And I think we ran into the same issues that the previous
applicant did in terms of supply and demand.
So now that we have a new land use coming forward, they had
asked us to take a look at that in terms of again supply and demand
here in Collier County.
So we took a look at the assisted living facilities that are
currently the present. The way we did the analysis to begin with, we
look at the population over 65, and we took the BEBR numbers that
were recently released, which would be April of 1997 (sic). And they
just released -- and they're always a year behind.
And when you take that, and in terms of the United States census,
which our population is -- 24 percent of our population is over 65 here
in the county.
So if you take that into consideration, and the BEBR numbers are
Page 55
March 17, 2008
334,000, roughly, that means we have an overpopulation of--
population over -- not overpopulation -- population over 65 of roughly
81,000.
And we've studied this around the state, Fishkind has, and we
have the backup data that we'll provide at a later date, that
approximately for every 1,000 people over 65, there are 27 beds
generally that are needed in terms of assisted living facilities.
I'm using that ratio. The demand for our senior assisted living
beds here in Collier County would be roughly 2,200. And currently in
20 facilities we have almost 1,700. So we have a shortage of beds here
in Collier County. That results in that deficit of almost 500.
It is also our opinion that this is a great location for this site. As
you know, behind it is the -- adjacent to it is the Carlisle Senior Living
Center there on Orange Blossom, and also about a half mile north is
the Harbor Chase Assisted Living Facility. So that area has already
had assisted living facilities in the place.
It is also very good because of its location to the North Naples
Collier Medical facility. And also again because of -- it's located to
those other sites.
With regard to the proposed 12,000 square feet of commercial
office along Airport, again we know the supply and demand issues
that we're having there. It is a small amount.
Our recommendation, there are a couple of uses there. One is a
bank. I know the previous applicant had talked about a bank as well.
There are no banks on that corner. There are at both activity centers
north and south. And we have provided staff with a map of all of those
banks that are there.
But there is a demand for banks to come into the area, and they
are looking for sites as well.
But we also think that it would be a great use for medical office,
be tied right there with the assisted living facility, very close by and
also with the other assisted living facilities nearby as well.
Page 56
March 17,2008
So that's been our update at this point, and I'd be happy to take
any questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Hi. The calculations that were
made, now, you unintentionally cited 1997. I'm quite certain you
meant 2007.
MR. WEYER: I meant 2007, yes. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What I want to understand is that
-- and let me preface this by saying I believe I understand that your
organization uses certain method. You have a calculation; you have a
-- I'm trying to think of the right word -- where you hit the key and
like an Excel with a lot of data changes so you can get a quick update.
How recent are the data that we have here relative to when you were
first commissioned to doing it? I think you cited two years ago, was
it?
MR. WEYER: Yes, Mr. Murray, that data that we did -- worked
on two years ago was for a different analysis. That was the
commercial retail side.
We haven't updated that at this point. We did do a quick update.
Staff had asked us for a map of the market area, and that was -- when
we submitted that, was that the last we had heard. Again, it was two
years out of date. But the stuff for the assisted living facility, all that
data is all up to date.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's good.
MR. WEYER: That's as current as you can get.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But that you're already entitled to
if you had wanted to go forward without a GMP A.
So what I'm concerned about is that whereas I don't know about
Mohlke, I do know that you have the means by which you can make
changes fairly rapidly. And I'm just wondering, were you not
commissioned to do that inasmuch as you guys decided to drop the
number down?
Page 57
March 17,2008
MR. WEYER: David, we were commissioned to do that at this
point. We were concerned about the assisted living facility, not the
retail users.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So how close are the data? I
mean, how reliable are they for us? What can we -- can we use them,
can we --
MR. WEYER: In terms of the --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In terms of the 12,000 squares.
MR. WEYER: Yes. Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that is true because?
MR. WEYER: Well, the demand is such a small piece that --
again, we haven't done that analysis yet in terms of the three-mile and
the one mile, which we will be providing hopefully in the next week
or so as --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So in other words you expect to
be commissioned to do that?
MR. WEYER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's one of those things that 1--
MR. WEYER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- think that -- it seemed to me, I
may be wrong, but it seemed to me there were three outstanding
factors here that I don't think we saw.
But okay, I don't want to put you through the grill, that's not what
I'm attempting to do. But, you know, certain issues where I know you
have the, I'll call it, relative ease to do things, I would have thought in
anticipation of this morning that the petitioner would have given you
that commission.
MR. WEYER: Understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Cohen?
MR. COHEN: Mr. Weyer, just to clarify the record, you
mentioned that there were 1,700. Is that existing beds?
MR. WEYER: That's correct.
Page 58
March 17, 2008
MR. COHEN: Okay. If this board recalls, you've acted on two
facilities of similar nature. The board has approved one and they've
got another one up for consideration on April the 8th. So those
numbers would need to be tied into that figure as well too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. WEYER: We will make sure that that gets --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Randy.
MR. WEYER: -- updated.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Except that I don't recall that
being an ALF. That one was --
MR. COHEN: They're independent living facilities.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Independent. And they stressed
that it wasn't an ALF. So I don't know. I could be wrong.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any questions on Mr.
Weyer's side of it right now before we get back to the applicant in
general?
Go ahead, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Just to follow up on that.
You were talking ALF, not independent living, correct?
MR. WEYER: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, sir.
MR. WEYER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I for one am concerned. And Patrick, I
think you finished your presentation, so we're going to ask questions.
Is that where we're at?
MR. WHITE: Yeah, that's what I'm here for.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't know about the rest of the
commission. My concern with this piece of property is going to be
now on its interconnection to Orange Blossom and its tie into the
traffic system. And I really would like Nick to talk with us about what
is ideal for the county as a result of this particular application.
Page 59
March 17,2008
MR. WHITE: Just comment that the interconnection as I
understand it doesn't change the significant and adverse task, but
certainly we have an interest in working with the county and the
landowner to the north.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida with
Transportation.
Interconnection is required by our GMP, so we'd be looking for
interconnection with this project. The project wouldn't be punished for
interconnecting; in other words, the adverse effect on Orange
Blossom.
We would recommend that they participate in that fair share of
that intersection improvement and provide interconnection.
The analysis for the comprehensive plan amendment is consistent
with what they provided, which is a two percent impact on Airport, so
you kind of stop. You do look at the intersection. So although my staff
had commented that they meet the significant requirements in the test
for 5.1, they are recommending that they provide some contribution
towards that intersection improvement.
As Mr. Murray pointed out, we do require and recommend an
interconnection.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, they're suggesting that Item Cis
not needed. Can you comment on that? I don't know if you're familiar
with what Item C is. I can read it to you, if you'd like.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Please do, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was added by staff under their
alternative, should we recommend to transmit in case we did vote
against them.
It says, the subject property cannot be issued certificates of
occupancy until the property owner enters into a DCA with Collier
County BCC. To pay a proportionate share of improvements to
Orange Blossom Drive, which is scheduled to fail inside the five-year
Page 60
March 17, 2008
planning period, and the intersection of Orange Blossom Drive and
Airport Pulling Road, as mitigation further impacts the intersection of
the local network.
Now, they wanted that removed, or not be subject to that. What's
your thoughts on that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't agree with that. We don't have
that intersection funded. They should participate in that solution. That
interconnection would alleviate trips through the intersection. Getting
that intersection funded and improved would greatly increase the
ability for that intersection to function properly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and while they acknowledge that
they may not have as much of an impact on the intersection as the
applicants prior to us, and therefore they don't believe they need to
come under the DCA application here, but wouldn't the DCA
agreement take into consideration the intensity of their impact on that
intersection?
I mean, you're not going to say to them that well, now that we've
got you you're going to pay 90 percent and everybody else is 10. You
basically are going to look at a fair and equitable solution to a
proportionate share for that intersection. Is that fair?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir, that's fair.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of
transportation?
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's why they call it
proportionate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just wanted to make sure
everybody understood it.
Thank you, Nick.
Now, questions of the applicant.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Patrick, just to make sure I
understand it, it's a five-acre site, you want 12,000 square feet of
Page 61
March 17,2008
commercial retail use.
MR. WHITE: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
MR. WHITE: Not retail. Office.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Office use.
MR. WHITE: Right, professional office.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No retail uses.
MR. WHITE: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And if you build the assisted
living, would that be included in that square footage?
MR. WHITE: No, they're separate.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So is there any limit on the size
of that?
MR. WHITE: I think your other regulatory processes create
limits for it. We've also specified a height and setback limit generally,
and I think that that's the way that it would operate under existing
processes, existing regulations.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So --
MR. WHITE: I don't know if the staff would like to have some
parameter or not, but certainly it's something we'd be willing to
consider as some theoretical maximum.
I harken back to Rich's commentary about isn't it more a function
I think of zoning at times than certainly compo planning.
But like I said before, if staff has a position on it, we'd be happy
to entertain and consider it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David?
MR. WEEKS: Staff does. And once again, we do need to
establish the parameters. In this particular case, we just simply need to
add a reference to the Land Development Code as in effect -- in effect
as of the date of -- excuse me, the Land Development Code as of the
effective date of this amendment.
MR. WHITE: And that's certainly acceptable. It's understood.
Page 62
March 17, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, David, in the past -- Brad,
I'm sorry, did you want --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have one more question, but go
ahead.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In the past we've had two
applications come forward. Both have had a deviation from what the
Land Development Code says. And basically they wanted .6 instead of
.45. In this case by this language wouldn't you be limiting it to .45 so
there'd be no option for a variance to go against the Land
Development Code unless they come back in and change the LDC?
Because the LDC in effect at this time is .45.
MR. WHITE: I might want to argue that the LDC allows for
those types of deviations. I don't know that we need or want one, but
just as a matter of pure legal principle.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that, Patrick. My question was
not whether or not it allows it. I know it allows it. My question was if
you have it in the GMP, it has to be -- the ACLF can be pursuant to
the effect at this time. Does that mean they can't ask for a deviation
pursuant to the LDC, so it can go anywhere?
MR. WEEKS: That would be my reading of it. We're simply
deferring to the LDC and if the LDC in turn has its own deviation
provision, so be it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was trying to get at.
MR. WHITE: I'm not making that as a statement of what our
intent is, but just simply recognizing that's the way the law would
operate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
And Mr. Schiffer, your turn. Thanks for letting me interrupt.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah.
And then you would -- in other words, when you subdivide this
property you would obviously have a floor area ratio for the assisted
living.
Page 63
March 17, 2008
Is there any minimum acreage you would have to put this 12,000
feet on?
MR. WHITE: I think that's more a question of site planning. But
we expect that it would be somewhere just over one acre.
If you want a more detailed answer, I think we can ask Dwight to step
to the mic. But if that works for your purposes --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. I mean, you don't have it
defined yet.
David, a quick question. Why is it okay to go to the LDC for the
assisted living and not to go for like C-1 uses, conventional zoning?
MR. WEEKS: Because those commercial zoning districts have
no established minimum -- or maximum square footages. None
established. So it's just wide open.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Patrick, right now you're
entitled to do ALF?
MR. WHITE: With a conditional use.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Without any amendment.
Are you saying that there is not a possibility to also do office in
conjunction with the ALF?
MR. WHITE: I think we need the GMP amendment to do that.
And I believe that in a practical sense, although there may be some
synergies between the two uses being on the same parcel as far as a
subdistrict under the GMP, when we get down to rezoning and actual
site planning, I think that there may be some distinctions drawn there
in terms of where the uses would be allocated.
Weare not at the point yet because we don't know in large
measure how the interconnection aspects are going to affect us to be
able to do that kind of even more -- anything more than a general kind
of four- fifths one-fifth allocation of area.
We're also of course recognizing that from compatibility's
Page 64
March 17, 2008
perspective at the planning level, the idea of a clubhouse in closest
proximity to senior care type of facilities may be something that we
need to figure out the best way to insulate and isolate those uses.
COMMISSIONER CARON: The Carlisle to your west and
south, are those -- those are three-story buildings as well, correct?
MR. WHITE: Yes, I believe they are.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of
the applicant at this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. WHITE: Can I just make one comment on the needs
analysis?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MR. WHITE: That the tasking for Fishkind was directed towards
essentially doing a quick overview of the change from not only the
square footage of 50 down to 12 but also to look in an overview
fashion at the change to the office types of use.
And we relied on a kind of logical proportion reduction of
intensity to demonstrate that at the 20,000 that previously were
proposed for office, reducing that by 8,000 square feet, that we believe
that the original submittal of data and the analysis thereof leads to the
conclusion that the 12 would be supported as well.
We anticipate being able to potentially do more detailed
followups, but for the purposes of hopefully sufficiency, we think that
we're at least with what we're going to provide by hard copy adequate
to be able to hopefully come back and have a final discussion with
you on the 28th.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, would the staff like to make their
presentation, please?
And David, I think we already analyzed the fact that the 28th is
Page 65
March 17, 2008
impractical for anybody to come back because of the time for
submittal requirements, staff turnaround requirements and issuance to
us. Is that a fair statement?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're not going to hear
anything else on the 28th. So any presumption of that needs to be kind
of dismissed and we will deal with it today.
Go ahead, Mr. Schmidt.
MR. SCHMIDT: All right, thank you.
The staff report draws many of the same conclusions for this 068
request as it did for the previous. I'll not go into much detail, and I'll
answer your questions. But I do have from the petitioner the amended
information, if you'd like to see it, for the reduction of square footage
and the changes in uses, just like the previous applicant gave you
amended information.
And at the pleasure of the commission, if I may hand that out to
you?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. Thank you, sir.
Well, that doesn't look like one page like the last applicant gave us.
MR. SCHMIDT: It is not. But I believe that the petitioner
pointed out they had done some preliminary and quick work of both
new market study and transportation analysis, and that is included in
the back.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby is it your understanding based on
this new language that -- the red is obviously a change from the prior
document. But I notice items A through E are not included on this new
language. Are they assumed by you to be included, although they're
not here and this is just a change to the opening paragraphs number 12
in our former book?
MR. SCHMIDT: They are, and I do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question, Mark.
Page 66
March 17, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Corby, it's kind of the question I
asked before. But when I really read this it says -- look at that second
paragraph. Is there going to be confusion that you could build the
assisted living on top of that?
MR. SCHMIDT: There should be no confusion. This living
facility or those types of facilities have different measurements and
they're treated differently in the LDC.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So that when we say
something where this is limited to a maximum of 12,000 feet, a gross
-- I mean, why am I having trouble thinking that somebody could read
that and not think that the other thing's available. Or what else is
available, since it's silent in the whole thing?
MR. SCHMIDT: Well, if there might be some reader confusion
beside yourself, we can take that into account when it's being
recommended by staff and we can add clarity.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, what other things are
available? If you're saying that while silent the assisted living's
available, what other things are available that also you can, you know,
lay silent?
MR. SCHMIDT: It appears in the second paragraph here that the
square footage limitation is for the gross leasable area. And I would
have no confusion when it comes to a residential unit of any kind to be
in that mix. The residential units themselves are restricted by that 4.5,
that floor area ratio you discussed earlier.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But can I build a single-family
house in there also? In other words, when you say something like
development intensity for this subject shall be limited to, it seems
absolute to me, that's all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student, can you shed some light on
this? I notice you had your hand up.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Oh, I was going to -- I'm sorry, I
Page 67
March 17, 2008
was going to address another point that's in the handout.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's finish with Brad's point.
Sorry, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, it may just be -- I mean,
what you're saying, though, is that even though it's never mentioned in
here in this resolution that you are allowed to have assisted living.
MR. WEEKS: This would be part of the staff cleanup that we
would be recommending. Again, you're faced with new language right
now so we I don't think can craft that language.
This is where staff would be recommending changes in clarity.
One would be, as noted earlier, the reference to the ALF, what
intensity would be that allowed by the Land Development Code.
As far as the commercial uses, we want to clarify that, because
they use the term professional offices, yet they throw in financial
institutions, but they're not professional offices. So that would be part
of the staff recommended cleanup.
If I could suggest that, similar to the last petition, if your vote is
to transmit that part of the -- one of the conditions to that be that at the
adoption hearing you have the language cleaned up by staff presented
to you at that time.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done. Thanks Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Student?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, thank you. I just wanted to
make sure, because there's a little bit of a conflict between what was
handed out and also what the applicant originally submitted and staffs
recommendation about rezoning, having to be in the form of a PUD.
We utilize language shall be encouraged to because of some case
law out there talking about mandating PUD's on properties. We want
to make that consistent throughout the plan. So it will be it shall be
encouraged.
And staff does have that in their recommendations.
Page 68
March 17, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. And I'm assuming staff will vet
some of the cleanup that they'll take care of.
I have a question, and that is in the first page of the document
that was handed out I understand there's a lot of cleanup. But if the
intent was to leave items A through E applicable, then why do we
have the last two sentences contained in the last paragraph that are
redundant to items D and E in the existing A through E language?
I just want to make sure from staffs perspective that the intent
was to keep A through E and not try to mold it into this upper
language. Because it seems to have attempted that in at least a couple
of them.
MR. WEEKS: Conversely what staff was trying to do was pull it
out of the paragraphs and put it into the lettered format for clarity and
I think ease of reading that easily identify what the specific
development parameters or other types of conditions are.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you take the package that we were
sent, this particular language in red isn't the only changes then.
Basically what I just commented on actually should have been in red
because it was a change to the paragraph in the documents we were
sent with our package.
So I'm not sure how much is new or old, but I'm assuming staff
will go through this then as they've indicated and make sure it's all
legitimate.
MR. SCHMIDT: We will.
It just appears that the applicant made the red print version taken
from their initial application and not from staffs recommendation.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. That's why the differences.
That does explain it.
Okay, so I guess what we should be looking at is the concept
here, not necessarily the language. The concept is to go to an ACLF
type use with 12,000 square feet of professional office with limited
Page 69
March 17, 2008
intensity on part of the project as well.
And that's what I guess we'll be looking at, and that's what we
would be deciding upon on how it goes forward to a time of adoption,
at which time it would be cleaned up if it gets a positive transmittal.
Are there any other questions of the applicant or of staff at this
point in this proceeding?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just wanted to ask the
applicant, as far as the office that you are considering, you're limiting
it to professional offices. Is that i.e. medical, to be consistent with the
ALF, or is this anything I might consider or might be defined as
professional office?
MR. WHITE: I believe that potentially even lawyers might be
allowed under that heading.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, see you just have lost my vote
then.
MR. WHITE: But I believe the intent is to focus on medical,
dental and those types complimentary to the ALF type of a use. A
continuing care kind of use.
I think there's text changes proposed in Cycle One of the LDC
for those new types of definitions, and it's in that direction that I think
not only the market but just economically the needs are there, based
on the aging group of baby boomers that I certainly represent.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Weeks?
MR. WEEKS: If! might, Ms. Caron, if you'll look at the third
paragraph of today's handout, the fourth line, they explain what
professional office would include. It says professional offices for the
purpose of this subdistrict include but are not limited to financial
institutions, business services and medical offices.
And a point I briefly made earlier is that that would be part of the
staff cleanup. Because professional offices and financial institutions
Page 70
March 17,2008
are not synonymous --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right.
MR. WEEKS: -- they're actually separate categories. So that's
something that we will be addressing through our recommended
cleanup.
A second thing that staff typically recommends and we would
hear as well once we get to that cleanup language, but I would throw it
out for today's consideration, at least the concept, and that is that we
usually like to tie these in to a zoning district or districts. So those
range of uses as allowed in the C-1 or C-2, whatever applicable zoning
district that narrows it down in its focus.
Otherwise it leaves it wide open. There might be a C-5 use that
falls within this range, is that appropriate for neighborhood
commercial? Staff would say no.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. And that's partially why I
asked, because I saw the financial institutions here, and that to me is
very different from what they are trying to paint the picture of here,
which is essentially medical offices to assist with the assisted living
facility, which they are entitled to today. And so I just -- I just wanted
to try to be clear.
MR. WEEKS: Sure. And I -- at the risk of speaking for the
applicant, I think their intent is that these uses would not have to be
affiliated with that senior housing in any way. Certainly could be.
And to make it clear, medical uses related to the ALF or other senior
housing would be allowed as an accessory use.
But I read what they're proposing, this 12,000 square feet of these
types of uses, as being -- allowing freestanding, independent
commercial uses from the houses.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I understand.
MR. WHITE: And that they would be delimited from retail. That
I think is the primary thrust.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, yeah.
Page 71
March 17, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Before we go into any discussions on a potential motion, is there
any public speakers registered for this hearing?
MR. COHEN: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, what I'd like to suggest to
the commission, and I'll read the notes that I made in case there's a
motion to transmit.
We may want to -- as we had in the last one, that there would be
new data and analysis submitted by the adoption hearing. There would
be a requirement in the subdistrict text for interconnection.
That the -- the transmittal would be for the conceptual ALF
proposal and the 12,000 square feet of professional office.
ALF will be per the LDC in effect as of the effective date of this
amendment.
And that the staff will clean up the applicant's language.
Now, those are four considerations for any kind of motion.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We would keep in there or put in
there the DCA proportionate share DCA thing that the petitioner had
requested to be removed, right?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't -- if we're not making a
motion to remove it, I think it stays in.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Stays in. That's good. As long as
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Give them an opportunity to
object what's (sic) last time, if they want do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any other thoughts from the
commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there then a motion to recommend one
way or the other?
Page 72
March 17, 2008
Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll recommend a motion for
transmittal.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would it be subject to those items that I
just mentioned?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, of course.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer seconded it.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
MR. MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-1. Mr. Weeks -- or 7-0,
I'm sorry.
MR. WEEKS: For clarity, although I certainly got your -- I think
it was a total of five points I believe that you walked through, Mr.
Chairman.
But also there's been discussion about the letters A through E,
specific question about the DCA, but in general the A through E. Was
that intended to be included as part of the motion?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I hope so.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They were all -- yeah, we did not
Page 73
March 17, 2008
exclude those. That was the intent, was to include them.
Does anybody see it differently? No.
MR. WEEKS: Specifically I raise that point because I believe
you were voting on the petitioner's new language. And as you've
discussed, that does not include the A through E.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when I asked if it didn't include --
if it included it but they didn't -- remember I brought it up for
discussion and you said that A through E would be still there; this was
just for the first paragraphs. That was my assumption.
And does anybody else have a different assumption than that?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No.
MR. WEEKS: Just wanted to make it clear. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Appreciate the
clarification. And any time we're not clear, it makes it a lot easier if
you tell us now.
Okay, thank you. We'll move on to our next item.
And let me talk to the commissioners first about lunch. We can break
at 11 :30, 11 :45 or 12:00. I know the shop downstairs gets rather
congested. Is there a preference from this commission's viewpoint?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: 11 :30 is fine.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, it gets me hungry, this
work.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Cherie', 11:30 work for you?
THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We will break at 11:30 wherever
we're at with this next application.
Item #4 F
PETITION: CP-2006-9
The next petition is CP-2006-9. It's the Lake Trafford Ranch
Page 74
March 17,2008
Growth Management Plan Amendment.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this application, please
rise to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Is there any staff comments
before we proceed with the applicant's presentation?
MR. WEEKS: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. DUANE: Good morning. For the record, my name is Robert
Duane from Hole-Montes and Associates.
And I also have Tom Taylor with me, representing also the
property owners of one of which is himself, I might add.
We're dealing with the Lake Trafford Ranch, which is located --
it's approximately 2,500 acres in area. It's north and east of Lake
Trafford.
Approximately 2,200 of those 2,500 acres are in the RLSA area.
And a portion is located in the Immokalee urban area.
Presently our request today is to designate 191 acres, which are
designated as open lands. And those 181 (sic) acres are shown on the
aerial photograph right there. We're redesignating those to a habitat
stewardship area.
I might also add that the property was the subject of a
stewardship application, and 450 acres are designated currently as an
HSA on the property, and 400 acres are located in a stewardship flow
way area.
So there's approximately 900 acres that already have had
conservation easements placed on them and credits assigned to them
as part of the stewardship application that I believe appeared before
this commission in 2006 and subsequently the Board of County
Commissioners.
It's our contention, based upon the data and analysis that is
contained in the application, including the endangered species data,
Page 75
March 17, 2008
that this 191 acres should have merited treatment for something
different than open lands when the eastern plans for eastern lands was
approved. I think it was on or about 2001.
We think that based on the scale of the almost 200,000 acres that
was in that study area, that this particular portion of the ranch and then
a petition I have subsequent to this one should have been treated
differently.
Staff is in agreement with us, that the subject property merits
changing the land use designation from open lands to a habitat
stewardship area.
There are habitat steward areas on the Future Land Use Map just
to the north of this 191 acres. There are also CREW lands that are
located to the east of the property. In fact, the entire property, as noted
in your staff report, is slated within the CREW area for potential
future purchase to add to CREW lands that are to the east of the
subject property.
There's a provision in the staff report dealing with the early entry
bonus. I think we're able to agree that those credits need not be
available as part of this particular request.
We had a unanimous approval from the environmental advisory
board, we have support from your staff, and either Tom Taylor or I
will try to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.
And also, the map as passed out to you refers to the two -- the
flow way and the habitat stewardship areas that were previously
approved in 2006, comprising approximately 950 acres. And again,
our request is to add 191 acres ultimately to those SAA areas. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any questions of the
applicant at this point before we get more information?
Mr. Midney, go right ahead.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I'm just interested to know,
why are you initiating this request now?
Page 76
March 17,2008
MR. DUANE: Actually, it was initiated several years ago. It's
one of those amendments that took several years to get here. And Tom
Taylor can probably speak to what I think may be the heart of your
question.
But we started this application several years ago. And I neglected
to advise you that at any point in this process me may withdraw this
application, up until the time that it comes for you before final
adoption. So in the event that we take this off the table, I didn't want
you to be surprised.
I think some of you are aware that there's some ongoing
negotiations to incorporate this in the Collier Conservation program.
I'm less familiar with just where that property stands in those
negotiations. I think we have someone from your environmental staff
here, and Tom Taylor is here that could probably also answer any
questions you may have. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of the
applicant?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think in order to help us through this, it
might be beneficial if we took something out of context, out of normal
format here. Alex Sulecki is here from the Conservation Collier
program. They have been involved with this property at quite some
length. They've had a lot of meetings and discussions on it. I've read
all their minutes, I've read their backup data, I read a lot of data that
they've created in looking at this property.
Maybe we ought to hear from their side of where they're looking
at this or their concerns with this issue.
And Alex, if you wouldn't mind?
MS. SULECKI: Certainly.
Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Alex Sulecki,
Coordinator of the Conservation Collier Program. Morning.
Yeah, this came to our attention just recently that there was a
Page 77
March 17,2008
redesignation application in. And it initially caused some concern with
Conservation Collier because we had already passed our point of
decision-making with the committee and our recommendation to the
board, and we weren't aware of it at that time.
So our concern at that point was twofold. Number one, we were
surprised, and we didn't care for the surprise very much.
Number two, we were concerned that it might affect value. We
had some initial -- I had some initial discussions with a member of
comprehensive planning staff that actually, you know, told me that it
would affect value. And that concern turned out to be not very
realistic. Because I did speak with David Weeks and Randy Cohen
later, and we determined that -- well, that eased those concerns some
for us.
The main concern with value for us was that knowing that it was
-- the ranch was going to enter the appraisal process, would this
redesignation affect that appraisal value. And the concern was that
even if it was known that it was going through this process and there
were staff approvals and it was being approved along the way, that it
would affect the highest and best use scenario for an appraiser.
But actually, the current situation is that no credits have been
sold and so determining a value difference may just not be realistic at
this point.
So that's what eased our concerns.
As for the surprise aspect of it, we have taken some steps to see
that that doesn't happen to us again. We've revised our application and
we've tightened some of our lines of communication with staff.
So at the March 10th meeting of the Conservation Collier
Committee this item was discussed. Tom Taylor was there. We had
some environmental organization representatives who have been
instrumental in moving this project forward.
And Mr. Taylor gave the history. And we were again told that it
came in 2006 and the timing was not -- it was coincidental. It wasn't
Page 78
March 17, 2008
something that was planned.
Mr. Taylor then offered to withdraw it if the redesignation
affected the value of the appraisal.
We had some speakers. The Audubon, Conservancy, we had
Florida Wildlife Federation. And generally the consensus and the
speaking was for this project. Everybody considered it to be a very
important project for Conservation Collier, and that it should move
forward.
There was only one speaker who had a problem, but it was more
of a global problem with the redesignation process on a
parcel-by-parcel basis instead of having this happen as a part of the
review of the entire rural land stewardship area, which is the five-year
review that's ongoing.
But this wasn't particularly a Conservation Collier issue. So the
committee decided with a general consensus to move forward, to be
aware of this as it's going through the process, and to see what the
appraisal brings.
Mr. Taylor requested, and they agreed, to have our appraiser
specifically focus on what the difference of value would be, should
there be a redesignation or what even the process as it's going through
now, how it would affect it.
And so I think there is a general feeling of more calm with the
whole situation, and a support for it to continue to go through our
process.
I'd be happy to answer questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Ifwe do approve this motion, will
this increase the price to Conservation Collier or decrease it or leave it
the same?
MS. SULECKI: Well, I don't think we can tell at this point.
Page 79
March 17, 2008
There is no indication it will have an effect on the value whatsoever.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we leave that point, Mr. Midney,
there was a memorandum issued from the county attorney's office on
March 7th, 2008 that addressed that specific issue. Do you have a
copy of that?
MS. SULECKI: I don't have it with me, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says, and I'll read the second
paragraph: The value of property is created by utility, scarcity demand
and purchasing power, all of which may be influenced by the removal
of one or more land use layers. It is an almost certainty that the
removal of one or more land use layers on a portion of a parcel or the
entirety of a parcel would create a negative effect on the market value
of the parcel.
Can you -- how does that fit into this equation?
MS. SULECKI: Well, that actually was written in regards to the
stewardship sending area seven. Because we were trying to determine
what effect the removal of credits from that portion would have on the
value. So it doesn't directly relate to this.
But I would say that yes, credits will be increased potentially on
the property. But because we don't have a value for those credits, I
don't know -- appraisers work on comparable values, and we don't
have that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If credits are created because -- more
credits are created because this becomes an HSA and the land uses are
reduced in order to capitalize on the maximum amount of credits, then
it seems that a correlation does exist between SS 7 and the statement
in this memorandum and this property. That's all I was trying to point
out.
MS. SULECKI: Well, I think the process -- the timing of the
process, it wouldn't be approved by the time it goes through our
process. And one of the things that the committee wanted to sort of
watch it as it moved forward, the idea was the concern that even the
Page 80
March 17, 2008
awareness of it would create this. It certainly wouldn't get to the point
of having an SSA, that's a whole other process that it wouldn't get to.
So I don't think we're really concerned with that splitting of credits
and taking of credits at this point in time.
But the committee did feel it was important that because our
purchase is not a guarantee at this point, we may not be able to come
to an agreement in price, that they didn't want to interfere with this
process as it moves forward, because it would be something that
would save and protect some of that habitat if we were not able to buy
the ranch.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Midney, I'm sorry for the
interruption. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, that wasn't an interruption at
all. That helped me.
I don't have any questions of her, but of the applicant I have
another question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of Alex while
she's here?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is most Conservation Collier issues
with Alex.
Thank you, Alex, we appreciate it.
MS. SULECKI: My pleasure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Midney has a question of the
applicant. Go ahead, sir.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Looking at the map in the
southeast corner, there seems to be lands that it looks as though it's in
a natural state. Why wasn't that included in this request?
MR. TAYLOR: For the record, my name is Tom Taylor. I'm
Representative of the Ownership; I am one of the owners of the
property. So I'll try to answer this some of these questions and some of
the other items that have come up.
Page 81
March 17, 2008
I'm not aware of any property on the southeast that we don't --
that we own that is not part of this application. If you're -- the red
boundary is the ownership of our property. The property that is south
of the crosshatched, as shown on the exhibit on the overhead in the
handout that we had given, the property that's south of the
crosshatching is the subject of this request. So we're including all of
the property that we own in this application that is in that vicinity.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that get to your question, Paul?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, I don't understand -- I mean,
the area that is -- that you're talking about, there are other areas within
the property that seem to be of similar habitat value, just by looking at
the aerial. Why were those areas included and not other areas that
have similar aerials?
MR. TAYLOR: You may be talking about the property that's
much further to the east?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes.
MR. TAYLOR: And just south of many of the -- okay, is that the
area that he's pointing at that you're referring to?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Y es. Yes.
MR. TAYLOR: Okay. Part of that, there is a small area in there
that is allowed that is shown as SSA and restoration area. We have not
applied for that through an SSA application at this point in time.
The large part of that naturally vegetated area we have not
requested a change at this time.
We reserve the right to develop that portion of the property, as
well as the pasture area. That also is not part of an SSA or a part of
this request.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So this is coming from your side
in order to get credits to be able to develop somewhere else?
MR. T AYLOR: Essentially the purpose of the request -- and I
should clarify the timing of the request. Our application was made in
April of 2006. So next month it will be two years that this application
Page 82
March 17, 2008
has been into the county. We had received no communication with the
county. We had not pressed the issue with the county. It was -- just to
clarify, it was something of an out-of-sight-out-of-mind application
for us, because it wasn't that big of a deal for us.
The purpose of the application to begin with was that it is
contiguous to and somewhat isolated with our other SSA area. You
can see the crosshatched areas is where we have removed some of our
use rights. It's in the form of a limited use agreement for the areas that
are crosshatched.
That area was shown as open. And open areas within the GMP
and the RLSA program are allowed to be developed.
We felt that this area was very similar in natural quality to the other
portions that we have removed development uses. So our attempt was
to make it consistent with the areas to the north of it. And just to
correct Mr. Duane's statement earlier, he was saying CREW is to the
east. Actually, the CREW property is to the west. So just to clarify
that for the record.
So the reason that our request came in April of 2006 is the county
has a five-year window for early entry bonus credits. The five-year
window ends I believe in January.
Is that correct, David?
So if we were to apply to remove stewardship credits from that
area before January, we would be eligible to get one bonus credit per
acre for the stewardship program.
The habitat designation also would allow us to potentially get
restoration credits for any areas that we were to restore via removal of
exotic vegetation or revegetation in areas that may have been cleared.
And that's really the purpose of the application.
With regard to Conservation Collier, when we made this
application back in April of 2006 we had no contemplation we would
submit to Conservation Collier. That decision was made in the middle
part of last year; I believe it was about August or September.
Page 83
March 17, 2008
We made an application at that point in time and it has been working
its way through the process.
It is not our intention to in any way increase the value of the
ranch to Conservation Collier through this process. I stated at the
EAC, I've stated it at Conservation Collier and I'll state it again here, if
it has an effect where it could substantially increase the value to
Conservation Collier through its acquisition process, we will withdraw
the application. If Conservation Collier does not buy the property, we
would like to have the right to do restoration, if it is so deemed
restorable by the county, for restoration credits and/or be able to get
the early entry bonuses if we submit before January of next year.
That's in a nutshell what our request is and why we've requested
it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that answer your question, Paul?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron then Mr. Wolfley.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Just a quick question.
I thought when Mr. Duane was up there that there would be no
early entry bonuses. I thought that came off the table.
MR. TAYLOR: My understanding of it, and David may clarify
this, my understanding is that currently there is a limited number of
early entry bonuses that are available. Staffs belief is that by January
all of those available credits will not be used. So there's no reason to
increase the cap.
Ifwe are able to apply, I believe we could still get early entry
credits.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom, the restoration credits and the SSA
credits, you said I think just now that you would only utilize those if
the property was not acquired by Conservation Collier; is that a fair
statement?
MR. TAYLOR: Correct.
Page 84
March 17, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're not going to strip the credits
off and then sell it to Conservation Collier.
MR. TAYLOR: That's not our expectation at this point in time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any --
MR. T AYLOR: Conservation Collier -- excuse me, I didn't mean
to interrupt.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
MR. TAYLOR: I was just going to say, I think the timing is
obviously awkward. As I said earlier why, we didn't know that this
was going to be coming forward at the time it did. It could have come
up six months from now, but here we are.
We don't intend to come in with an SSA application before the
county's determination as to whether they're going to acquire the
property or not.
It was our understanding at the last Conservation Collier advisory
meeting a week or so ago that appraisers have been hired and
appraisers will be starting the process here relatively shortly.
Expectation is that their appraisal work will be completed I think it
was 60 to 90 days.
I'm getting a nod from Ms. Sulecki.
During that 60 to 90 days, I think a determination will be whether
there's a match between what the county believes the value of the
ranch is and the value of what the owners may think the property is
worth and see if it can -- an affirmative decision could be made on
selling it to Conservation Collier.
It would obviously then have to go to the County Commission
for their ratification of that agreement to proceed with a formal
acquisition or not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, I forgot that you had asked
to speak. I'm sorry. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Not a problem.
Couple of things. One, the light colored area on the overhead, is that
Page 85
March 17, 2008
what's known as what you're calling the passive -- now I lost my
place. That is your -- the ago portion? I forgot, the passive -- somebody
help me.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Pasture?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Pasture area.
MR. TAYLOR: No. Essentially the areas that are crosshatched--
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right.
MR. T AYLOR: -- on that exhibit can still be used for cattle
grazing. We did not remove that as a use right. So we still have the
ability to have passive agriculture on that crosshatched area.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, to the east of that
crosshatched area, what is that? I'm just trying to figure out what
critters might be there.
MR. T AYLOR: Sure, the large part in what you see is the very
light area, it's cattle grazing pasture. The areas that are vegetated are
pretty much native vegetation. It's a combination of depressional
wetlands, pine flatwoods, mixed oak, hardwood hammock, oak and
sabal palms, as well as pines.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right.
MR. TAYLOR: Those areas that have no crosshatching are
eligible for development. They are part of the -- other than a very
small area which I believe is about 50 acres of that are shown as open
area within the RLSA program. And those are potentially developable,
subject to obviously permits and an RLSA application to Collier
County, which would come before this board.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Sure. Which is -- the RLSA
Phase 1 and technical review is coming up here in front of this
committee.
MR. TAYLOR: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Subsequent to the Phase 2. And
that was going to be my other question was your intention with the
property, and I think you just answered it. Thank you.
Page 86
March 17, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tom, the crosshatched area,
SSA-7, that's also under consideration for purchase by Conservation
Collier?
MR. T AYLOR: The ranch in its entirety has been offered to
Conservation Collier.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That includes SSA-7.
MR. TAYLOR: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: SSA-7 already has an agreement for
RLSA credits. I believe they're yours. Is the pricing going to
Conservation Collier offset by the value of those credits?
MR. TAYLOR: I believe the county is going to appraise it both
with and without the stewardship credits. That's my understanding.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the balance of the underlying land
is being -- will be sold if the deal goes through to Conservation
Collier?
MR. T AYLOR: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David and Randy, there's a Policy 1.4 in
the rural lands provision in the GMP, and I'll read the last two
sentences of it. It is the intent of the overlay that a property owner will
be compensated for the voluntary stewardship and protection of
important agricultural natural resources. Compensation to the property
owner shall occur through one of the following mechanisms: Creation
and transfer of stewardship credits; acquisition of conservation
easements; acquisitions of less than fee interest in the land; or through
other acquisition of land or interest in land through a willing seller
program.
Based on the way this is being structured, these credits are
already created on SSA-7, they're owned by the applicant, and now
Conservation Collier is looking at buying the property that's there. Yet
the GMP says compensation to the property owner shall occur through
one of the following mechanisms.
Are we looking at two mechanisms now for compensation?
Page 87
March 17, 2008
MR. WEEKS: Well, in fact we are.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then, do we have a problem with
the GMP in the Conservation Colliers program of acquisition of this
property? Or at least this SSA-7 section ofthe property.
MR. WEEKS: The very strict reading of the language would be
yes. Because it says one of the following, not one or more.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. WEEKS: I would hope that we -- and I would advocate an
interpretation that that was not intended to be as restrictive as it
plainly reads.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, do we need to -- I think maybe for
Conservation Collier's benefit, before they negotiate a price on land
that has already been covered and they may not be able to be
consistent with the GMP, shouldn't we proceed with that kind of a
legal analysis?
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Student, is that something your
department can take care of and get back to us on?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes, we can.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think Alex, you might want
to follow that up, because it may have an impact on how much land
you actually purchase or how you purchase it.
MS. SULECKI: Can I just add something?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead and use the mic, sure.
MS. SULECKI: I just wanted to clarify what our instructions for
our appraisers were going to be for value of the ranch.
We're going to take two scenarios. We're going to value it as it is
with the stewardship credits for SSA-7 removed, because in our view
they are in the pocket and off the land.
And then we are going to look at the value of those credits in
relation to the redesignation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My concern would be is if the appraiser
Page 88
March 17, 2008
provides any underlying value to the base of the land left after the
credits are gone, if there is any included in the appraisal and it's
deemed to be inconsistent with Policy 1.4 of the GMP, it's something
that legal staff may have to provide a valid determination to you on
before you get quite that far.
MS. SULECKI: I will look at that and review it with Jennifer
Belpedio, who's our attorney. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am.
Are there any other questions of the applicant at this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Tom.
I guess staff report now.
MR. WEEKS: Again, David Weeks for the record,
Commissioners, of the Comprehensive Planning Department. Just a
few very brief comments is all.
One is to note that in two places in your staff report, Page 1 and
Page 5, it is incorrectly stated that the subject property is within SSA
number seven. I think Mr. Taylor and perhaps Mr. Duane have made
that clear in their presentation that that is not the case. Again, this
land, subject to this amendment, is not currently within a stewardship
sending area.
As also has been noted, I want to emphasize that the property
presently is designated as open, which means it is eligible to be
developed; that is, eligible to go through the application process to be
designated as a stewardship receiving area and be developed as a
town, village, hamlet or compact rural development.
But also, even though it's designated open, it is eligible to be
designated as a stewardship sending area. It has the option. The
benefit of being designated as an HSA, as is being requested, is that
there would be more credits available, should the applicant
subsequently pursue a stewardship sending area designation for the
property .
Page 89
March 17, 2008
The most notably is that by virtue of being an SSA the natural
resource index score is higher, and that also there's the ability, as has
been noted, to do restoration and receive credits for that which do not
apply to the open designation.
Commissioners, the last thing is just on Page 6 of your staff
report, is where the staff recommendation is located. There's a listing
of five items there.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions -- Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, it says just above the staff
recommendations that the EAC was going to make a recommendation.
Did we receive that or did I --
MR. WEEKS: That did not occur in time to provide it to you in
written form, but they did vote unanimously to recommend
transmittal, subject to staffs recommendation, as you see in your own
staff report.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, I have a general question. I
remember very distinctly the RLSA program coming through the
county and the process we went through in looking at the various
layers in the analysis done by I believe WilsonMiller at the time. I
know I personally challenged their ability to recognize their various
properties from the aerials, because there was no ground truthing. And
ground truthing became an item that we required in some facets of
determining the properties.
Have you gone back to WilsonMiller, who did the analysis, to
figure out why -- and it's not even -- it's this one for 191 acres. But it's
also the one we have next, which is over 2,000 acres of what seems to
be and what I've been reading is basically determined to be errors in
the original analysis.
Are you of a belief that these are all errors of this magnitude?
Because they -- I mean, I remember the challenge to this analysis the
Page 90
March 17,2008
first time. And everybody was absolutely sure that this wouldn't
happen. Yet we're here five years later and it's happening.
MR. WEEKS: Rather than use the word error, I'll use the word a
difference in judgment. Because you are making a value judgment
here as to what the habitat value of the property is.
Staff is agreeing with the applicant that the value is there. I mean,
I don't want to split hairs, but I'm reluctant of using the word error.
It's certainly the judgment of both the applicant and staff,
environmental staff and planning staff, is that this property does
exhibit habitat characteristics that warrant a designation as HSA.
And to answer your question directly, no, we have not contacted
WilsonMiller and asked them about this or that expedition.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they were the ones responsible for
the original analysis, were they not?
MR. WEEKS: They did prepare the original analysis, subject to
county's review, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the request that Noah
Standridge received on January 11th, 2008 used the following
comments: Based on the data and analysis contained in this petition,
open lands, which is the subject of the amendment, were not correctly
designated and are worthy of HSA for wildlife and habitat protection
because the environmental value was not properly considered.
Now my next question's going to be on a more global basis. If
you allow this and the next one to proceed, as maybe being properly
designated -- and there could be enumerable other ones out there
based on the same kind of data and analysis you've got in this
document -- has county staff gone through and determined, at least by
this one and the next one, the impact on the general RLSA area of the
increase of stewardship credits that will allow more density -- I think
it's eight credits per unit, or whatever per acre, however it works out
on the RLSA, and how that impacts the developable acreages that are
out there. Because I know I provided a detailed analysis and a
Page 91
March 17, 2008
spreadsheet to staff on this, and I gave one to Noah most recently, the
same one I had produced five years ago. And at that time we were
talking huge amount of development. And this would only compound
that.
Has anybody looked at that -- prolonged that future strategies and
how all this additional possible development is going to be handled?
MR. WEEKS: No, we've not.
I can tell you that in looking at these two applications, we are
aware, and actually I'm not sure if it's in your staff report or if it's in
the EAC staff report, there was some analysis of what the impact
would be. Here's how many credits could be generated by this
designation change.
But I can tell you from our perspective, that is not a major
consideration. Because the key consideration here is does the habitat
value warrant the designation change.
I understand your question, I understand your concern. There is a
planning ramification as far as the potential for credits and therefore
the potential for additional lands that could be eligible for receiving
area designation.
But the principal concern to staff was does the habitat value
warrant the redesignation.
Because if you go back in time to 2002, we were doing the very
same thing: Is it appropriate to have this land designated as open or is
it appropriate to be HSA or some other category. That was the driving
force.
The big difference of course is going back to 2002. Not only
were we considering the habitat value, but your point, Mr. Chairman,
we were also considering the complicated matrix that we came up
with to determine how many development credits will be generated
and how much development area could actually be developed as a
receIVmg area.
So it was more ofa global approach in 2002. We're not taking
Page 92
March 17,2008
that approach today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the whole purpose in 2002, if
you -- I know you recall, was the Governor's order. The Governor's
order was very explicit. He wanted a balance between development,
environment and agriculture.
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, to this day I still argue we still
don't have that balance because agriculture was encouraged to be
dismissed basically.
But do we consider that Governor's order, that balance that was
requested initially that got the whole program going and any of these
recommendations that are coming through today? And if we haven't
done the analysis, how then are we considering that order if it is a
valid order to be considered?
MR. WEEKS: Well, the amendment that's before you is to
protect additional lands. So as far as the balance goes, it's working
both sides of the equation. It's helping to protect additional lands.
Again, it has the choice right now whether it can be designated as
an SSA or SRA being designated open. Changing that designation to
HSA removes some of the allowable uses on the property and
prohibits or precludes its ability to be designated as a stewardship
receIVmg area.
So we are adding to the protection of the land on the one hand,
but through that creating the potential for some additional credits to
develop additional lands. Additional lands to be developed, as in
acreages, not new lands on the stewardship overlay map.
If you can recall, the stewardship overlay map identifies your
flow way stewardship areas, your habitat stewardship areas, your
water retention areas and your open areas. Subject property is
designated as open, it is eligible to be designated as a receiving area,
as are again many other lands. They're shown as pink on that overlay
map.
Page 93
March 17, 2008
Weare not increasing the number of acres designated as open
through this process, but what we are doing through this amendment
process is increasing the potential number of credits that can be
generated to allow a larger amount of those already designated open
areas to be developed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wouldn't that potential number of credits
encourage the reduction then of active agricultural uses?
MR. WEEKS: I think arguably that's true for any property when
it comes in through the stewardship sending area to do that, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I have three of my colleagues here
want to speak.
Mr. Murray was first, Ms. Caron and then Mr. Wolfley.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My question to you, Mr.
Chairman, in my ignorance, what is the extent and the form of ground
truthing? So you could help me to more effectively understand.
Although I follow this I think quite well, are we talking metes and
bounds, are we talking qualifying the actual land for its value for
set-aside?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can't verbatim remember the
discussion; I do remember the parameters. Everything was done in the
stewardship program at the time too by aerial. And there was some
question whether the aerial was an accurate way of telling what was
on the ground.
And so there was a discussion about how much ground truthing
or when ground truthing should come into play to verify that what is
actually on the ground is what was interpreted from the aerials that
were taken.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understood that. What I was
asking you was what is ground truthing? What's the methodology? Is
that metes and bounds or is that qualifying the fauna, flora --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Metes and bounds is a method of survey
or alternate --
Page 94
March 17, 2008
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- method of survey so it's not ground
truthing. Ground truthing would be transects walking the property,
getting closer to the property.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's the answer I wanted to
understand. Thank you. That's it. I'm clear now. Got it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, right now the rural lands
stewardship area is up for review, the five-year review. Are they -- is
that study group addressing any of the issues that Commissioner Strain
is bringing forward? Are they looking at it from both aspects? Are
they looking at it from a habitat status and also from a potential
intensity planning aspect?
MR. COHEN: Ms. Caron and members of the commission,
there's two phases to the analysis. First there's the technical report,
which is basically ascertaining what's transpired in the RLSA over the
five-year period of time. And that's what you'll be seeing in the
relatively near future.
The second step is actually going through the groups of policies
that exist in the five different groups in taking a look at those from the
perspective of are they effective, do they work, are there errors, are
there other things that should be added, how can we make this better.
And that's the process they're actually just starting to review right now
as a committee. So --
COMMISSIONER CARON: When is that supposed to be
completed?
MR. COHEN: It's less than a year. I believe it comes forward
either -- that part of the process, I think it's like January or February of
next year. It's a fairly lengthy process.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And it's not your recommendation
that something like this wait until that review -- that policy review is
done?
Page 95
March 17, 2008
MR. WEEKS: That is not our recommendation, no.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And why would that be?
MR. WEEKS: They have the right to go forward. They submitted
-- and again, it was back in 2006. It's due to the county's processes, the
EAR-based amendments that have delayed the petition.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go on, Mr. Wolfley, one
comment to the commission.
We're running behind in our scheduled break at 11 :30 and
Cherie's going to need a break soon. So as soon as we finish Mr.
Wolfley's question, and Mr. Midney, I think you had one, I'd like to
ask this commission if they want to finish this one up, take a break and
finish it up, or take a break for lunch and then come back and finish it
up.
Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I can wait until after lunch. I
was just going to review the goals of the RLSA program, which we
ought to be considering here. But we can do that afterwards.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mr. Midney, let's discuss that right
now. From the way the conversation's going, and I know our court
reporter does need a break. So do you want to take a 10-minute break
now, come back, finish this one up and then go to lunch, or do you
want to take a lunch break now and come back and just go on and
finish?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Let's take a lunch.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Lunch is fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Lunch?
Okay, why don't we take a break for one hour, we'll be back here
at 12:45 and resume the meeting.
(Luncheon recess.)
(Commissioner Adelstein is absent.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are we back on line? Great. Thank
Page 96
March 17, 2008
you, David.
Okay, it's 12:45. At lunchtime we left off and towards the end of
our discussion on CP-2006-9. It's the petition involving the Pepper
Ranch RLSA stewardship credits.
Mr. Wolfley was the next person to discuss or bring up his
questions, and then Mr. Midney.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I'm trying to remember
the context under which I was going to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You said you wanted to talk to us about
the purpose of the RLSA or something to that effect.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The goals, right.
And we were talking I believe about agricultural activities,
development activities and purchasing by certain conservation groups.
And I was just going to repeat the goals, which is to protect the
agricultural activities and to prevent the premature conversion of
agricultural land to non-agricultural uses.
And we had been fighting over in that committee what premature
conversion meant and what it means. And I just wanted this board to
kind of consider that. And again, I'm still not sure what premature
converSIOn means.
And another thing that I have been personally wrestling with is
we're talking about putting hamlets and townships and so on out in the
area without the consideration of infrastructure, and which I think is
pretty much of a wrong thing to do. But that is the way it is.
And one of the other things that I wanted to mention is that
another goal was to enable the conversion of rural land to other uses in
appropriate locations which had to do with selling of some of this land
to conservation groups. And I just -- and obviously to discourage
urban sprawl.
I just wanted to bring that up and to consider that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Mr. Midney?
Page 97
March 17, 2008
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, thanks, Mark.
I remember this discussion that we had five years ago and I
remember saying, I see what this land does for conservation, but I
don't see what it does for agriculture. And that's just what you're
saying now, it's very true.
My question is, how many additional dwelling units do you think
you could get from 191 acres, David? Is there any formula or any way
to calculate that?
MR. WEEKS: I don't know. I don't know. I know the -- as has
already been mentioned the early entry bonus I believe is on a one
credit per acre basis. So at almost 192 acres, that would give you
approximately 192 early entry bonus credits. And it takes eight
stewardship credits to generate one acre of receiving area, so I would
have to do the math to divide.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh, I see.
MR. WEEKS: But that's the best general answer I could give
you. There's more to it than that. Because in doing the calculation for
credits, the natural resource index value is a component of that. And
by being designated as an HSA, you get some increased score of that.
But I couldn't --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: You couldn't give me a ballpark?
MR. WEEKS: No, because it's a -- for that one particular scoring
portion of the matrix, if you're open, you get zero. If you're HSA you
get .4. But that's just -- again, that's one part of that --
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, it's a very complicated
calculation.
Okay. Well, I'd like to go up to the visualizer if! could, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go right ahead. There is a
microphone or two up there too, Paul.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thanks.
This map here, it shows I guess by habitat types or the -- what
type of -- what type of groundcover there is by Code 617, et cetera,
Page 98
March 17, 2008
641.
And looking at that map and then comparing it to this map, this is
-- this is area over here. And I'm looking at the area over here, which
is just I guess the southern -- the southeastern most portion.
Looking at it from the air, it looks very similar. And I'm
questioning how when these -- when they decided what was flow way
and what was open space, I don't understand how this whole area was
designated as open space. It seems so obvious, even to my untrained
eyes that, you know, this is very similar. And if they've admitted that
this was in error, I'm wondering how things like this -- and I guess this
whole Scofield ratch (phonetic) thing which is going to be coming up,
how such huge discrepancies arose.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think your comment is one that
was raised a little bit earlier as well. And it is a discrepancy that
troubles -- and I think the other side of the coin is how much of this
we're going to discover.
And, you know, there's nothing wrong with making this more
viable for preservation. That's a good thing. But in doing so, what is it
we're triggering in the other areas? And I guess staffs response to that
previously is you haven't taken that analysis that far ahead.
And Mr. Midney's prior request, by the way, was how many
acres of development does this SS -- this HSA additionally generate?
And I think you did that formula.
COMMISSIONER CARON: 23?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's if it's on a one credit per one
credit for the early bonus.
But it says on the last sentence of the top paragraph on Page 5 of
the staff report, Paul, the potential increase of available credits is
1,534.4, which can be used for 191.8 acres ofSRA development in
open areas.
Is that the answer that would have been appropriate for Paul?
MR. WEEKS: That is identifying some additional credits that can
Page 99
March 17, 2008
be generated.
Let me try to answer again. Early entry bonus credits are
available today under the open designation, as well as under the HSA.
So there's no change. So that's -- to say that the redesignation
generates more credits in that regard is false. That's available either
way.
I believe the only two -- I believe the only two increases in
credits are as a result of the HSA designation itself, as I mentioned
earlier, as part of that natural resource valuation. And then the
restoration credits. Which I think is contrary to what I stated earlier. I
think the restoration credits are the main increase, because as we note
in the staff report it's a four credit bonus.
And I believe it's a combination of -- it may come up to eight. I
think it's four for designating the site for restoration and then another
four for actually undertaking that restoration.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If those additional credits were attained,
to answer Mr. Midney's question, then under the open space they
already got entitlement to some credits and so we don't really count
those again.
MR. WEEKS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But under the HSA, if they were to
require -- or obtain the additional eight credits, then it's another about
192 acres of SRA land that they could develop -- they could use the
credits on.
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But pursuant to your earlier argument,
that doesn't create an additional 192 acres of SRA. They have to pick
the 192 out of the existing SRA. So we're not getting any further
imbalance in the amount of acreage, is that --
MR. WEEKS: Two points. First of all, thank you for catching
that the staff report in fact had the answer to Mr. Midney's question.
Secondly, what I was saying a while ago is that if you look at the
Page 100
March 17, 2008
stewardship overlay map and you look at all those pink areas, which is
the open designation, this amendment does not increase, and in fact it's
decreasing the amount of open area.
But it does clearly generate the potential of an increase in credits,
which means the actual number of acres on the ground that could be
developed as receiving area could increase.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the number of receiving acreage
that's already shown on the map cannot increase. It's just there's more
of it that could be developed because of these credits; is that fair?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct. And in fact the opposite is
happening because this amendment is taking almost 192 acres out of
the open designation and putting it into a protective status.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: During the process, and I can't remember
back five years, was the SRA acreage centered around a certain
percentage of SSA credits? I mean, did you develop the size of the
acreage for the SRA off an anticipated amount of credits being
generated from all the other areas?
Because if you did, then what's going to happen is it's going to be
like a first-come first-serve basis in the uses for SSA's, because you're
only allowing a certain amount of intensity on all the SRA's. And once
you meet that intensity you can't use any more credits, whether you
had them or not.
MR. WEEKS: My recollection is that we have far more -- back
in 2002 we show that there was far more land available, open land
available to be designated as an SRA than there would be credits to
generate to entitle that development.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, as a proactive position of
staff before adoption, it would be nice to know where we stand on
these long-range goals. Because we always complain that we don't
look far enough in the future in planning Collier County. But this is a
good example of maybe we ought to look and see how this impacts the
build-out of the SRA's area, to what extent and how the imbalance is
Page 10 1
March 17, 2008
still present or not present.
MR. WEEKS: Sure. And I can tell you, as far as that directly
related point, the five-year RLSA review that will be coming before
this body fairly soon, that Phase 1 that will be coming to you is the
analysis and the number crunching of where we stand today. How
many SSA acres have been approved so far, how many SR acres have
been approved so far and looking at the total number, kind of giving
you that big picture view of what's occurred and what's left to occur,
you know, what is that equation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul, did you have any other questions
to follow up?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just wanted to say that in the
audience we have Noah Standridge, who's pretty much of an expert on
the RLSA. May not know the specifically this particular agenda item
or the next one, but any questions with that I know he's quite familiar
with the overlays.
And if there are any more questions about that, he'd probably be
more than happy to answer them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean, I know Noah used to
work for the county and handled that committee and he worked for
David. And I would assume David knows -- has the same background
as Noah does. But, I mean, I have no objection if anybody wants to
ask Noah any questions while he's here and if he's willing to answer.
Anybody else have anything?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any public speakers,
David?
MR. WEEKS: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're done with staff.
Page 102
March 17, 2008
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're done with the applicant. No public
speakers. Let's discuss some motions.
Like the last two, I don't believe there are any criteria to be
added. I think the county attorney's going to review the question that I
had and get back to -- I imagine get back to us at some point, either by
e-mail or should it come up before adoption, so I'm not too concerned
about that.
So unless anybody has anything, we certainly could entertain a
motion.
Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I would like to move that we
forward this to -- I guess DCA is the next -- or no, it's --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Recommendation of -- it would be for
transmittal for the BCC.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: For the BCC yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You're recommending--
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to transmit this, approval to transmit to
the BCC.
COMMISSIONERMIDNEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Wolfley.
David?
MR. WEEKS: Would that be per staffs recommendations in the
staff report on Page 6?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY : Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I was just going to raise
that question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the second accept the staff
recommendations?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes.
Page 103
March 17,2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I just have a question, and
I'm not really clear, that's why I'm asking it.
On number five, is that an agreement that we're not going to
approve the increase in early bonus credits?
. Okay, that's the question I'm posing. As to whether or not that's
what we really want to do.
MR. WEEKS: That is the staff recommendation. And you have
the applicant earlier stating on the record he was in agreement with --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He was in agreement. I missed
that. Then I thank you. Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I had just one--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Wolfley.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- question.
On number three, was that blank filled in on approximately blank
acres?
MR. WEEKS: We're still waiting on that from the applicant.
Obviously we'll have to have that by the time the board takes their
action on this for transmittal hearing.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I remember that now.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll stick with my second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, there's been a motion made by
Paul Midney, seconded by David Wolfley.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all in favor of the motion,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
MR. MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Page 104
March 17, 2008
MR. WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Got the number right
this time, huh?
Okay, thank you.
PETITION: CP-2006-10
Next one up for today is petition CP-2006-1 0, the Half Circle L
Ranch Growth Management Plan Amendment.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this petition, please rise
to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any comments from staff
before we proceed with the petitioner?
David, nothing?
MR. WEEKS: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. DUANE: For the record, Robert Duane from Hole-Montes
& Associates. I have Dane Scofield here; he's one of the owners of the
property. And I have Tim Hall from at Turrell and Hall & Associates
also here that's the ecologist that's familiar with some of the
background data that we provided for the application.
My presentation will be very brief. The ranch as depicted is
located in northeastern Collier County. It comprises approximately
10,000 acres, which approximately 5,300 are located in Collier
County, which would be the left-hand side of that aerial photo that
you see before you.
Our request today is not similar to the request for the prior
Page 105
March 17, 2008
petition that was previously before you. It's to take approximately
2,500 acres of open land and designate them to a habitat stewardship
area. There are presently habitat steward areas to the north and the
south of the lands that are subject to this amendment. And those are
depicted on this aerial photo here.
This petition was also the subject of a prior stewardship
application. The entire area was placed with a conservation easement
over it. In other words, all of the property that is in Collier County in
the 5,000 acres is subject to stewardship application number eight,
which was before you in 1996.
This request is to designate again our open lands to habitat
stewardship areas would allow us to receive some additional
restoration credit for the lands that are subject to that aerial photo. We
think because particularly of their habitat value, it's a priority panther
area, that those lands perhaps should have been designated back in
2002 as a designation other than open lands, and we're here to request
that they be also placed in a habitat stewardship area.
If you have any other questions, again, the property owner is
here, and Mr. Paul is here.
Fundamentally the development rights basically will be
transferred to a receiving area for this property, so it will be left as
vacant or open lands.
No development is contemplated. Obviously there are
agricultural activities that are presently ongoing on the property today.
And at such time as those credits are transferred off the property, there
will be additional layers of land use that are presently permissible
today that will be lessened on the property. But our request again is
open lands to habitat stewardship areas.
I might also add, in addition to habitat stewardship areas being to
the north and the south, I think we have flow way -- habitat
stewardship flow way area located to the left-hand side of the
property.
Page 106
March 17, 2008
If you have any questions, Mr. Scofield, Mr. Hall or I will be
happy to answer your questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions of the applicant?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a few.
This entire parcel was under the -- is under the SSA --
MR. DUANE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- eight designation.
MR. DUANE: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It looks like most of the layers, at least in
4,484.5 acres of that designation, have been eliminated. And the
remaining are conservation, restoration, and I think it's group two
agriculture.
So basically the property as it is today isn't going to change
much; is that a fair assumption?
MR. DUANE: That is correct. Just the land use designation will
change and will be available for future restoration credits, should the
property owner undertake additional restoration of those lands.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Midney, I think you may ask
the same question that you asked prior. And I have an answer for you,
because it's in the staff report, if I can find it.
MR. WEEKS: Page 5.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 5.
Restoration credits will produce eight credits per acre of SRA or a
total of 1,823 acres of SRA.
THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, could you repeat that,
please.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry.
Restoration credits will produce at eight acres per SRA another
1,823 acres.
So that's what the SRA -- that's the additional I think lands
available for development; is that correct, David?
Page 107
March 17, 2008
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not going to be redundant and ask
you all the questions I asked you earlier. I think the same answers will
apply anyway.
MR. WEEKS: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the
applicant?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions of staff -- or
staff report, David?
MR. WEEKS: I'll just jump to the chase. Our recommendation is
the same as the last petition. It's found on Page 6 of your staff report.
Obviously the acreage figures are different, but otherwise it's the
same.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just want to know --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Wolfley.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- EAC had no issues?
MR. WEEKS: Thank you.
EAC recommendation was unanimous to support transmittal, per
staffs recommendation.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is probably not surprising, since
this is an environmentally positive move. Interestingly enough we --
hopefully, David, before this one comes back to us, the same request
that I asked, to show where the future lies with the amount of lands
available, you could let us know.
Anybody else have any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's pretty simple. Looks like the
first one got all the ground truthing, as we might say.
No questions, I'll entertain a motion. Is there a motion?
Page 108
March 17, 2008
Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll second.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I move that we forward this to the
BCC with a recommendation of approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Subject to--
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Subject to staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stipulations?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY : Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion's been made. Is there a
second, Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made by Mr. Midney,
seconded by Mr. Murray, subject to staff stipulations to recommend
transmittal.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
MR. MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
MR. WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0.
Well, you know, we could have done all this before lunch. We go
away for an hour, come back for 15 minutes and then we're out of
here.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's good.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, that leaves us with a request -- I
Page 109
March 17,2008
need a motion to continue till tonight at 6:00 in this room for the Item
C, which will be the Golden Gate Master Plan change for the First
Baptist Church of Golden Gate.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Commissioner Murray.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Commissioner Wolfley.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
MR. MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
MR. WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. We're continued till
6:00.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
MR. WEEKS: Couple of announcements, please. Or actually one
is a question.
As you've discussed at the beginning of the meeting, one of your
petitions, the very first one on the agenda, 4-A, CP-2006-1 is being
readvertised to be heard in Immokalee on March 24th, that's a
Monday, at 5:05 p.m.
We expect to have the staff report for that completed in time to
deliver tonight. So I'd like to know how many of you will be here at
tonight's hearing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul won't be here, but the rest of us will
be.
Page 11 0
March 17, 2008
MR. WEEKS: Thank you.
And secondly, unrelated, Mr. Murray had mentioned regarding
the large binders that you have, you got through just disposing of four
of those petitions today. In my comments earlier in the meeting, I had
suggested that after the 28th hearing that staff could collect your
binders, if you do not wish to keep them, including the contents.
However, if you wish to remove the contents of the four items
heard today and therefore have less to carry with you, staff will be
pleased to take those from you today, if you'd like. That's it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, David, did you ever
arrange a van for the Immokalee trip, or --
MR. WEEKS: We have. I'm not aware -- I've been out sick the
last three days. But I'm not aware of your total tally. But we do have a
vehicle reserved, a van. And depending upon how many of you
including staff might be in that, we will either keep the van or we will
move to a car. But we do have a vehicle.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, there was also an issue I
saw. I think the agenda said from 5:05 to 7:00. And yet we have
another -- our calendar says 5:00 to 8:30. So I just wondered what the
real time was that we were going to be allowed to be out there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Till 8:30, ifI'm not mistaken.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. But one of the -- the'
agenda, something I read said from 5:05 to 7:00. So I hope it's 8:30,
because I don't think we'll even scratch the surface too much by that,
right?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It just depends on who shows up and
what questions there are.
MR. WEEKS: I'll certainly check that, though, to see if the
agenda is in error.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, so you all feel comfortable,
Page 111
March 17,2008
I volunteer to drive.
Okay, we are continued till tonight at 6:00. Thank you all.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:10 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
Mark Strain, Chairman
These minutes approved by the board on
presented or as corrected
as
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by
Cherie' R. Nottingham.
Page 112