Loading...
CCPC Minutes 03/24/2008 GMP March 24, 2008 TRANSCRIPT OF THE GMP AMENDMENT MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida March 24, 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 5:05 p.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Immokalee, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Lindy Adelstein (Absent) Donna Reed-Caron Tor Kolflat (Absent) Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David 1. Wolfley ALSO PRESENT: David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning Margerie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney 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 LA TER THAN 3:00 PM, THE CCPC INTENDS TO ADJOURN THE HEARING, THEN RE-CONVENE A T 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. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 4. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CP-2006-1, IRE-ADVERTISED FOR 5:05 P.M. ON MARCH 24, 2008 AT THE IMMOKALEE CAREER & SERVICES CENTER, 750 SOUTH 5th STREET, IMMOKALEE, FL 34142.J Petition requesting an amendment to the 1m ok I e PI n n mm k Are Ma t r PI n F t r a d Ma nd M eries (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 ~ mile south of Stockade Road, in Section 15, Township 47 South, Range 29 East, consisting of 164.87:t acres. [CoordInator: Michele Mosca, AICP, PrincIpal Planner) B. CP-2006-2, [HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THE PETITIONER] Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Ar a Master Plan in lith I en ate Ar a Ma t r Plan F ture La d Use a n M erie (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 4O.6:t acres. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, A1CP, PrincIpal Planner) - 1 - C. CP-2006-S, [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, located 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.S4:t acres. [Coordinator: Thomas Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner) D. CP-2006-7, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element. includino the Future Land Use Mac and Mac Series (FLUElFLUM), 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 5:t acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] E. CP-2006-8, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element. includino the Future Land Use Mac and Mac Series (FLUE/FLUM), to change the FLUM designation from Urban Residential Subdistrict to the (NEW) Airport/Orange 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 5:t acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] F. CP-2006-9, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element. includino the Future Land Use Mac and Mao 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 191.80:1: acres. [Coordinator: David Weeks, AICP, Planning Manager) G. CP-2006-10, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element. includino the Future Land Use Mac and Mac Series (FLUElFLUM), 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 2,431.80:t acres. [Coordinator: David Weeks, A1CP, Planning Manager) H. CPSP-2006-12, [TO BE CONTINUED] Staff petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Mac (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:t acres. [Coordinator: Tom Greenwood, A1CP, Principal Planner) I. CPSP-2006-13, Staff petition requesting amendments to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Mac and Mac Series lFLUElFLUMI. Cacitallmcrovement Element. Transcortation Element and Macs. Recreation and Ocen Scace Element. Economic Element. and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element and Future Land Use Mac 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 AGENO" TO CONSICER 2006 CYCLE GMPAs OW/MK - 2- March 24,2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd start out and say good morning like we normally do, but it's evening, and this is a rarity for Collier County Planning Commission. So good afternoon or good evening, and welcome to the March 24th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. And for the first time that I can recall, we're holding the meeting here in Immokalee and. I hope this is precedent for more to come. So if you'll all please rise for the pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And if the secretary will please do the roll call. Item #2 ROLL CALL BY THE SECRETARY COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Present. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Present. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Caron is here. Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Present. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat and Mr. Adelstein are absent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Paul, it's a real good thing to see Page 2 March 24, 2008 you here tonight on time. And I'm sure the road traffic wasn't as bad to get here as it normally is for you. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Not yet. Item #3 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it worked out just fine. Planning commission absences. Our next meeting will be Friday mornmg. And David, I believe the only issue we have Friday morning is number 13 that you distributed; is that correct? MR. WEEKS: Also petition 12. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is? MR. WEEKS : Was continued from your 17th meeting. This is a property -- county-owned property on Goodland for a map designation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was readvertised for the 28th, youtre right. MR. WEEKS: I had incorrectly stated the 17th it was being readvertised. It was continued from that date. A second neighborhood information meeting, however, was advertised and held, because the first one was incorrectly noticed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does any member of the planning commission here know if they're not going to be here on Friday the 28th -- not here, it will be actually in the Collier County complex like usual starting at 8:30 in the morning. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: This Thursday? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This coming Friday. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: This coming Friday I might not make it. Page 3 March 24, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll still have a quorum. Thank you. Part of the application thatts coming up today, David, is the transportation section. That's really going to be real important. Nick has circulated various e-mails prior to today's meeting on some issues of concern on the impact of the road. I thought he was going to be here. Do you know ifhe's still planning to make it, and maybe late? Do you have any idea? MR. WEEKS: Our understanding is also that he would be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, Ijust hope he shows up before we go too far then. With that, we'll go into the advertised public hearings. We have MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir? MR. WEEKS: Pardon the interruption. Because we did not bring nameplates, I wonder if it might be appropriate to -- though the role has been taken, I'm not sure if it was in order or not, but to have each commissioner identify themselves for the record? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good idea. Paul, we'll start with you. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Paul Midney. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Brad Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: Donna Caron. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mark Strain. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Bob Murray. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Bob Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Dave Wolfley. Sorry, I'm busy. Page 4 March 24, 2008 Item #4A PETITION: CP-2006-1 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a little off button on that that works. We're here for one purpose tonight, and that's for the transmittal hearing for CP-2006-1. It's a petition requesting an amendment to the Immokalee Area Master Plan, and Immokalee Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Map Series. It's concerning approximately one million square feet of commerciallindustrialland to the south side of town. And with that, we normally proceed with the presentation by the applicant, discussion by the planning commission, presentation by county staff. Then when we finish with the questions of county staff, we then ask for comments from the public. We ask the public to try to contain themselves in about five minutes or so. There's some discretion in that. We just don't want to get too long into too many different people talk talking at one time. So with that, Mr. Varnadoe, it's all yours. MR. VARNADOE: Thank you, Mr. Strain. F or the record, George Varnadoe, on behalf of Silver Strand III Partnership. And Mark told you what we're here for is to try to change the Immokalee Area Master Plan to a new subdistrict for a commerce or business park. I have several consultants also here on behalf the applicant. But tonight you're going to hear from me, then Bob Mulhere, our Planner, and Russ Weyer, our Economic Consultant. And others are here to answer your questions. Page 5 March 24, 2008 Location. I'm sure you all came right by it. This is Immokalee Road, Stockade Road. We're over here somewhere. 165 acres approximately in this location on the east side of Immokalee Road. Our neighbors are ourselves, Barron Collier interest on the property down to the south, property to the east, property to the west across Immokalee Road. Our other neighbor is the county facility and we have a Collier County Landfill, and we have a Collier County stockade and a transportation maintenance facility there. Also approved is a conditional use earlier for a concrete manufacturing facility on this approximately 15 acres in this location. The property is within the Immokalee urban area, and is the southernmost parcel in the Immokalee urban area. It's currently designated urban low density residential, and zoned ago with a mobile home overlay. It's also within the community redevelopment area, although it's not in a sub area that is designated for redevelopment. It is also in the heartland rural area of critical economic concern; one of the three areas in the state so designated by the Governor as adversely affected by extraordinary economic events. The recognition that economic development and diversification of the economy is vitally important to the community in that executive order setting off that designation. The intent is to create a commerce park which will allow a mix of industrial and commercial uses. And part of the aim is to serve the rural land stewardship area and the Immokalee area as growth occurs in this area. And we think it's ideally located from that perspective. Being south of most of the Immokalee urban area, as far as serving people in the RSLA, they will not have to go through the urban area to transport goods or services to that area. However, by being in the urban area, it's also close enough for workers who enter the Page 6 March 24, 2008 Immokalee area to earn their living in this park without having a long commute. The business park or commerce park is an essential step in building a viable economic development program to diversify the economic base in Collier County, particularly eastern Collier County. The proposal is for a million square feet total, 30 percent of which could be commercial. I hope everybody received the revised Exhibit 4-B that I transmitted electronically on Friday. Ifnot, I have other copies that attempted to clarify that wetre not seeking all of the C-1 through C-3 uses, but that some of those are appropriate and the exact list of which we can determine at the time of zoning. I would note that although it was in the staff report that some time ago we appeared at a joint meeting of the CRA Advisory Committee and the Immokalee Master Planning and Visioning Committee and presented this project. And my recollection, although I couldn't find my notes, was that they had a vote and actually endorsed the project. But we have members of that committee -- those committees here which correct me if I'm -- my memory's getting faulty. This will be similar to a business park with expanded uses. And that's a unified project under one control and a parklike setting with fairly low structural density, well landscaped. So it's going to look like a project as opposed to a scattering of industrial uses on industrial zoned land. The business park subdistrict, as they exist in our Land Development Code and our Compo Plan today in my opinion is too restrictive. And I don't know anybody who's successfully used that in the time it's been in our books since 1994, I think. I pulled off the county website some PUD's that had industrial components that were some meaningful size, and note that none were developed using the business park subdistrict. All seemed to have Page 7 March 24, 2008 more flexibility in the types of uses. The City Gate Commerce Park, which I was involved in back in 1988,2,926,000 square feet total, of which 33 percent is commercial. The Creekside Park of Commerce, which I also was involved in, 810,000 square feet, of which 23 and a half percent is commercial. Westport Park of Commerce, which is I guess the southwest corner of 951 and Davis Boulevard, another project I was involved in, 568,000 total feet, of which 61 percent is commercial. East Gateway, which I was not involved in, 450,000 square feet total, of which 44 percent is commercial. And Tollgate, which is 898,000 square feet, of which 39 percent is commercial. All of those have uses that go beyond what would be allowed under a business subdistrict zoning. I guess one conclusion you could draw from that, and I don't but you could, that it's okay to have a good mix of different kind of commercial and more commercial in these projects in the urban area, but what about Immokalee? I mean, why should this be restricted as the staff would have us restricted? Now I need to address the staff report. They claim that we did not address compatibility. And I think they probably do not have anything in writing from us as to compatibility. I am pointing out our surrounding land uses. We have the Collier County Landfill in this location, we have the Collier County Stockade, the transportation maintenance facility, and we've got a concrete manufacturing facility. And I would ask you, which is more compatible, a mix of commercial and industrial uses or single-family homes in that location? In Pages 10 and 11 of your staff report, they said we also did not address how the proposal furthers the redevelopment plan -- that is, the CRA redevelopment plan -- or how the proposal furthers the GOP's of the Immokalee Area Master Plan and how it furthers the goals of the rural area critical economic concern designation. Page 8 March 24, 2008 I think in fact we did address those with the data analysis we supplied. But we did not draw the logical conclusions that can be drawn from that for staff, I guess. The rural area of critical economic concern, the goal there is to incentivize economic development in the area as the state has recognized that this is one of the areas that really needs economic development in order to help the community. As far as the CRA is concerned, the staff report says that the plan identifies an overarching economic development goal and objectives aimed at, among other things, of recruiting new businesses to Immokalee. And the Immokalee Area Master Plan, Policy 6.1, which I can't see now, says the county shall support economic development opportunities throughout the Immokalee urban area. What all three of those have in common, both the area of critical economic concern, the CRA and the Growth Management Plan for Immokalee say that Immokalee needs economic development and more economic development. The fiscal analysis which we provided shows that during build-out there'd be over 2,100 new jobs and a direct-to-indirect sales generation of $183 million annually, indirect and direct employer earnings of$63 million annually, and at build-out over 3,100 permanent jobs, direct and indirect sales of over 275 million, and employee earnings of about 95 million on an annual basis. I think that the conclusion that I draw and the logical conclusion is that this plan we're proposing does further the goals of all three by bringing economic development to the Immokalee urban area. In addition, projections are that at build-out the contributions to the CRA would be approximately $700,000 per year. That's after build-out. And that would certainly help the CRA achieve their redevelopment goals. I'm going to ask Bob Mulhere to address some planning Page 9 March 24, 2008 considerations, and then I'd like to come back up and ask you your indulgence to take Tammie Nemecek out of turn, because we've been working with the EDC on helping with this private/public partnership between the county and EDC for economic development. So Bob? MR. MULHERE: Let me just get settled here, and hopefully won't drop anything. I can use my rather substantial stomach here to hold this up. For the record, Bob Mulhere with RW A. Mark, you think that's funny. It's true. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're the last person I would think would have to say that, but go -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I made at comparison myself. MR. MULHERE: I just hide it well because I'm tall. Mr. Varnadoe has asked me for the record to quickly establish my professional qualifications, which I will do. Professional Planner. I have slightly over 19 years of experience. From 1989 through 2001 I worked for Collier County. The last four of those years as the Planning Services Director. Since 2001 I've been employed as Senior Vice President and Director of Planning for RW A. And I was certified by the American Institute of Certified Planners in 1994. And in 2001 I received a master's degree in public administration from Florida Gulf Coast University. So I have my resume, which I'd like to put in the record. Which I will do, but I leave now or this book will fall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay, leave it. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Okay. As George indicated, I've reviewed the proposed application related to the planning related -- professional planning related manners. And specifically related to consistency with the Page 10 March 24, 2008 Growth Management Plan, since this is a Growth Management Plan amendment. And in particular, as it relates to the Immokalee Area Master Plan. At the outset, I may be stating the obvious here, but I just wanted to say that, you know, itts understood and accepted that from time to time there are going to be amendments to the plan. And I think it's also understood and accepted that those amendments should be appropriate, and clearly it's required that you have to submit the appropriate level of data and analysis that both the staff will review prior to making a recommendation to the board, and ultimately DCA will review after transmittal. And I think we've addressed those issues. I'd like to talk a little bit about compatibility. And I think -- I'll be brief, because I think George really went over that. But just to reiterate, from my professional opinion, given the land uses that surround this piece of property and the fact that much of the surrounding land use that's currently under ago and undeveloped is owned by the applicant, clearly this piece of property along Immokalee Road is more compatible under the proposed commerce center designation than it would be as low density residential. Given the stockade, the Collier County Landfill, the concrete manufacturing facility, and I think there's a Collier County maintenance facility as well there. Talking about locations for the commerce center and why this particular location is appropriate and why was it selected, in part those are driven by the fact that the business park district is not very flexible in terms of its allowances and the uses that are allowed. The commerce center industrial district is flexible, but it appears to us that the intent was that that really was only intended for one area of geography in Immokalee. I'd like to hand out that language to you, if I could get somebody to help me. Otherwise this -- MR. VARNADOE: I'll do it. Page 11 March 24, 2008 MR. MULHERE: Thank you. Now, this is from the Immokalee Area Master Plan. It's just one page. Contains the commerce center industrial subdistrict, which is one paragraph, and it contains the business park subdistrict, which is a few paragraphs. If you take a look at the commerce center industrial subdistrict -- and by the way, the staff report goes into detail analyzing the existing conditions in the Immokalee area related to the various areas that allow for commercial and industrial uses, identifying the developed and undeveloped acreages. And really, this part of my presentation goes to that analysis. The commerce center industrial subdistrict, the purpose is to create a major activity center that serves the entire Immokalee urban designated area and the surrounding ago area. And it's to function as an employment center for industrial and commercial uses, including those in C-l through C-5 industrial and the business park zoning district. Now, it also indicates that it includes the Immokalee Farmers Market and related facilities. And permits higher intensity uses including packing houses and so on and so forth. Again, that district certainly allows for significant flexibility and actually more intensity and more flexibility than we were seeking in the commerce center designation in asking for C-l through C-3. Additionally, it appeared that this was intended to specifically apply only to that piece of geography where the Farmers Market is in the surrounding lands. Hence our request for a specific subdistrict known as the Commerce Center at Silver Strand. The other question that was asked is what about the business park district. And again, we would iterate or suggest to you that that doesn't have the kind of flexibility that we're looking for. It's rather restrictive. You can see in the language that I provided you that there's a very limited number of ancillary uses, commercial uses, secondary Page 12 March 24, 2008 commercial uses that are allowed in the business park district than the Immokalee Area Master Plan. And again, as Mr. Varnadoe indicated, there really have been no -- there has been no utilization of the business park designation. There is one project that I'm aware of in the urban area on Collier Boulevard that was, I believe, zoned business park or zoned PUD but using the business park provisions, which remains undeveloped. So some 13 years after that language was inserted in the code, we still don't have it. And I can attest to the fact that that is a problem, because I am -- I work integrally with the Economic Development Council and am a member of their board, and one of the things that we have continued to work on is creating a climate where adequate supply of land is designated and eventually zoned to allow for the types of uses that we want to see to create economic diversity. I won't steal Tammie's thunder, but it's important that I say that as part of my presentation. So I think that should explain why we looked at a separate designation. Now, I also want to just for a moment talk about that commerce center. The staff report indicates that there's 135 acres of undeveloped -- or 138 acres of undeveloped land in the commerce center industrial subdistrict. And I have one more thing to hand out to you. That's true. But just like so many of the other examples, that doesn't make those lands appropriate or conducive to what's being proposed here. The fact that you may have undeveloped land, I think you have to dig in a little bit further. And this is a list of separate property owners within the commerce center industrial designation under the Immokalee Future Land Use Map. And you can see that there are some I think four -- I think I counted, I think there was 49, 48 or 49 separate landowners, many parcels less than an acre or two acres in size. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to assume that there Page 13 March 24, 2008 would be an aggregation of parcels that could be then master planned and developed to accommodate a commerce center, the likes of which we are proposmg. And that is really true in almost all of the designations that are dealt with in the staff report where there is some degree of vacant land. It's either too small or too disjointed or not appropriately located. As Mr. Varnadoe pointed indicated, this location here is really quite good, since it can serve the surrounding lands without necessarily drawing unnecessary traffic through the center of town and down Main Street. So we think it's an appropriate location. I want to talk a little bit about the mixture of uses. We -- we've provided language that gives us flexibility with the condition that at the time of zoning we would narrow down the list of uses. And I guess I feel it's important to reiterate that at the comprehensive plan, particularly when youtre talking about an opportunity for economic development, it's really critical to retain that flexibility. We simply don't know what types of businesses at this point in time we will be able to attract. But we know that with a million square feet and over 3,000 employees, at least according to the model, at the time of build-out, we're going to need some additional commercial uses to support the daily needs of those employees. We've limited it to C-l through C-3. Those uses are already limited in terms of scope and scale, and we would further limit it at the time of zoning to specific uses that we feel are appropriate, or eliminating those that we feel are inappropriate. And of course you would have the -- the planning commission and the board would have the opportunity to review that as well. I think Mr. Varnadoe already went over the other types of commerce park or commerce center PUD's that exist in the urban area, all of which contain a significant component of commercial uses. Even the one designation in the Immokalee Area Master Plan called the Commerce Center Industrial that's supposed to be the major Page 14 March 24, 2008 activity center and major employment driver has C-1 through C-5 and business park uses allowed. Seems appropriate to allow them in this commerce center as well. The concept is supported by the Immokalee Master Plan Vision Committee, the East of 951 Committee -- I'm not sure if I have that exactly right; I looked at the preliminary report. They recognized and spelled it out right in the preliminary report that the eastern part of Collier County was really the only opportunity left for large-scale developments that will allow for the kind of new economic diversification that we are striving for. That in the urban area for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the lack of large parcels of land, not the least of which the incredibly high cost of land in the urban area, and also the traffic impacts. And also the fact that I tried to pern1it a 40-acre business park and couldn't get it permitted because of neighbor objections. So it's not going to be a very easy thing to accomplish, but we can accomplish it in the eastern area of Collier County and the east of 951 Visioning Committee recognized that. This supports the CRA, it doesn't detract from the CRA. And I guess I'd like to go to that issue for just a few minutes. This proposal will reduce trip impacts on the east-west -- over time on the east-west Immokalee Road. Because if we're successful and we have significant employees working out of here from the surrounding lands, the need for those employees to drive west in the morning and east in the afternoon is reduced. And that will have a beneficial impact in terms of -- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Could you explain that east-west? Because this road is north-south. MR. MULHERE: Well, I'm talking generally in terms of Collier County. Immokalee is east and the coast is west. And right now if there's no employment opportunities, most folks are heading west for employment and then east to go home. And that's what I mean, yeah. Page 15 March 24, 2008 I understand the road turns and heads north and south there, but it's still the same concept. This commerce center development will result in significantly increased tax revenues, which will benefit the CRA, not detract from it. The model estimates in excessive of $700,000 per year in TIF, tax increment financing, for the CRA as a result of this project. This is different than the down -- one of the questions that's come up is, well, won't this detract from the effort to redevelop the downtown area, and primarily focusing on Main Street? And I would submit to you as a professional planner that the two are completely different, that one does not detract from the other, that one actually will benefit the other, that this will benefit the downtown redevelopment and the Main Street redevelopment. I would submit that not only the TIF incremental financing that we've already discussed, tax incremental financing, but also the fact that it's just different. These uses will be different. Really, if the downtown Main Street area of Immokalee is to be successfully redeveloped, what needs to happen is that folks need to concentrate on getting -- on furthering the elements of the downtown Main Street area that are beneficial to redevelopment. It's diversity, it's on-street parking, it's mixture of uses. Especially focusing on a mixture of uses that would be different in the daytime and different at night, such as restaurants and offices. Focusing on the small town Main Street feeling of Main Street, Immokalee and the diversity -- I think I already said that. This will be the kind of components that will result in a successful development, not the fact that this fairly large commerce center will in any way detract from that. What you have is high pedestrian activity, you have on-street parking. You have a physical condition that supports a mixture of these daytime and evening uses. If we can get them there, we'll be successful. Page 16 March 24, 2008 So I really don't see that there's any computation between the commerce center and the Immokalee downtown or Main Street area. So in closing, it's my professional opinion that it's clear that this location is appropriate for this use. Commerce park is compatible with the existing land uses we've discussed. The needs analysis and the economic data submitted with this petition really do make it very, very clear that the proposed project will diversify the economy, it will bring needed jobs to the community, it will substantially increase TIF funds for the implementation of the CRA, and the overarching theme and goal that you heard George talk about that's there both in the Immokalee Area Master Plan and in the rural area of economic concern and in the CRA is economic diversity and economic development. And this is the kind of opportunity that doesn't come around every day to advance that. With a willing landowner who will at no small risk take the opportunity to do exactly that. I believe that concludes my presentation. Again, I think it's consistent with the goals, objectives and policies, and warrants your approval. Thank you. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we probably do. I just don't know ifthere's a timing issue with the EDC's discussion that you wanted to have. Is Tammie pressed for time? No? Because we do have -- I'm sure there's going to be some planning questions. Is there a reason why they wouldn't be appropriate now, from your perspective? MR. VARNADOE: However you want to do it, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As far as the planning commission goes, why don't we start out -- is there any planning issues? Mr. Midney? I would assume you'd have plenty of questions. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, and I'm not -- questioning Page 17 March 24, 2008 doesn't mean I'm against the project, I just have some things that I, you know, would like to clarify in my mind. It sounds like a good idea. I guess the first thing that comes to mind is we have an Airport Industrial Park which we're trying to develop which belongs to the county, and we're trying to recruit people to lease this area. Will having this other large private park be in competition with what we're trying to do now with the airport park? MR. MULHERE: Well, I would answer that in two ways. And if you want more specific information, we've got the consultants here, Russ Weyer, for example, that can talk to this. But in general, the needs analysis that we conducted still shows significant need, even in consideration of the proposed Airport Industrial Park and -- or the existing Airport Industrial Park and the proposed trade center -- tradeport. So there's still significant need. And again, I think as this commerce park unfolds and comes into the zoning stage, you're going to get a better idea of the exact nature of the uses that will be in there. And -- I mean, to an extent they're going to compete, but they're not going to detract from one another, because there's need well above and beyond all three of those already identified by the EDC study and the independent study that we had done by Russ Weyer. Tammie will talk about the EDC study. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aren't we having trouble, though, finding people to lease space at the airport now? MR. MULHERE: And you know what, maybe Tammie can talk about that. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Go ahead, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Paul, the-- COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fred, really, you're a member of the public, I'd rather have the applicant's experts and professionals Page 18 March 24, 2008 respond first, and then we'll bring up members of the public. And Bob, if you're here to answer questions -- MR. MULHERE: I think I can-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- then you need to answer them. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I think I can. And what I would suggest to you is that I don't know the degree to which the airport is having some trouble -- the Airport Industrial Park is having trouble finding tenants. I'm not intimately familiar with what type of tenants they're looking for. But as I understand it, you know, there are limitations on -- that land is I think through a long-term lease, a 99-year lease or something. I don't know if a business owner can come in there and buy that property. That limits the pool of potential tenants. Because some people want to own their property. And I think Tammie will address it further when she gets up here, won't you, Tammie? MS. NEMECEK: Yes. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, that's just an area that I would like elaborated, not necessarily by yourself but -- MR. MULHERE: No, I understand. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: -- something that I would like to inform myself about better. MR. MULHERE: It's a good question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Paul? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions that relate to planning or Mr. Varnadoe's presentation before we go into the others? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I have a couple. The commerce center industrial subdistrict that you spoke about in detail, I think you said it has more uses in it than you would need in Page 19 March 24, 2008 the one you're proposing. MR. MULHERE: It allows more -- it allows C-l through C-5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So all the function of that district works for you. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's already an existing type of industrial subdistrict. In looking at the amount of GMP language you're submitting, which is a page plus, two pages to create a new subdistrict when all you would have had to done is go into the GMP and modify two sentences in that commercial center industrial subdistrict to make it more flexible area-wise, why wouldn't have that been an opportunity? MR. VARNADOE: I think, Mr. Strain, that we tried to rifle-shot this. We tried to specif -- had it specifically tailored to what we thought we wanted to do. I felt, as Bob did, that that was a site specific one-time opportunity, and a one-time geographical position in the county in the county. And if staff doesn't like what we're doing now, what do you think the reaction would have been if I'd come in and said I want C-l through C-5, all the industrial and all the business park uses. I mean, we tried to really take a rifle-shot at what we thought we wanted to do. Will it work for us? Yes. If that's your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's -- Ijust thought we're going a long way to get to a rather quick ending on that process, so -- Bob, I have -- are you familiar with the new Immokalee master plan that's being circulated, or has been around? MR. MULHERE: No. I mean, I went on line, Mr. Strain, and I looked at everything I could get. It took me a long time to get some of the information, but I did track down everything that I could. But I did not find any new, other than the one that we have, draft that was in the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a copy of one of the proposals. Page 20 March 24, 2008 There's been many. And in there was a lot of language promoting industrial and business growth in the community here. And I went through it very carefully, and there's a lot of tabs here. There's probably two dozen different notations of policies in the new Growth Management Plan that Immokalee has attempted to write that you absolutely do meet, that meet the intent of the project you're trying to go forward with, and certainly meets the intent from everything I can see that the residents of Immokalee who put this plan together is there. It's a good plan so far. There's obviously some changes needed to it, but I think that the plan would strongly support your projects. I might suggest that between now and the time you get into adoption at the BCC you actually look at it and reference the fact that there's probably 20 policies here that you do meet. In fact, not meet, you go farther than that in the intent of what you're trying to do here today. I know that doesn't play out in staffs regard. Staff had to look at this purely by the Immokalee Area Master Plan as it exists. And to be honest with you, that's much vaguer in the needs of Collier -- of Immokalee than the new plan thatts being proposed. Again, the new plan isn't adopted, but it sure goes a lot farther. MR. MULHERE: So it seems as though they've taken that goal and broadened it and made it more specific. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely. They've gone in and actually listed industrial needs. They've shown industrial need far greater than what you're requesting here for both commercial and industrial properties currently in the Immokalee Master Plan. All that is a basis to me why youtre actually going in a right direction. So I didn't have a problem with it and I was going to read it all for the record, but there's just too much here. We'd be here for another hour going through those policies. I though strongly think you ought to include some of these in your reference material -- Page 21 March 24, 2008 MR. MULHERE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- as a potential for the future. Any other questions of -- Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Mr. Varnadoe stated that one of the benefits to this district will be that it will lessen traffic into the Immokalee downtown area. Yet one of the goals of the Immokalee Area Master Plan is to generate activity downtown. So if I am a restaurant owner and you have a million square feet and 3,200 people working there, sort of a captive audience for me, why would I choose to do something downtown in Immokalee versus doing something in the business park? And why will you not hurt downtown Immokalee? MR. MULHERE: Well, I mean, I think there's a couple of basic planning considerations here. Number one, the Immokalee Main Street area really needs to focus on attracting a mixture of uses that have differing hours of operation. Of the fact that there's on-street parking and there's a Main Street that's a major thoroughfare for truck traffic has always been a problem, and it continues to be a problem. So it's a little bit of a dichotomy. Yeah, they want activity and they want more people, but no, they don't want more truck traffic and they don't want more high speed traffic, motor vehicle traffic. Now, one way to address that might be through some parking sheds or some parking structures that would allow folks to park in a central location and then have some pedestrian activity. Even surface parking would work too. It just takes up more space. And so, you know, if we think about -- if we think about even other areas of redevelopment that have been successful -- I'm not comparing the two in any way except for the illustration of the love/hate relationship of more traffic, more activity and more traffic, you know, Fifth Avenue. The activity is great. But, you know, there is a desire to control the volume of traffic, particularly during the day. At Page 22 March 24, 2008 night there's usually not so much traffic so that you can accommodate those other uses because you don't have as much business traffic. I do agree with you that, you know, that if we went in there and developed, I don't know, 100,000 square feet of shopping center with, you know, restaurants and entertainment uses and the kinds of uses that should be focused on for downtown in this commerce park, then we might detract from the downtown area. That's not our intent. And we feel that the restrictions in C-l through C-3 on those types of uses severely regulate those. For example, we're not going to build a shopping center. Now, we might have a restaurant. When you've got 3,000 employees, perhaps some people want to walk to get a bite to eat. On maybe not go that far as to drive to downtown. On other days they might want to hop in the car and go out en masse and celebrate somebody's birthday, and that would be beneficial to the downtown area. So I really don't see it as in any way competing. And I think it's a question of choice. I mean, I worked for many years in the food and beverage industry, and the people used to complain when a restaurant opened next to your restaurant. Well, the fact is, if you do your job and you do it well, you're still going to be on top. And I would say the same thing is true of the Immokalee Main Street area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of Bob while he's up? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, I've got two more. MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There was a note in the staff report that said the following: The petitioners did not address the goals and objectives of the redevelopment plan in their submittal, nor did they provide data and analysis to demonstrate that the proposed project furthers the plan, as requested by staff. Page 23 March 24, 2008 Could you just address why and -- why you did not provide that to staff? MR. MULHERE: Yeah, I mean, I think basically we would disagree with that. We would argue that the data and analysis that we provided does in fact demonstrate that we are consistent with the comprehensive plan, and that it more than sufficiently leads one to that conclusion. If we didn't expressly state that in a way that was obvious beyond us submitting our application and asking for this and then submitting the data and analysis, I would have to apologize. But obviously it's our opinion that we did address that and address it sufficiently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and the second question, Mr. Varnadoe had already answered about compatibility. So thank you. Okay, George, if you wanted to continue with your presentation. MR. VARNADOE: Thank you. I told you earlier that this project was central -- a central step in building a viable economic development program to diversify the economic base in Eastern Collier County. As I'm sure you all know, as well as I, the EDC has been working on a public/private partnership with the Board of County Commissioners to create highways, job opportunities all over Collier County, but particular in Eastern Collier County. I think Tammie can tell you how the public/private partnership has identified diversifying the economy in this area as a priority. And what I'd like -- one reason I want to get Tammie up here is that as far as I'm concerned, she's what -- we can sit here and talk about theory, about what would be competing, what wouldn't be competing, what would work, what wouldn't work. That's great in theory. But she's where the rubber meets the road. EDC is the one out actually trying to attract businesses and industry to Collier County, particularly Collier County. And that's why I'd like you to hear from her at this point in time, as opposed to Page 24 March 24, 2008 just a member of the public. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MS. NEMECEK: Good evening, Commissioners. Tammie Nemecek, President of the Economic Development Council of Collier County. The EDC has established in 1997 a public/private partnership with the Board of County Commissioners for the purpose of working with the county and the business community and the community at large in order to help create new opportunities for high wage job creation throughout Collier County. I would tell you that for the past probably eight years of our work, a lot of it has been built on looking at capacity within the county. And I would say that looking forward probably the next 20 years will still be built on looking at capacity here in Collier County and understanding what it takes in order to help achieve the economic goals that we have for our community. And it really comes down to the opportunity for us to have sustainability within Collier County. And it's hard to talk about, but it's true, the economic times that we're in right now I think helps to underscore what this public/private partnership was established to do, which was to bring in new high wage jobs, lessen the cyclical cycle here in the community, lessen the season -- our dependence on seasonal jobs with the construction industry, with tourism, with the service and agricultural industry that we've had historically in Collier County. I think you can see today with the times that we're in how much this is truly needed. We have worked over the last number of years with landowners, to encourage them to create capacity with lands here in Collier County that would be suitable and attractive to companies wanting to locate in the community. We market the community on a regular basis to businesses, to site selection consultants; we work both locally, as well as on a Page 25 March 24, 2008 regional basis, not only with the coastal counties but also the heartland counties that make up the south central part of the state. We're a partner with rural area of critical economic concern and the catalyst project to try to attract companies into this area and into the heartland area. And what we continually find is that in order to be able to market the area, you have to have something to sell. We have been working with the airport to address a question earlier with regards to the compatibility or competition that might persist with the airport. And I will tell you that the airport has had a long haul in being able to get it off the ground -- no pun intended -- with regards to the permitting issues at the airport. Federal level, state level, panther mitigations, those types of things have severely hindered the opportunity for that airport to grow probably at a pace that we'd like it to grow. I would tell you that the extension of the runway, or lack thereof, has also hindered the opportunity for that airport to grow. But if you look at the master plan for the airport, most of the property that's being designated at that airport is airside property versus industrial property. So -- and in addition to that, we talked a little bit earlier about it being leased property versus purchased property. So there is an opportunity for us to work with companies and be creative in what we do with the property that's owned by the airport. But again, it comes down to is there truly enough land at the airport or even with the Trade Port Technology Park that's being proposed to be able to have enough capacity to meet the goals of our economic diversification projects. And I would contend no, we did about two years ago now a study, which has been updated as part of this report, which was what we called the land use conundrum, which looked at what we wanted to achieve for job creation goals here in Collier County, looking at the property that was available, very minimal property in the coastal area, Page 26 March 24, 2008 lots of property in the eastern part of Collier County, but none of it properly zoned to be able to attract businesses. And what we found, we were thousands of acres shy of being able to sustain the type of job growth that we want to sustain. And the issue that we also have is the fact that even if we found a company today to go through the process of permitting that property and getting it up and operational for that company to site there is close to a two and a half year process. So we're encouraging and we have been working with landowners to encourage them to look at the land that they have available, find out what land could be suitable for this type of development, and start the process now so that when we want to be able to site that company in Collier County, we're not waiting two years. Because the companies won't wait with us. And we've found that a lot with working with the airport and waiting for the permits there, is that by the time we got anywhere near or thought we were near getting the permits ready to go, the company's plans had changed and things have moved on. So I think it's important that you understand that the need is definitely there. For us to be able to have some flexibility and creativity from the landowner's perspective to be able to look at their property and say how can we position this property to be able to sustain the job growth opportunities that we see that the companies would love to locate here if we had suitable property, and the marketability of it. For a company owner to come into a place where there's some commerce park types of uses within that park is very attractive to business owners of today. They like that mixed use. Having the Main Street actually in close proximity is an added benefit for them, especially with the good work that the Immokalee Master Plan Envisioning Committee is doing, is that you have some variety of options, it's not just one option. And we do deal with a lot of the companies and the employees Page 27 March 24, 2008 that come into the area. We have the same issue. If an employee's looking at this area and there's only one location to go, they're very reluctant to come to the area, because there aren't other places for them to work. And it's the same with employers. As they look at this area are there multiple locations, what's the full landscape of the community to be able to site my company here versus just you can only have this one choice and that's it and there aren't any other locations that we can show the company. So I will tell you that this is exactly what we're looking for from an economic development standpoint. We did work with the Governor's Office of Tourism, Trade and Economic Development to expand the rural area of critical economic concern to include the entire urban boundary of Immokalee, specifically because we knew that we were working with this property to be able to include it in the RACEC area, because we needed that land to be able to site the companies here. And we have been intimately involved with the Immokalee Master Plan Visioning Committee in preparing the updated master plan. And you'll see the references in there are very compatible, because this is part of the full picture and global picture that we'd like to see for Collier County so that we can again achieve the economic diversification goals for the community. So I would highly encourage you to transmit this. I think that this is good for Collier County as a whole, and I think it's an excellent opportunity for Immokalee to be able to have some variety in the types of locations where companies can go and allow us to be able to properly market the area to the companies that we want to site here, which are high wage, high tech employers that look at Collier County as a great place to have their business, and to be able to stay and have lots of opportunities to grow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions of Tammie? Page 28 March 24, 2008 Go ahead, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, it sounds really good. Explain to me again why the regulatory process would be so much less here than at the airport. MS. NEMECEK: No, the regulatory process is exactly the same. The issue is, is getting enough land cited in Collier County now so that at the time when we have these companies coming into the community we have locations for them to go. I mean, that's the issue. It's always been a chicken and an egg with us, we find a company and then we look for the land. And that's what we've been working towards with our land use analysis a couple of years ago was to try to be proactive in working with landowners, both property owned by the county as well as property owned by private sector individuals in order to get the land sited, permitted, ready to roll today so that when we get these companies ready to come into the community we're not waiting two years to have it permitted. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That makes sense. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have questions of Tammie? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tammie, you said you were familiar with the Immokalee Area Master Plan that's being formed. I know the chairman is here, so when he gets up, I do have some questions for him later. But I've read some references to your agency in that plan. Are you familiar with those? MS. NEMECEK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I read them as though this is consistent with the intentions of what your agency would be looking for, based on those policies; is that -- MS. NEMECEK: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- what you think, too? Page 29 March 24, 2008 MS. NEMECEK: Exactly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. VARNADOE: Our final presenter is Russ Weyer to talk about the demand side of the equation. So if anybody has any questions before he and Mark get into this discussion about the FIAM, this might be a good time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we do have to take a break around 6:30, so we'll have to see where we're at with Russ by then. MR. VARNADOE: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. WEYER: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the Collier County Planning Commission. I'll be kind of short and sweet. I do have -- since we don't have visuals -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have copies for the court reporter, too? MR. WEYER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. WEYER: I'll let them get passed out. They're only -- MR. MULHERE: I got it. MR. WEYER: Thanks, Bob. Couple of quick slides real quick. For the record, I'm Russ Weyer, Senior Associate with Fishkind & Associates. We have offices again in Port St. Lucie, Orlando and Naples. And the applicant has asked us to take a look at the economic and fiscal impact potential of this project on Collier County and on the Immokalee area. And I'm going to cover five -- four quick areas and then kind of a summary slide. From the fiscal impact analysis side we utilized our fiscal impact model that we have created when we worked through the DCA, and I Page 30 March 24, 2008 currently am working with the staff of Collier County to get the model that they have calibrated appropriately. They're doing a great job with that, by the way. And if you look at the fiscal impacts over 20 years, which is the time frame you generally look at projects in order to determine their fiscal impact on a jurisdiction, and their combined operating and capital impact is approximately just over 17 and a half million dollars over that 20 years. And then what we tend to do is present value that back to today's dollars so you get an idea in terms of what that would be in today's dollars. And the present value of that net impact is $2.3 million. In terms of the annual economic impacts, there are a bunch of different models there. We utilize the Regional Industrial Multiplier System, which is RIMS for short. It was developed by the Bureau of Economic Development, which is a subset of the U.S. Department of Commerce. They utilize the multipliers, depending on the jobs and the type of businesses that are there. And in terms of this project, the permanent and construction jobs, all the way through the project is just over 3,200 people will be employed. The total sales output, which is the generation of dollars and as they roll through the economy is roughly 275 million. And then the total annual earnings, of which approximately 40 percent of these will be high wage jobs, is roughly 95.2 million on an annual basis. That's what they will be putting into the local economy through the employees. In terms of the business park analysis, about two years ago, I guess it was, I had worked with the Economic Development Council of Collier County. We're not a member. We weren't paid to do this study. I'm a resident of Collier County so I have a very vested interest in our growth and how we go forward. So we graciously I guess did the study for them in terms of looking at business park land going forward. Page 31 March 24, 2008 And when we did this, we took a look at employees and the amount of employees that we have here and we ran it through a couple of different scenarios; one, if the employment stayed the same as it is now of 39 percent of our population being employed. And we also ramped that up a little bit as our economy would change going forward. We held it constant for this study. And when we did the original study, we roughly had about 3,700 acres short. And then we worked with Michele here, she was very, very helpful in going through the supply side of it and when we got it down to very good detail. So we came up with a number that the county is roughly 2,000 -- just over 2,000 acres short of business park land, planning going forward in terms of what our need will be. And that's taken out what is existing and what has been approved. So if you look at that again, the 2010 county deficit is roughly 401 acres. This project will again take care of roughly 30 percent of that at that point in time. And then when you get out to the 2030 county deficit of 2,069 acres, this project will take care of roughly six percent of it. We were also asked during to do this analysis as well (sic) to take a look at the Immokalee area CRA contribution that this project would have to the downtown CRA. And accumulatively through 2018, that would be roughly 4.7 million. And we utilize the county ordinance 2000-42, which explains how the CRA and the tax increment is determined. And so roughly it will be about 700,000 annual that it will be contributing to the CRA in terms of ad valorem dollars. The project again, the county and Immokalee benefits. It diversifies the economic base here. It's fiscally positive to the county. It addresses a portion of the county business park needs. It creates over 3,000 permanent and construction jobs, with many of them being high wage jobs. It will add roughly $93 million annually to the local payroll at build-out. And it adds significant dollars to the Immokalee Page 32 March 24, 2008 CRA. And complements, not really competes with the downtown commercial area, as Mr. Mulhere had suggested earlier. With that point I'll be happy to take some questions. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Weyer, what is -- okay, I just want to finish a note here. There are a lot of questions that could be asked, and it's certainly -- this is the most difficult part of this is the crystal ball. And you said you used the RIMS study, is that what it was? MR. WEYER: That's correct, the RIMS Multiplier System, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In looking at the staff report on Page 9 where it references the retail growth and it references the acreage and so forth, I looked -- you know, you look at some percentages, and percentages often lie to you in terms of what, you know, real is versus, you know, incremental. I guess what my question would be is are we being -- and I'm not against this project by any stretch, but are we being overly enthusiastic in terms of what we think our R Y is going to be? You've said some numbers here, you know, 700K to the CRA. When -- MR. WEYER: Well, again, that -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have compound questions, so I'll just go a little further. When is a big factor. It's incremental, I would think. I'm assuming that the build-out is done, that's a 700K number? And if that's true, when is the build-out? Is it when the physical structure's done or when is it considered that it's occupied? I need to understand more. I understand this is a growth process, I understand it's a great envelope with an opportunity. But I want to understand where your figures came from. And I'm sorry for the long question, but can you give us a general response to that? MR. WEYER: Yes, Mr. Murray, I will. Page 33 March 24, 2008 I did do a memo to Michele here. And what we ended up doing was we took a look -- first of all we took a look at the relationship that Silver Strand would have on the CRA. And what we did is we take the base year, which is 1999; that's the base year's terms of value. Then we take on top of the -- the assessed value in 1999 was 880,000. And that's because it's agricultural land and that's -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand. MR. WEYER: -- how it's done. Then from there, based on as units are built and they show up on the tax roll at their assessed value, you take the increment between that new value and the old value and that's the CRA TIFF portion at 95 percent. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand that part of it. But you don't realize that immediately. MR. WEYER: That is correct. It is -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm trying to understand where you cited $700,000 to the CRA. At what moment in time? MR. WEYER: According to our tables, if the absorption goes the way that the applicant has proposed, that would roughly start in the year 2016 to 2017. And it will grow incremental at that point. Like in 2009 it will be 116; 2011 it gets to 238,000. So it's all based upon your absorption schedule. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I think Mark is going to probably ask you a lot more detail than I would. But I looked at it, and I love the idea of this thing happening, but I'm just -- I want to be more reassured, I think, of -- maybe Mark will get it out of you what I can't, that the numbers are not -- that they're not really just the ideal, they're not really a good qualification ofreality. And they are crystal ball so-- , MR. WEYER: And again, it's based on A, the assessed value and B, the absorption schedule. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? Page 34 March 24, 2008 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: One quick question, Russ. When you say 40 percent high wage, what delineates high wage? MR. WEYER: That's roughly -- where's Tammie at? Roughly around $43,000 a year. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else want to ask Russ anything? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Russ, five years ago you gave me a working electronic model of the FIAM, and I appreciated that. But you've learned never to give me another one. MR. WEYER: I need to give you an updated one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that would be fine if you so want to volunteer. For the record note that, I hope. So all I've had is the hard copy so I couldn't play around with it as much as I would have liked to. But in your report -- and by the way, the copy of the report that was furnished to the planning commission was not numbered by page, so it's a little hard to follow. MR. WEYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti just asked a question that is relevant. It says, the current average wage in Collier County is 37,686 and the high wage job is 43,339. We're talking about Immokalee. Do you know how that compares to the wages in Immokalee? MR. WEYER: The Immokalee wages are a little bit lower, Mark, but I dontt have the exact figure for this jurisdiction. I can get that for you, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The questions I'm going to ask are more out of a need to understand how you may have -- how this may have applied specifically if you tailored the numerics to Immokalee rather than Collier County, which includes the coastal area. Honestly, I think if you did it would have probably come out Page 35 March 24, 2008 better, not worse. But I'd like to at least know that some of that -- there would have been a difference in some of those. And you have different references in here. For example, under the commercial needs analysis it says, the consultant's proprietary retail demand model indicates that by the year 2030, will be a demand of 113 acres of regional and community serving space and an aggregate supply of 123 acres. And it goes on from there. My question is, what is this proprietary retail demand model? MR. WEYER: We have a model, Mark, that we have created to take a look at retail demand. And what it does, and I'll give you a very simple form, you would look at the project right here, and then we take a look at spending -- first of all, we take a look at the spending capability of the area, what they have the capability of spending in terms of neighborhood, community and retail -- or, I mean regional. In terms of those -- those are space sizes that the Urban Land Institute utilizes, up to 100,000 square feet, 100 to 300,000 square feet, and then over 300,000 square feet is general, the general parameters. There's a little leeway in there. Anyway, what we do in this model is we input all that data from the DOR and all those places that talk about the capacity to spend. Then on that model, if you have this center right here at this point, and then it takes a look, we call it a gravity model, that you have a propensity to spend at that site, goes down as you move away from the site. Which makes sense. Because you're going to have, in propria to other centers that around, so that a person that's on the periphery of that market area is going to tend to spend more of their money on an area that's closer. So the further out they go would be kind of a drive-by type situation. So we take a look at that capacity to spend and the households that are involved in that whole market area, and then we discount it going out. And that's where we get our demand side. Page 36 March 24, 2008 Then we take the supply side in that same market area and run it through the same analysis. The places in all the supply side that's close gets credited at 100 percent as supply. And then as you go out, the supply side also gets discounted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how did that demand model become tailored to the Immokalee market? MR. WEYER: Well, it was done on the spending area. And remember, our markets were -- we were looking at 20 and 30-minute drive times. So it takes all of that market into account. So it takes their spending capacity and also in terms of, like I said, in regional and community and neighborhood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before the adoption hearing, could you provide a copy of that model with the numbers in it that you used? MR. WEYER: To you? Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To me or whoever wants it. I'd certainly like to see a copy. MR. WEYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The following page under the same section, it talks about allocation ratios. And it says, while an allocation ratio of 1.44 is still significantly below the desired minimum level of 2.0, the market will still have sufficient allocation to adjust the future demand in this case. Where and who sets the level of 2.0? How did that came about? MR. WEYER: Mark, that came about a while ago, believe it or not from the Department of Community Affairs. They were looking long term. And when you get out to the 2030, when they were doing Growth Management Plan, they liked to have an allocation ratio higher than one-to-one. And the reason being is from planning purposes it allows for flexibility out there. So if you have an allocation ratio of two- to-one, that means you have in your FLUM and approved and also in the ground you have enough commercial that is like two times the amount Page 37 March 24, 2008 of the demand. Then as you go forward to the 2030 time frame, when you get there at that point you should be closer to the one-to-one. And what will happen is markets are efficient. So what will happen is that some of these people that have commercial that's either in the FLUM and not have been planned or permitted at this point, they're going to change it and go a different direction, because there's going to be plenty of commercial at that point. But it's a flexibility ratio that the DCA has utilized. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the ratio generally the same for rural inland communities as it would be for coastal tourist communities? MR. WEYER: It -- yes, because they look at the whole county in general. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Another page under fiscal impact model analysis model -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Excuse me. So it's not specific to the Immokalee area. MR. WEYER: Correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's kind of generally the theme I'm getting to is I'm not sure where the specificity is into this model. You could take it and apply it almost anywhere. Immokalee is unique in Collier County for sure, because most of this county's direction tends to promote the tourism in the coastal area more than it thinks of the farming communities. And I would want to make sure that if whatever we try to do -- and I think the Immokalee Master Plan Committee is now trying to do this too -- is look at issues that are tailored to the Immokalee community, not the same necessarily that apply to the coastal community in Collier County. And that's kind of where I've been going in my reading of your document. MR. WEYER: As I had mentioned, Mr. Strain, to the new CRA Director, I'll be happy to help out here, so -- Page 38 March 24, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I notice you also calibrated the model. I'm assuming you used standard Collier County calibration numbers? MR. WEYER: In some cases we did, but in some cases we were specific to the Immokalee area. And out here in the rural area -- or not the rural area, but the general fund and also in terms of the unincorporated areas, we utilized those millage rates. The person per household doesn't matter because all of these numbers are basically driven off the employee number, not the person per household number. So if you were to change that to 3.0 or 4.0 per household, it won't change the fiscal results at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I was looking at more at some of the taxable base, but I'll get into that one, because I did find some items in the FIAM that I want to question. Under your modified per capital method, one of your statements surprised me. It says, furthermore, there is nothing peculiar about the location or the type of this particular project that indicates that per capita parameters estimated from the latest budgets would not be reflective of actual costs and revenues. That just struck me as odd considering the differences between what would apply along the coastal communities and what applies out here. MR. WEYER: Again, in this case we didn't do the modified per capita method. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEYER: Generally in a case -- I need a little bit of history on the FlAM to let you know that the FIAM, when it was originally created, there weren't a lot of impact fees around. So thatts why we did the modified per capita approach. But because when you have an impact fee, they generally set those equal, because they offset each other. And ifthere's a developer contribution, that makes up the difference. Page 39 March 24, 2008 So we generally calibrate the model to include the impact fees. And in this case again there's no residential involved, so we don't do the modified per capita approach on the per person basis, it's done on the per employee basis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I notice the hours for the per employee were stated in here. Again, I wasn't sure they were reflective of the hours people here may work. 40-hour weeks may not be a dominant theme around here. It also looks like your projected revenues for an eight-year development phase, I think the transportation model showed to 2012, which would be a shorter phase. I'm not sure who's right, I'm not sure it makes a lot of difference, but I wanted to point that out. MR. WEYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your FIAM the property sales value assumptions, your single-family type two, you value it at an average of $500,000. Is that reflective of Immokalee? MR. WEYER: No, Mark, we didn't change those. We could have, but there's no difference. It doesn't drive the model in this case. It doesn't drive the model at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the model you use studies, Florida population studies from 2005, and there are other studies from 2004. Did you not have updated numbers? MR. WEYER: When we submitted this, this was in 2006, so at that time we did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point. I also notice your revenue stream, I couldn't find on there where you've included impact fees. Did I miss it? MR. WEYER: You might have. It usually fall -- like if you see transportation, not ad valorem, there should have been under the capital costs -- or the capital revenue should have had all the impact fees in there. Page 40 March 24, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I missed it. It may have been there, but if you get a chance at some point, just drop me a line or something to let me know that it was included. MR. WEYER: I don't think we would have missed that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think so either, because it's a substantial number. That's why it -- MR. WEYER: That's pretty substantial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- wasntt as readily available. You used a 2003 consumer expenditure survey conducted by the U.S. Department of Labor. Was that tailored to locally in Immokalee or was that again county-wide? MR. WEYER: It was tailored to this area, the Immokalee area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then you talked about dollars and cents of shopping centers and sales data, and it said, parenthesis, for the county in question. I would assume that that was a countywide analysis and it was an analysis under the aggregate market retail demand. MR. WEYER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My whole point of this, and I won't belabor any -- these points any further was probably hitting where Mr. Murray and Mr. Vigliotti and Ms. Caron had indicated. This isn't tailored to Immokalee as much as it might have been able to be. If you can improve on it between now and the adoption hearing -- not that this is going to show it as a negative project in any stretch of the imagination, it will probably show just the opposite, but it might be a good thing to have the record more localized, if it can be done that way. MR. WEYER: I will take a look at that, sir, and do what I can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's up to you guys. Do we have any other questions of Russ before we go to county staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Russ, thank you very much. Page 41 March 24, 2008 MR. WEYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, it's -- or Michele, it's all yours. MS. MOSCA: I didn't know if you were going to take a break. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we'll take a -- well, what do you think, young lady, are you ready for a break? THE COURT REPORTER: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You are? It's a good idea, Michele. Before you start, let's take a I5-minute break. We'll be back at 6:35. (Recess) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, we're finished with our break, if you'll all resume your seats. Russ and Paul and Brian and -- please, guys, let's resume our seats here. Michele, they're anxious to hear your comments tonight, so -- MS. MOSCA: Good evening. For the record, my name is Michele Mosca with the County's Comprehensive Planning Staff. Commissioners, staff reviewed the proposed amendment to determine one, if additional commercial acreage is needed within the market area, which also includes the RLSA, specifically the two projects in the RLA (sic) presently: The proposed Big Cypress, as well as the approved Ave Maria project. Secondly, staff looked at is there a need, an additional need for industrial and business park acreage to accommodate future population growth and employment needs countywide. Thirdly, stafflooked at the project, and does it in fact further the goals of the Immokalee Area Master Plan, the redevelopment plan and the rural area of critical economic concern. And finally, stafflooked at the project site. Looking at it, is it appropriate, that location, for the proposed uses. As outlined in the staff report, staff determined that there appears to be an adequate supply of commercial acreage within the Immokalee Page 42 March 24, 2008 area, as well as within the town of Ave Maria and the Big Cypress project within the rural land stewardship area. All of that will -- well, it appears that it will accommodate existing and future commercial demand. Staff does agree with the petitioner, that there is a projected future need for additional business park or light industrial acreage to accommodate the population growth and employment needs countywide. And this is based on the petitioner's data and analysis, as well as the economic analysis that was prepared by the Florida Gulf Coast University for the Immokalee Master Plan Envisioning Committee. Staff has also determined that the business park portion, and I want to stress the business park portion, of the proposed project may further the objectives outlined in both the Immokalee Master Plan and the redevelopment plan, as well as the RACEC, or rural area of critical economic concern designation. These include creating high-wage jobs and diversifying the local economy. Finally, staff has determined that a business park located at the edge of the urban boundary that is developed in a park-like setting could be compatible with the surrounding land uses and future development. Staff does not believe, however, that some of the other proposed uses such as car dealerships, new or used, and auto repair shops are compatible or appropriate at this location. We must remember that this is the entryway or the gateway into the Immokalee community. As further noted in the staff report, staff is recommending that the CCPC forward this petition to the board with a recommendation not to transmit to the Department of Community Affairs unless the petition is found to be consistent with the transportation element of the Growth Management Plan. If the petition is found to be consistent with the transportation element, staff recommends transmittal of the petition with business Page 43 March 24, 2008 park uses only, as outlined in the business park zoning district of the Land Development Code. And I understand what some of the -- with the agents, what they were saying about the business park zoning uses being restrictive. And I believe staff could concur that some of those uses are restricted. But if you do in fact incorporate some of those other commercial uses that are integrated into the commerce park, that most likely would be acceptable to staff as well. But when we start talking about uses such as -- and if I can just have a moment to pull them out -- heavy construction equipment, rental and leasing, bulldozers and cranes, equipment rental and leasing. Let's see, auto repair, paint shops, auto exhaust system repair shops, tire treading and repair shops, auto glass replacement shops, transmission shops and the overall catchall for all auto repairs facilities. If you look at the site, staff believes that it's not the appropriate location at the gateway for those particular uses. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need a break, or are you doing okay? MS. MOSCA: No, it's just -- it's dry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of -- I know we certainly have transportation questions. And Nick thankfully made it here. We thought we lost him somewhere in between here and there. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think I understand -- you want some water? MS. MOSCA: Yes, I do, thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You cited the auto and the other things that are in there, and I wondered myself, that seems a little strange. Do we have a designation or are we just concluding because of the road configuration that that's the gateway to Immokalee? Page 44 March 24, 2008 MS. MOSCA: It is the very last section of the urban area. This is the line between the rural land stewardship area and the Immokalee urban area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's where the stockade begins, right, that area of it? MS. MOSCA: This project is south of Stockade Road, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MS. MOSCA: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So where is that line, though? Is that Stockade Road? MS. MOSCA: The urban boundary? No, it's -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: More south of Stockade. MS. MOSCA: Stockade is at this line, this point. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MS. MOSCA: And the project ends here. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Down there. MS. MOSCA: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you feel that based on those facts -- and it's not a feeling, that's a knowledge then that you're saying, that it doesn't comport with it. MS. MOSCA: Well, when you look at perhaps -- let's just take a look at the dealership, used or new vehicles. And you look at the entryway or gateway and all of a sudden you come up into Immokalee, there's the lighting, the parking lot, outdoor display and so forth that's not compatible with an entryway. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I think I could agree with you in that context, but the way it was described to us, and we dontt -- and all we have is a visioning, we don't have anything tangible to work with. But is it in your mind, did you see this huge facility looming upward, is that what it is? MS. MOSCA: Not necessarily. But if you look at the structure of the proposed subdistrict, 100 percent anyone of those uses, there's no Page 45 March 24, 2008 mandate for a business park here, although I believe the intent is for a business park, but there is no mandate. They could have, for example, motor freight transportation warehouse, mini storage warehouse, and then they could have a used car dealership lot. I'm not saying that that is the case, but based on the structure of the subdistrict text, that would be allowed. And you could have an auto dealership -- I mean, auto repair and so forth. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, we'll ask the question perhaps later about the auto dealership issues. But the business park is restrictive, it really is. And I know that the EDC has been trying to find a place to allow for development. And I heard what -- many times I've heard what the EDC has stated, through Tammie and others. And it is difficult for me to think in negative terms, because I do believe that they do need a place. And the commerce park -- youtd prefer a business park because we could have what with it? I mean, not only is it more restrictive, but there's also some other requirements, right? MS. MOSCA: I think the biggest difference is the 30 percent versus 20 percent of the secondary uses. And the 30 percent, I don't believe staff would object to an increase of 10 percent for those other secondary type uses. The commerce park as they're proposing does in fact include all of the business park type uses. But when we look at furthering the goals of the Immokalee community within the redevelopment plan and within the RACEC designation, you're looking for those high-tech industry type jobs. The auto -- what is it, the auto supply and so forth most likely could occur elsewhere, developed elsewhere. And there are several auto shops throughout the Immokalee urban area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I could appreciate what you're saying to me. It's interesting. Have you been following with the restudy program, the new Page 46 March 24, 2008 projected master plan, the various iterations? Have you been looking at it and seeing that they want to have changes, they want to amplify their opportunities? MS. MOSCA: Well, the latest -- David, if you could put up the latest map. Staff did receive a submittal of the master plan, and I've been told that it has changed. What we originally received were these areas here where they expanded the CCI or the commerce center industrial district and they increased the commercial on 29 all the way up to the Lee County line. I have not seen the latest version, nor have I seen the latest goals, objectives and policies for the master plan. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That little gray or light blue square below, just where that boundary is, the one below that, that's the parcel we're relating -- MS. MOSCA: No, that's a water retention area within the rural land stewardship area. This is the proposed -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, that is? MS. MOSCA: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So that -- MS. MOSCA: And they mapped -- they actually had mapped the business park on the Future Land Use Map. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So they have -- if they're successful in that restudy, they'll get that as being inclusive of it. And you're mindful of that. MS. MOSCA: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But I understand your constraint to operate under what the law is. Thank you. MS. MOSCA: You're welcome. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman -- Page 47 March 24, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron -- yes, sir? MR. WEEKS: Sorry. If! may, to respond further to Mr. Murray's question, a big distinction between the business park subdistrict is the list of commercial uses that are allowed within the business park. The primary uses are those high-tech light industry type of uses. But in the business park subdistrict, if you look at the handout that was provided to you by the petitionerts agent, paragraph C states, commercial uses shall include and shall be limited to uses such as offices, financial institutions, cultural facilities and fitness centers and facilities. If you'll compare that to the applicant's language which lists C-l through C-3 uses, plus some various other commercial uses as already been discussed, such as auto repair, auto dealership, et cetera, from the C-4 and C-5 categories. So a lot more commercial uses are allowed under the proposal versus the business park subdistrict. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But if! may, that's within those areas zoned business park or planned unit development with the industrial designation. Does that have meaning there? Continuing on C, you ended -- you ended with centers and/or facilities. MR. WEEKS: Yes, because that's where the business park subdistrict is allowed within the industrial designation or the CCI. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it's almost like a park within a zone and then a park within a zone, the way I interpret it; am I incorrect? MR. WEEKS: Correct. Within the industrial designation you could have a business park, which would be far more restrictive than the industrial designation itself. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is it -- we usually work on issues of appropriateness for certain classes of things. Is it appropriate in this case as a Growth Management Plan to try to excise things that are possibly deemed inappropriate? Is that appropriate here or should that be done at a rezone? MS. MOSCA: No, I would say that this would be the appropriate Page 48 March 24, 2008 time. Because this really is the guiding document. And then you have your rezone. So anything that is permitted by the Growth Management Plan Amendment would be allowed to go forward in the rezoning. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you very much. MS. MOSCA: You're welcome. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I would argue with you, Michele, that there are some uses here that seem excessive if we are really talking about some form of a business park, a commerce business park. I was a little curious about the example, though, that you cited of a car dealership, new and used. If you consider coming down from Lee County on 41 into Collier County, that is a gateway to the county, 41, and I'm looking at DeVoe and Mr. Vigliotti's Hummers being sold right there as you enter our county. That's one of the first things you see. And if that's just over the county into Lee, then go one mile down the road and we have Germain Lexus sitting right there at an activity center. So as far as a gateway issue is concerned, I'm not sure that was a good one to -- MS. MOSCA: Well, I would suggest that you're looking at two urbanized areas. What you're looking at in this particular instance is the rural land stewardship area. You are leaving the rural land stewardship area and entering into the Immokalee community. If that is an appropriate use, then the community will say this is an appropriate use. But from a planning perspective I believe that it's a very intense use, lighting and so forth, when you're looking at agricultural lands to the south. COMMISSIONER CARON: Also, we talk a lot on these situations about all these high wage jobs that we're going to create. Do Page 49 March 24, 2008 we have a population that can support those high wage jobs? Do we have the education in place? Do we have all of that in place in Immokalee? MS. MOSCA: I don't believe, based on the demographics, that -- I don't believe -- based on the demographics, no, I don't believe that the high wage employees, all of those employees will come from the Immokalee area. That's probably a better way to put it. COMMISSIONER CARON: But it could be an attractor. MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? COMMISSIONER CARON: Not right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. Is the intent to not have a lot of traffic coming out onto Immokalee Road to limit it to these perimeter roads or roads within the PUD, the ultimate PUD? MS. MOSCA: The access is directly from Immokalee Road. That's what they're proposing. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I mean for these other lots that are alongside Immokalee Road, should they be accessed from behind or are they intended to be accessed directly off of Immokalee? I know that the PUD itself has to of course come off of Immokalee. MR. WEEKS: I don't think we know what you're talking about, Mr. Schiffer. Don't understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When you look at this project, a lot of the perimeter of it is alongside Immokalee Road. There's two accesses shown on the master plan, and this is something we've never seen. MS. MOSCA: No, I haven't seen it either. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the -- my concern is that is it intent of this PUD to have all of the access of those lots along Immokalee come from behind, essentially from within the PUD, or will there be multiple driveways alongside Immokalee Road? Page 50 March 24, 2008 MR. WEEKS: We've never seen this before. We can't answer that. MR. MULHERE: Well, yeah, you can. I can answer that. MS. MOSCA: Well, based on the map-- MR. MULHERE: I can answer it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute, wait a minute. The court reporter's got to take this down, because there is no video, so you've got to refer to everything one person at a time, please. MR. VARNADOE: George Varnadoe. And this is typically the kind of detail we get into at the time of PUD zoning, not at the time of Growth Management Plan designation. But the idea is for a business park, and a business park youtll have two or three entrances, and no, not to have every parcel have a driveway off Immokalee Road. But that's not the kind of thing we get into at this point in time, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But when we do get into it, when you look at the exhibit you gave us, D, it's stating that the principal access, but -- so you're saying that those lots along Immokalee mayor may not be accessed off of Immokalee. MR. VARNADOE: The majority will not be accessed off Immokalee, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The ones alongside Immokalee, okay. MR. VARNADOE: If they're not alongside Immokalee, they can't be accessed off Immokalee. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that's why I'm more focused on the ones that are on Immokalee -- MR. VARNADOE: And I just told you -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- when you say they won't be accessed off of Immokalee -- MR. VARNADOE: I didn't say all of them would not be, I said the majority of them will not be accessed directly offImmokalee Page 51 March 24, 2008 Road. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And does D in the Exhibit 9-B kind of clarify that, or-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, where -- I think on-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm looking at the exhibit that was handed out. It's Roman numeral nine (sic)(B). Either that or it's Exhibit IV-B. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 4-B. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 4-B, I'm sorry, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 4-B. And what was your question, Brad, so we -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: D in there I guess is addressing that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Actually that's six. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: IV is 4. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do agree that that's something we'll deal with at the PUD stage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does that answer your -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm fine. I do have one more question for Bob Mulhere later, but I can wait. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's finish with the staff report first, if we could. And Michele, it's just questions of you at this point. Anybody have -- or David Wolfley, did you have a question? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. And it was something that Michele stated. I mean, I happen to believe that auto repair shops is needed as well as appropriate and compatible. And with 3,000 plus employees there, they're going to need their vehicles serviced while they're at work, generally. So I think it's probably a good idea. I'm not exactly sure where all the people are going to be coming from, but that I guess will get into transportation. But I think you mentioned are they going to be sensitive to the surroundings. Well, on Page 52 March 24, 2008 that same page they mention that roll-up garage doors visible from the public right-of-way are prohibited. Well, that shows a bit of sensitivity, not only to the surroundings, but they own the surroundings as well. So I think theytre going to be probably pretty sensitive to that. I just wanted to disagree with that. MS. MOSCA: That actually is part of the business park subdistrict, the language that's in here, except for the allowance for outdoor storage limited to boats, recreational vehicles and other recreational equipment. That does not appear in the existing business park subdistrict. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I don't think they're going to be putting that along Immokalee Road, though. I don't -- that's me. I have no idea. MS. MOSCA: And I didn't mean to state that they -- I don't believe I did, there is the option to do that. I don't know this they will. But the way that the subdistrict text is written, they can in fact do that. If the market bears that they want those mini storage warehouses along Immokalee Road and that's where it fits best, they may go ahead and allow -- I mean, that would be allowed per the subdistrict. Just to point that out. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, that's discussion for a later date, but -- okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of Michele before we talk to Nick? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Michele? MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Donna, did you have another question too after Brad? COMMISSIONER CARON: That's all right, he can go ahead and then I'll -- Page 53 March 24, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Michele, would the -- this project would fall under the architectural standards. So some of these things you're putting are things that are covered in the architectural standards, so can't we trust that? MS. MOSCA: I believe so. And staff is just bringing up the fact that you may see those types of uses that aren't in -- this map's a little different, brings -- you know, sheds new light on the project. But they could in fact have the type of development that I mentioned, the used or new dealerships. Yes, they would have to meet the architectural guidelines, unless amended through the Immokalee master plan. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, if! might-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. WEEKS: -- be so bold as to repeat something that Mr. Schiffer himself has said in the past, his comment about putting lipstick on a pig. You can make the use look better certainly by architectural standards and landscaping, but ultimately if it's a question of intensity of use such as an auto repair facility, the noise that might be coming from that facility and other types of uses, you can make the facility look more attractive or less offensive, or however you want to phrase that, but the ultimate intensity of the use may still be there. And again, staff is looking at it from a regulatory standpoint. That's our job in part is what is allowed, and if it's allowed, then that means it could end up there. And so what we're suggesting is that ultimately either one -- you know, our ultimate recommendation is not to support this, but that if you do, you may want to consider additional limitations and controls on some of these uses. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But David, we get into this argument over what is something at the GMP stage. For example, here we're discussing visibility of overhead doors. Is that a GMP stage Page 54 March 24, 2008 element? I mean, again, the architectural standards discuss the same thing and they would have a difficult time making them visible from the arterial road. MS. MOSCA: I think we got here looking at the specific uses, because as I reviewed the petition there wasn't a need for additional commercial. So now we're looking at the commercial uses. Is there a need for additional park and industrial? Staff would say yes, based on the information they provided. Now, when you start breaking down into the commercial uses, is there a need? According to staffs research, there are a lot of other parcels that may be more suitable or that this commercial use could locate to in Immokalee. Perhaps even within the core area where the plan specifically states that the commerce center industrial district or the commerce center mixed use district, those are the employment areas. And if the plan changes to allow development elsewhere throughout the Immokalee urban area, then perhaps in the future this might be consistent with those objectives. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the question, David, at this level is it appropriate to discuss access to this? In other words, I like the idea of a commerce park, but maybe I don't like the idea of a whole bunch of auto dealerships pouring out onto Immokalee Road. The area Donna referenced they don't pour out on Immokalee Road, they have, you know, roads that are coming through the back and stuff. Is that something at this level, or just let it go? MR. WEEKS: It could go either way. I think you're generally familiar with addressing those more site specific issues at the rezoning stage. On the other hand, it is allowable to occur at the comprehensive plan, most particularly when you come down to a narrower approach. We're not talking about all urban areas now, we're talking about just the Immokalee Area Master Plan, just as the -- another example is the Page 55 March 24, 2008 existing Golden Gate Area Master Plan neighborhood centers has some very specific limitations on development and criteria. So when you narrow it down from the broader approach of the entire urban area or the entire coastal urban area, as is the case in the future land use element, down to in this case we're looking at 160 something acres; we're looking at a more narrowed focus. It may be appropriate to look more specifically at limitations. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because I know there are a lot of areas in the north district of Collier, District 2 where we really do have limited access off of 41. We have things obviously extremely visible, but the access -- there's not 1,000 cars flying out of every which way. MR. WEEKS: Right. If I may, sometimes the way we deal with it in a comprehensive plan is to get down to a great level of specificity saying, you know, this use is not allowed or access is not allowed here, is limited in some way. In other cases we simply raise the flag in the comprehensive plan so that we can -- we know it's an obvious issue. It's not a matter of we discussed it here at the plan amendment stage and then hoping somebody remembers it at the rezoning stage, but actually stating in the subdistrict something to the effect of access on Immokalee Road will be carefully scrutinized at the rezone stage, again raising the flag. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: That's okay, I think I got questions answered. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Thank you, Michele. And Nick, if you have a moment -- oh, wait a minute. I'm sorry, Michele, Mr. Vigliotti has a question. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: One more thing. At times, Michele, you questioned if we need all this different types of zoning out there and different types of usage. But I think by tying the hands of the petitioner with auto dealership and other usages, it's going to Page 56 March 24, 2008 make it harder for them. If after looking at the site plan, I'm sure the petitioner will be able to move people where he wants and allow certain things in his own judgment, which might change it a lot after him looking at the site plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that a statement or a question? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It's a statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Statement, okay. Then there's no need to respond, I think -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No response. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it was a statement. Nick, if you have time -- I would like to caution the planning commission members, we have to be out of this room by 8:30, I understand. Does that include cleanup of the room, too? MR. WEEKS: Yes, it does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So how long does it -- I'm going to back up here for a minute, because we're going to have to push this meeting forward. How long is it going to take to clean the room up by staff; do you know? MR. MILLER: Halfhour. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we have one hour left. That means we have to have public participation, and we have to have time for us to discuss our motion. Now, failure to do that, we have a continuation problem. So I would stress to everybody here that we need to make our questions as rolled up and concise as to one another's as we can. And Nick unfortunately has a tough issue to discuss, so -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: We're just getting warmed up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we need to unwarm, because we have to get done here by 8:00. Go ahead. Page 57 March 24, 2008 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record, Nick Casalanguida with Transportation. I apologize for being late, Mr. Chairman. I've been moving a little slow since last Thursday's planning commission meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay, tonight we just talked about entries to communities, and it would have been appropriate to hear that last week, or last Thursday. Go ahead. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We evaluate this project consistent with Policy 5.1 in the five-year planning period. I agree with Mr. Perry (sic), we discussed this many times. Compo plan amendments maybe should be looked at more consistently with the long-range transportation plan. We looked at it both ways: 2015,2030. You have a problem. You have a needs plan both in 2015 and 2030 that does not nearly meet your financially feasible plan. In other words, none of the roads listed in this review are financially feasible to be constructed. So we have a consistency problem. It's kind of neat, because I get to do a little bit of my back job. What I used to do in my prior career is evaluate risk. What you have to do is evaluate risk with this project. By approving this going forward and with the legislative changes that might be going forward, you may lose the ability to mitigate transportation impacts on a project like this in a future stage. When they propose for mitigation is a menu list what we've discussed back and forth; improvements to certain roadways, intersections, subsidies to transit, transit shelters, transit service. Those are all good things that they can do. And I recommend that they choose from that list and provide that. What we've done on u.s. 41 is we've said to developments, you don't get to go forward until you get with the rest of the group and find a way to fix the roadway network that's adjacent to you. Page 58 March 24, 2008 You're looking at almost 15,000 daily trips coming out of this project. That's significant. Camp Keis Road and Immokalee Road are two-laned undivided roadways. They're both scheduled to fail when this project goes forward. The intersections along State Road 29, State Road 82 are going to fail. So my heartburn is to recommend approval is difficult, unless I define what those mitigating circumstances are. And the client has asked that we take this opportunity to kind of put a menu on there and say that they'll do "one of the" or "more of the" and we put a menu for it. I'm fairly comfortable with that, except that when we come back for the next hearing -- and I've checked with Mr. Weeks, we can define it then -- that has to be defined. One of the things wetve asked for is to say, do an agreement that says you're being reviewed and approved under the current impact fee rate and the current concurrency levels. Because we have a fear that that's not going to be there when you get to the zoning stage. And if I was the client, I wouldn't do it either. It puts them at disadvantage to other projects coming forward at a later date. But for you as a planning commission of the board, that's a risk assessment you have to make. The roads aren't funded, they're not required to fund those roads. And if legislation changes in the future, you may not have the ability to stop them based on concurrency. It may not be there. So that's kind of where you're at with this project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's a dreary way out, Nick, but MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's the truth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We appreciate your frankness. And it was one that we need to understand. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure you have -- Mr. Midney, why Page 59 March 24, 2008 don't you start then and I'll go from there. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Could you explain the statement concurrency may not be there? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right now there's a proposal from the secretary of Department of Community Affairs to eliminate concurrency as you have it right now. To eliminate impact fees and go to mobility fee; to modify the level of service standards and to eliminate financial feasibility. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What has the applicant said that they would be willing to do in terms of helping the transportation? MR. CASALANGUIDA: The idea was is we provided a menu list and they said that they're going to evaluate that and further define that moving forward towards transmittal, if the board moved to transmit -- or adopt, I should say. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So if we do move forward, they're going to come back and they're going to say okay, we choose to do such and such and such and such. Will that be before it goes to DCA or after, or what? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would hope it's before it goes to DCA, based on what we're seeing right now. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Wouldn't that make their case a lot stronger before DCA, if it was before? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'd have a hard time not saying the same thing to the Board of County Commissioners, that you're assuming significant risk with this project if you don't have something in place prior. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And why aren't they willing to put something concrete on the table now? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think they said they'll work off that menu list, and it's just further defining what that would be. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I guess maybe when we get them back again we can ask them for more specificity. Page 60 March 24, 2008 MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think that's a good idea. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have questions of Nick? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, you produced a sheet that was e-mailed to us and it differs from the issues that were listed in the staff report. In particular, in the staff report under the sentence prior to the six issues that you listed you said, staff also recommends that the applicant should consider and agree to the following mitigation strategies which can be further defined at the next level of zoning stage. In the document you sent us bye-mail you said, staff recommends that the applicant agree to consider one or more of the following mitigation strategies to be further defined at the rezoning stage. One of those documents is in error. Do you know which one it is? MR. CASALANGUIDA: The second document you received should be correct; the one that was in e-mail form. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the staff report saying that all six should be agreed to wasn't the intention. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That was not the intention. When you say one or more is because you could choose to do transit shelter or plus deficient intersections, or you could choose to say I want to widen the road in front of my project as mitigation. So it was kind of a what do you want to do, what would work at the time that they came in at a certain level of development. And remember, this project was submitted back in '06 at the first time. So we're taking into account a pretty dynamic environment at the state legislative level. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the e-mail that you sent us, you included a paragraph at the end that starts with the word however, and I won't read it, because it's too lengthy. It talks about the processes Page 61 March 24, 2008 going on at the state right now, and staff would cautiously recommend to the BCC that it would be consistent to transmit this project with the stipulation in the above paragraph, but that prior to adoption the county will evaluate the project. Now, this paragraph that -- you're actually referring to the six steps that could be used to mitigate the problem. If those were anyone of those used before you would know if was it the right one, their traffic engineer would have to produce a report for you or a TIS showing the impacts of that one through six type mitigation. And whichever one worked they'd have to find one that actually solved some of the problem for you. Is that a fair statement? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's a fair statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think Paul, that's kind of where (sic) you were trying to find out. Thatts how it would happen. They would pick up one, they'd have to incorporate it into a TIS, and if it proved to Nick that it functioned as it should, then that may be an acceptable issue to use then. Is that -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: The difficult part with this application -- you know, I've got Tammie, George and Fred here, and I don't know which one is going to try and kick me the hardest when I leave this room -- is you're trying to get -- you look at my financial feasible plan and needs plan. You know you're short. As a matter of fact, you're $2 billion short in your long-range needs plan versus feasible. If any of the dynamics change, such as impact fee collection and concurrency, you could be looking at a wider variant in the future. So without locking these folks down or a group of others down, you are assuming a certain amount of risk. And I can tell you that, you know, that will be evaluated when you go to the legislative session. And I -- you know, I can't tell you that it's a good idea to not have a contract or a DCA or a commitment in place prior to formal adoption. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's my next question. Would it be wise for us to stipulate and recommend for stipulation that prior to Page 62 March 24, 2008 adoption exactly such an action is taken, so that should the state change their rules this county is protected in regards to this projects (sic)? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would recommend it and I've discussed it with Mr. Varnadoe. And if I was working for the other side, I would say the same thing, it puts them at a disadvantage if they agree to those rules today and then the next person coming in doesn't have to play by the same rules he had to. So that's the way to go. It's just that's the risk they have to take if they agree to an agreement like that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the six issues that you noticed, I saw one that I might want you to think about. In the Immokalee proposed master plan there are numerous policies talking about pathways and having those installed in the Immokalee area. It would seem with a center like this fairly close to town that pathways for alternative modes of transportation so citizens could have other ways to get there from that project into town might be a consideration. I dontt know if the impact will give you what you need, but is it one that was thought of in your deliberation on this? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not specifically on this project, but I can tell you when we go into a four-lane divided, instead of doing sidewalks on both sides we'd evaluate a multi-use path on this project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of transportation at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, Nick, we appreciate it and we'll move forward. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right now at this point we normally would hear from the public. We don't have sign-in sheets. Any members of the public wishing to speak, please raise your hand and we'll just go through it. Page 63 March 24, 2008 Mr. Thomas, it's yours. MR. THOMAS: My name, for the record, is Fred N. Thomas, Jr. I'm the Chairman of the CRA Advisory Board for Immokalee and I'm the Chairman of the Master Plan Envisioning Committee. Following instructions that came from Varnadoe to one of his people, I resigned in 2002 after 35 years in housing and redevelopment. Prior to coming to this town, I was executive director in three other towns, two in another state where I was in charge of housing and redevelopment in those various towns. I was on this planning commission for 11 years during the period that we did the first Growth Management Plan. I would have introduced some other folks in here from our committee, but you all wore them out and they had to leave. We had the executive director of our Chamber of Commerce here, we had two other members of our Master Plan Envisioning Committee, and our CRA here. In order for you all to understand what's going on here, I've got to give you a little history. The freeze of'89 crippled Immokalee, because not only did we have a freeze that knocked our industry out, followed by the NAFT A, followed also at the same time by a new marketing strategy where retails are no longer marketing what's available, they're marketing what you want. That's why you have these big boxes that can sell you seven types of tomatoes, eight types of apples and so on. Because it's not what's available, it's what you want. That hurt our local farmers. We went overnight between '89 and '90 from 45 small farmers to three. From seven medium-sized farmers to three. Now, over the past 10 years agricultural has grown but it has grown in an absentee form, where the money is not recirculating back in Immokalee. When this first happened back in the Nineties, we told commissioners you all need to help us do something with the airport Page 64 March 24, 2008 so we can become an industrial hub of Collier County. And we've been working very hard to try to do that. We started the master plan process back in 2006. We should have been finished now. But going through all the hoops we had to go through we are not finished yet. And they had to reauthorize us so we are going to be operating to 2009. In order to make our plan work, and what we have on the books, you need to know what's going on. Because a lot of things are happening around Immokalee over which we have no control that we're trying to react to and respond to. One, we've got to get our road network right. We're talking about we had to work with two other counties to get accelerated to look at the 82 corridor and the 29 corridor. And we're talking about a 29 corridor that will come down to 82 from the north, circle around to the east of the airport, hook up to 29 where it's vertical again. We're talking about putting Little League Road from 846 all the way up to 82 to take off some of the traffic off of 29 and 82. We're talking about straightening out Camp Keis Road. That's already in the books, because this developer that we're talking about now has already agreed to widen it to four lanes and provide the fill necessary to widen it to four lanes so that we can take State Road 846, which you all call Immokalee Road, straight over to 29, to facilitate the growth, 10,000 rooftops of Ave Maria, 6,500 rooftops at Sarano, just north of Ave Maria, and the rest of the development we're trying to do to become the industrial hub. There's something else happening, folks. The Seminoles are going to bring a rezone location here with a high-rise hotel that they already started digging a pit for. And we see that as changing the dynamics of our downtown, once we get the State Road 29 traffic off of it so we can function in a totally different fashion. You're going to have developments of major commercial boxes down near us. Page 65 March 24, 2008 Now, what we see happening, what we're planning in our Master Plan Envisioning Committee is tourist zone from the Seminole Casino just north of Stockade Road up to State Road 29 and over around to the Roberts Ranch. And in that zone would be Caribbean, if you will, Gatlinburg. Where people can walk down the street, buy a Haitian tam, a Panama hat and a Mexican sombrero. A real tourist zone because of the magnet that the casino has already for our area. Because when I first came here, we never thought of this as a tourist destination point. Now that's realistic that we're going to be a major tourist destination point. Think of our location, folks. Right now with our limited access to four-lane roads, we're within two and a half hours drive to the Orlando Airport, the Tampa Airport, 90 minutes from the Miami Airport, 70 minutes from Ft. Lauderdale, 26 minutes from Southwest International. We're in a perfect location to grow as an urban hub. We have several problems that deal with that that we're trying to deal with within our master plan and that is we have to have a master plan that's got the road networks and what have you. We have to have a Land Development Code that's more consistent with central Florida than coastal Florida. We lost Sky Truck because it takes too long to get a permit here. We're trying to resolve that situation once we get the things in place so that we can partner with the EDC and develop some high-wage jobs that make this a perfect place for us to be. I mean, we have everything going for us except one problem, and that's on Horseshoe Drive. This is a major thrust. In fact, I'm going to petition you, Mark Strain, the Chairman of this board, that you don't let any petitions come to you unless it comes through our Master Plan Envisioning Committee so that we can review it and see if it's consistent with our future land use plan, our future Land Development Code, because that's going to make sense. Otherwise you're going to have stuff Page 66 March 24, 2008 coming that it's going to be inconsistent with and we're going to be in trouble anyway. You see? We find this particular plan to be very consistent with our area and what's going to happen. And ma'am, 846 is not the gateway to Immokalee. The gateway to Immokalee is coming from the north on 29. We in Immokalee relate more to Fort Myers because it's physically closer than our back door down here, okay? So the kind of development they're planning on here with limited access is a perfect development to help create the high-wage jobs. And it's going to take it a while to get it developed. But as soon as it starts clicking, we'll start bringing more money in our TIF funds and help us do some of the things we want to do to make Immokalee a better place to live. But we need your support to help make these things happen. We need your support to make sure that any petitions coming to you that deal with the urban area of Immokalee comes through the Master Plan Envisioning Committee so that we can give you a recommendation to make sure that it is consistent with our future land use that we're planning to get to, that we're just working as fast as we can to get through. Because we've been trying hard for the last three years, two years, two and a half years to make this thing happen. And I'm willing to answer any questions that you may have for me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a statement first, Fred. MR. THOMAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you were on the planning commission, did you ever meet out here in Immokalee? MR. THOMAS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're meeting here tonight-- MR. THOMAS: And I appreciate that. Hey, hey, I appreciate that. Page 67 March 24, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- purposely --let me finish. We're meeting here tonight purposely for the what you pointed out, that we want the input from the Immokalee Planning Committee. We knew you'd be here. Whether you were here or not, we wanted the citizens' input as well. So we're doing exactly what you ask, probably for the first time that I can remember in the history of Collier County. And I've been here 30 years, probably like yourself. So we are trying to get there, and I'm sure that by the time this is all over we'll help everybody get there. Anybody have any questions of Fred at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Thank you. MR. THOMAS: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You might want to ask the county staff to distribute the most recent draft of the Immokalee Master Plan so we could just -- the rest of the members here can get a taste for it. MR. THOMAS: I made sure you had a copy, because I hand-delivered it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have gotten a copy, yes. But I think it would be handy just to have it. Even in draft form. MR. THOMAS: I think it would be good so they can start looking at it, you know. Because wetve been trying to work hard to try to get this thing through because, you know, Immokalee is not competing with coastal Collier County. Immokalee is competing with LaBelle, Clewiston. Do you know you can get a building permit from start to finish for an industrial building in Hendry County in less than a year? When you can't even begin to think of it in less than three years here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, you're right. It takes a while. MR. THOMAS: But when you've got a company trying to locate in this area, where are they going to go? You ask the local packing Page 68 March 24, 2008 houses, they're increasing their building up in Hendry County rather than doing it here because of the time it takes, because of the architectural standards, because of all these things that have no function. Remember, as your director of your housing authority, I could only build -- even though I had money for 400 beds, I could only build 192 beds for an emergency facility -- I mean a shelter, because of the county standard that had nothing of value to add to the building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Fred, the faster you can get that master plan completed, the faster the LDC implementation part of it can get done and the quicker we can get things on track to the way they want to be. MR. THOMAS: And as soon as David Weeks will review it and get it back around to us, we'll be okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Are there any other public speakers that would like to talk here tonight? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. George, we normally accommodate a rebuttal. Do you have any comments that you need to make or do you feel you want to address anything that was said here tonight? MR. VARNADOE: Just very quickly. I think that -- and I don't mean to pick on staff, because we have these conversations all the time. But, you know, in a perfect little planner's world, you put this kind of commercial here and this here and the business park here and the industrial over there. And that just ignores reality in the market. In order to make -- you heard testimony from Tammie, from Russ, from our planner. In order to make this work, we're going to have to have a variety of uses. And we don't know exactly what we are, because we're plowing Page 69 March 24, 2008 new ground here, folks. And to make this work, we're going to need to have all the flexibility we can to get that critical mass and the synergy to make this commerce park work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, the question was raised earlier about the automobiles. And how significant is that to the plan? MR. VARNADOE: What's wrong with it, Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I didn't ask that. No, no. I'm just asking for a significant -- MR. VARNADOE: We have made a submittal. And I'm not in favor at this point in time ofleading any of those uses. If staffs got some particular problems, and this is the first time I've heard that is tonight, we've got plenty of time between the transmittal and adoption to deal with those one on one. But to sit here and start picking through these uses tonight and say we like this one and we dontt like this one, all we're doing is reducing flexibility as we go forward. That's all we're doing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The question was raised singularly having to do with automobiles. That's the reason I posed it. MR. VARNADOE: Automobile -- they talked about repair, they talked about sales, they talked about exhaust pipes, they talked about a lot of different things. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, they were concerned with the intensity and the audible intensity, even ifthe place looks nice. And that was another factor. I don't have a particular problem myself, and if the gateway is the north and this is the end of it, it doesn't much make a difference to me. But I just wondered if that was a significant part of it, and if it is then you deserve the -- MR. VARNADOE: I don't know -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- opportunity to make that case. MR. VARNADOE: Excuse me, I didn't mean to interrupt you. Page 70 March 24, 2008 I don't know whether it is or it is not at this point in time. I can't sit here and tell you what is going to be important three to five years from now. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But it was included. MR. VARNADOE: Absolutely. It included a lot of uses. But who has -- you tell me who has the most to lose if this is not an attractive facility. Who's got money in the ground, whose land is it? It's not David Weeks, it's not George Varnadoe, it's not Bob Murray. And I think we've got to give -- in this location, we've got to give maximum flexibility and allow the landowner to take the risk and see what he can make in this area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Mr. Midney. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And my question I think Bob Mulhere can answer quickly. And Bob, what my question is, the -- first of all, in the -- this exhibit again, and it is 4-B, I believe, the gross leasable floor area, what does the word leasable mean in that sentence? MR. MULHERE: Well, it's defined in the Land Development Code. I don't know if it's defined in the comprehensive plan. But leasable is measured, you know, generally from interior wall, under air, you know. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So it would be -- I mean, the word leasable in terms of ownership or something was what was confusing me. I don't know, I've been doing the studies for the areas, and the word -- I know what you mean, and we're meaning the same thing. The 45 percent of the maximum gross, if somebody buys one of these parcels, essentially will you limit him to 45 percent? Is that what that means, or is that a total all -- MR. MULHERE: You're actually reading from the Immokalee Are Master Plan business park designation? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm reading from something that Page 71 March 24, 2008 was handed to me tonight by the attorney. It's Exhibit 4-B, which is what's going to establish the uses. MR. MULHERE: Correct. And your question is? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The 45 percent. And my concern actually is opposite of what you think. MR. MULHERE: Oh, yes. No, that's an aggregate. I'm sorry, that's an aggregate number. No, we wouldn't necessarily have to limit -- there's going to be -- when you come in for zoning, you're going to have development standards. It's going to be setbacks, height restrictions, okay? You can't contravene those. But it doesn't necessarily mean that each lot will be limited to 45 percent. In my view the way this is written, it is an aggregate gross -- it says use the word gross building coverage for the district. So it would have been worded differently if it was intended to limit that to 45 percent on each lot. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And actually, I'm coming from the opposite direction that you think. The concern I have is the million square feet represents only about 14 percent of the site. So are we fully utilizing the site? I mean, to the horror of some of my fellow commissioners, I really think that, you know, using the land to its maximum is as important as diminishing what you can do on it. So is that million just pulled out of the air or did you analyze this layout and realize that the best use at 45 percent of these lots is a million? MR. MULHERE: No, I think it was bulk -- it was a combination. It wasn't just pulled out of the air, it was a combination of things. I mean, when you consider typically a yield of 10,000 square feet for commercial uses, a higher yield for office uses and a higher yet yield typically for industrial, depending on the intensity, that the million square feet, you know, is a number that was derived at through that process, partly. Page 72 March 24, 2008 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Did George want to answer that? MR. VARNADOE: I wanted just to comment. Bob came late to the party on this. When we were first putting this project together, the intent was to keep that park-light atmosphere and to have open spaces and separation and not to have a typical industrial setting, if you would, Mr. Schiffer. So I think that's why you see the low yield, if you would, on a square foot per acreage basis. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And just a quick response, there is such a thing as too low also. But anyway, next. Thank you, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I don't really have a problem with the industrial as opposed to the commerce. I think that we have to take into account that Immokalee is not Naples. And what might not be -- might seem a little bit intense in Naples, in Immokalee we really need the industrial end of it. And so I'm really not concerned that they're going to make this ugly. I think that the landowner owns all the surrounding land and he's going to do a good job of making it an attractive area that's going to help our economy. But I am concerned about the traffic. Mr. Varnadoe, have you looked at those six -- I guess a menu of things that you can do to improvement the traffic flow? You know, looking at the failing roads possibility in the future, which of those six are you guys ready to contribute to? MR. VARNADOE: None tonight, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But you've thought about it. MR. VARNADOE: Well, we've helped Nick with the list of uses. And this legislation that Nick talks about mayor may not pass. By the time we get back for adoption, we should know the answer to that. And if we don't, I assume we're going to have a real problem. But if we do, I think really, and from my perspective, the perfect time to Page 73 March 24, 2008 look at this at that level would be zoning, because compo plan doesn't put a trip on the road and certainly not at transmittal hearing. But I think that this is going -- as Mr. Strain I think alluded to, this is going to take a lot more study to decide which ones of these would have the most bang for the buck, to use the vernacular. Which one of these are really going to have the most use. And I can't answer that tonight. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But you are definitely open in principle to the idea that if you do push this road towards a failing condition, that you would be willing to contribute to helping the road? MR. VARNADOE: That's what these six are for, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: And you agree with the principle, the idea behind that? MR. VARNADOE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, George, I've got a question that might help resolve some concerns. Those square boxes you have on that plan -- MR. VARNADOE: This is very illustrative, let me just say that. I mean, we think we've got the entrances fairly accurate, but the rest of it is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just out of curiosity -- MR. VARNADOE: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- what's the general depth of those square boxes? MR. VARNADOE: Three hundred feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You have a strip of square boxes along 846. You have four items that have been questioned as to the intensity and an entryway into the community. One is automotive repair shops, another is motor freight transportation warehousing, another is motor vehicle dealers, and the last one that hasn't been mentioned, but I think I'll throw it in just for conversation, lumber and other building materials. Page 74 March 24, 2008 Would you have any objection to limiting those four uses to anything but the strip along 846? MR. VARNADOE: I think with the exception of the automobile dealerships, no, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the repair shops, the motor freight and the lumber could all go interior to your project. And the automotive dealership, you don't want to make that commitment to. MR. VARNADOE: I really dontt. I mean, I think if you're going to have an automobile dealership it's going to have to have exposure to the main road. I'm not saying we're going to have, I don't know, we don't have any plans yet, but I think if you're going to have one -- even if it doesn't have direct access, Mr. Schiffer, say on the road, it's going to have to have exposure to the main road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you have exposure you're going to look a lot like the coastal area of Collier County. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mr. Vigliotti, then Mr. Midney. Go ahead, Bob. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Varnadoe, would you have a problem doing only new car dealerships, not used autos? MR. VARNADOE: I don't think so. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Primarily a -- MR. VARNADOE: Yes, sir, I think we can agree that -- if it's a new car dealership, he's going to have used cars, but we wouldn't have a used car dealership. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: You know what I'm talking about. MR. VARNADOE: Yeah, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So before I go back to Paul, what you just said then is the interior -- you wouldn't use that strip along 846 for two, four or six, which a lumber, the motor freight and the Page 75 March 24, 2008 automotive repair. Nor would you use it for any used motor vehicle dealers, it would only be new if you were to put them there. MR. VARNADOE: (Indicating.) THE COURT REPORTER: Is that yes? MR. VARNADOE: Yes, I'm sorry. Be audible here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. I got your head. MR. VARNADOE: I wanted her to hear it, that's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Paul. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'd just like to, you know, reiterate in case the planning commission don't know it. We don't have an auto dealership in Immokalee of any kind. And a new -- an auto dealership would be very, very nice right there. So I don't think we should exclude that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it's not, we're not doing that. In fact, we just worked out the objectionable part, I hope. So okay, are there any other questions of anybody involving this project at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, before anybody makes a motion, we'll have a little discussion, because there's several different sheets on which to make the motion from. We got a hand-out tonight that doesntt vary much from the staff recommendation hand -- first application on Page 17. If you all turn to Page 17 and you look at what starts at B-2, you'll find it's just a cleanup of the language that staff would have to do regardless. Because for example, 2-E, you can't say that PUD's shall be used, you can only encourage they be used. On the following page, the only difference is H-2. H-2 the applicant has actually struck a suggested better designation for H-2 than what staff has here. So I would suggest to the motion maker that we accept staffs version on Page 17 and 18, with the exception ofH-2 from the applicant's handout, if we are so inclined to recommend Page 76 March 24, 2008 approval. And that the added stipulations that items two, four and six be limited to uses interior to the project not along those parcels shown-- not within 300 feet of 846. And that number five for motor vehicle dealers, the only motor vehicle dealers that could go within that first 300 feet would be new dealers. And then we also consider adding a -- we require traffic stipulations by defined by the adoption hearing and that we will -- that language will be included to address changes at the state level, should things occur that are needed for -- to secure our transportation funding. That about sums it up that I would want a motion maker to consider. And I would like Nick to ask -- Nick, if that conforms enough language to get him where he needs to go by adoption. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm comfortable with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: George? MR. VARNADOE: I'm sorry, Mr. Strain, that last comment about the state -- I just didn't catch it, I apologize. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Traffic stipulations as defin -- the traffic stipulation you select will be defined by adoption, and by adoption there will be language to include -- that will address any changes at the state level should they occur regarding the changes in the way roads are allowed to be funding (sic) through impact fees or other concurrency elements. MR. VARNADOE: I don't know what that means. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Could you say that again? MR. VARNADOE: I apologize. I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just trying to understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. Nick under statements today indicated to us that there's a possibility that the way we do impact fees and the way we handle concurrency at the state level could change. All I'm suggesting is that by the time of adoption some language Page 77 March 24, 2008 is worked out to add to this GMP amendment that should the state level concurrency or funding mechanisms for impact fees or items like that change, the county will have some language in this document to protect it for its funding of the road system that is needed. Nick, if you can help me clarify it, because it's your issue, I would certainly appreciate it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think the way you've structured it to read, that they'll have defined their mitigation strategies prior to adoption probably covers it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think by that time you'll know what you're up against with the state. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. So that's fine. If that's fine, then the only part that we'd want to consider then is the traffic stipulations will be defined by the adoption hearing for the mitigation. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'd say that's a safe way to go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, those are suggestions. Anybody else? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing, Mark. In D of that, is there a way we could limit the access to the thing via the arterial or via the internal road? And-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, we can make recommendations now or we can do them at the time of zoning. I think zoning we might get a better handle on what's going there, it might be a better time to do it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: A project of this intensity is going to require signalized intersections at half-mile spacing. You're going to -- by the design guidelines we have with access management, you're going to set this up to function properly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The only thing I'm trying to prevent, Nick, is a series -- what if a restaurant bought each of those Page 78 March 24, 2008 lots and car dealers and stuff and there's cars coming in off the roads on Immokalee. I would rather the thing be served from the internal road than the external -- than Immokalee -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I couldn't agree more. I think we -- and this is a bad model, but the concept, the City Gate that's on 951, the approach driveway queue links are too short. But that model would be more appropriate where you have one or two driveways that serve as access points with the reverse frontage roads that would feed all the businesses that would be there. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So stay away from it now? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I wouldn't deal with it now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But David, your advice was sometimes it's good to punt forward a couple of clues as to what we're thinking. MR. WEEKS: Yes, but I'll defer to Nick as the expert in transportation. If you wish, you might include a statement that access to the -- project access will be carefully scrutinized at the time of rezoning. Again, raise a flag. It has no regulatory effect, but it puts everyone on notice that reads that subdistrict language that access is something of concern. If you state nothing, then all this conversation here potentially is lost. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Fred Thomas, in his describing of it, called it a limited access, you know, a project with limited access. So would that be the words? MR. CASALANGUIDA: There's an access management policy that governs that. I mean, the only thing I can caution, 300 feet of road depth for something this big is too short. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, we'll back -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: We'll deal with that later. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Does your suggestion of -- does Page 79 March 24, 2008 this differentiate between a commerce park and a business park? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Basically we'd be accepting the proposed language that's on Pages 17 and 18. I think it's a combination of industrial, business park and commercial. I mean, it's more than any other individual one, but it's less than the Immokalee commercial/industrial subdistrict. They didn't need that, they didn't go that route, they went this route. I think with their concession to stay 300 feet back for those heavier intense uses and only have new car dealers along 846, it's a pretty good deal. I mean, I think it's going to work. Anybody else have any comments before we -- (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay then, is there -- Mr. Midney, do you want to make a motion? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'd like to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I figure it's your district, you should. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Okay. I would like to move that we forward Petition CP-2006-1 on to the Collier County Commission with a recommendation for approval, subject to -- for transmittal, I'm sorry -- subject to the conditions that you have mentioned already. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley seconded it. Now for discussion. It's important that staff gets the stipulations right. Is there any doubt from staffs part to what the stipulations are? MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is doubt? MR. WEEKS: I think it would be -- well, I could read you what I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me tell you what I think they are and you can tell what you got, and Mr. Midney and Mr. Wolfley can decide if they agree with it. Page 80 March 24, 2008 We're going to be utilizing the description on Page 17, starting with B-2. The language on 17 stays as the staff recommended it, with the corrections shown. On Page 18, the language stays the same till it gets to H-2. H-2 uses the language in the handout from the applicant that we received today. It talks about more selective uses for commercial. And it has a final sentence that says, the exact uses to be permitted will be determined at the time of rezoning. Now, on top of that, the applicant has agreed that items two, four and six will not be within the first 300 feet of the frontage along 846. And they also have agreed that if they do utilize number five along 846, for the first 300 feet will be for new car dealers only. And then the last thing was that by the time of the adoption hearing, we will have received -- they will have determined what traffic mitigations they're willing to utilize in regards to Nick's concern that he had itemized in his staff report. Mr. Varnadoe? MR. VARNADOE: At the risk of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, let me see if we could kind of change the 300 feet to would not be on the parcels fronting Immokalee Road. We have them 300 feet today. It could be 280 at the time we come in for zoning. Would that be acceptable -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only concern I have is if you put too shallow of a parcel there, you're right back on top of Immokalee Road with some of those more difficult uses. We're looking at a minimum distance from Immokalee Road. I don't believe I was intending to say parcels, I said you wouldn't be within 300 feet. If you think your parcels are going to be more shallow, what's the shallowest parcel you'd have there? MR. VARNADOE: Right today -- today we're very, very -- you know, at the conceptual stage they are 300. But those -- the ones you're you talking about, I don't have any real concern with it. Page 81 March 24, 2008 Because those we're talking about putting back here anyway. So let's just go with your -- the 300 feet is acceptable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that would be a good move. MR. VARNADOE: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, David, now do you have the language that you -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, one quick thing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Read back the thing about -- it almost sounded like you had to have car dealers on Immokalee Road. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I said if they utilize number five and it is for new car dealers, those can be along Immokalee Road. But if they're not, they have to -- used car dealers cannot be along Immokalee. That was the intent. Mr. Midney, are those stipulations in line with your motion? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Nods head affirmatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You better say yes so she can write it down. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Wolfley, is that in line with the second? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those 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. Page 82 March 24, 2008 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed? (No response.) Motion carries 7-0. And with that, we will continue this Growth Management Plan hearing until Friday morning at 8:30. Oh, wait a minute, Margie, this one was separately advertised. Do we need to continue it or -- MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- do we need to adjourn it? MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: No, because the other one is being continued from the other advertised -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we can adjourn this thing. Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer. All in favor? 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 is over -- meeting is over. Thank you. Page 83 March 24, 2008 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:48 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Mark Strain, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on presented or as corrected as Page 84