CCPC Minutes 04/17/2008 R
April 17, 2008
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida,
April 17, 2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning
Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION
in Building F of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with
the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain
Lindy Adelstein
Donna Reed Caron
Tor Kolflat
Paul Midney (Absent)
Robert Murray
RobertVigliotti (Absent)
David Wolfley
ALSO PRESENT:
Ray Bellows, Zoning & Land Dev. Review
Kay Deselem, Community Dev. /Environmental Services
Jeffrey Klatzkow, Chief Assistant County Attorney
Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney
Page 1
AGENDA
Revised
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, APRIL 17,2008, IN THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY
GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA:
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY
ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN
ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10
MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED
IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERJAL A MINIMUM
OF 10 DAYS PRJOR 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 PRJOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN
PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF
THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENT A TION TO THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL
NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND
THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 25, 2008, SPECIAL MEETING (COCOHA TCHEE); MARCH 6, 2008,
REGULAR MEETING
6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS -. Not Available at this time
7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
A. Petition: PUDZ-2006-AR- I 0875, Q. Grady Minor, representing KRG 951 and 41, LLC, is requesting a
PUD Rezone from the Agricultural (A), Commercial Convenience (C-2), General Commercial (C-4) and
Artesa Pointe PUD zoning districts, to the Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district
for the Tamiami Crossing CPUD, which would allow a maximum of 235,000 square feet of commercial
uses. The +25.45 acre properlY is located in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County,
Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss) HEARD ON 3/20108
B. Petition: V A-2007-AR- I 2668, B&B Cash Grocery Stores, Inc., represented by Charlie Martin, requesting a
Variance of 14 feet to replace an automobile service station canopy that was destroyed by Hurricane Wilma;
and a Variance of seven feet to relocate two fuel pump dispensers. The ",0.8 I -acre subject properlY is zoned
Village Residential (VR) and General Commercial (C-4)/Main Street Overlay Subdistrict (MSOSD) and is
located at 401 1st Street South, South lmmokalee Heights Unit, Section 4, Township 47 South, Range 29
East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss) HEARD ON 4/3/08
1
C. Petition: CU-2007-AR-11394, The Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Chnrch of Jesns Christ of
Latter Day Saints, represented by Bruce Anderson of Roetzel and Andress, is proposing a Conditional Use
of the Commercial Professional and General Office (C- I) Zoning District with a SR29 Commercial
Subdistrict Overlay (C- I -SR29-COSD) and the RSF-3 (Residential Single-Family) Zoning District for a
ChurchIPlace of Worship, pursuant to LDC Section 2.04.03, Table 2. The 16.8-acre site is located at 635
State Road 29, in Section 32, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, Immokalee, Collier County, Florida.
(Coordinator: John-David Moss) HEARD ON 4/3/08
D. The 2006 Transmittal Cvcle Growth Manaeement Plan Amendments Exhibit "A" Text Changes as per
CCPC Recommendation to BCC for hearings held on Monday, March 17, 2008 for Petitions CP-2006-5,
CP-2006-7, CP-2006-8, CP-2006 -9, CP-2006-1O and March 28, 2008 for Petition CPSP-2006-13,
all prior to special BCC hearing scheduled for April 15, 2008.
9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Petition: CU-2006-AR-11046, VI Partners, L TD, represented by Richard Y ovanovich of Goodlette, Coleman,
Johnson Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., requesting a Conditional Use for the Moraya Bay Beach Clnb to allow a
private club in the Residential Tourist (RT) zoning district and the Vanderbilt Beach Resort Tourist Overlay district
(VBRTO) of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), as specified in Sections 2.03.02.E for the RT Zoning
District and 2.03.07.L. for the VBRTO. The proposed private club will be located within the residential building.
Public restrooms are proposed along the north properlY line, with a portion of the building located on site and the
remainder located within the Bluebill A venue right-of-way. The subject properlY, consisting of 4.96", acres, is located
at 11125 Gulf Shore Drive, on the corner of Gulf Shore Drive and Bluebill Avenue, in Section 29, Township 48
South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem)
B. Petition: BD-2007-AR-12653, Martin Hussey, represented by Eric Schneider, of Turrell, Hall and Associates, Inc.,
requesting a 23-foot boat dock extension over the maximum 20-foot limit as provided in section 5.03.06 of the LDC to
allow a 43-foot dock facility to accommodate one vessel. The subject properlY is located at 173 Venus Cay Drive,
Lot 70, Port of the Islands (The Cays), Phase 2, as recorded in Plat Book 2 I, pages 1-4, Section 9, Township 52
South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ashley Caserta)
C. Petition: DOA-2007-AR-1265 I, Ave Maria Development, LLLP, represented by George Varnadoe, of Cheffy,
Passidomo, Wilson, and Johnson, LLP, is requesting an Amendment to the Town of Ave Maria nRI Development
Order The proposed amendment to the Development Order relates to the Affordable Housing options and the
documentation of the 3-year extension of the phase, buildout, and termination dates for the DRI, pursuant to Florida
Statutes. The subject properlY is located in the Town of Ave Maria, part of Sections 4 through 9 and Sections 16
through 18, Township 48 South, Range 29 East and part of Sections 31 through 33, Township 47 South, Range 29
East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem)
D. Petition: CU-2007-AR-12359, SS Naples, LLC, represented by Michael R. Fernandez, AICP, of Planning
Development, Inc, is requesting a Conditional Use for a maximum 98,000 square foot self-storage facility to be
located on a 2.4+/- acre site in a C-4 zoning district pursuant to Section 2.03.03 D of the Land Development Code
(LDC). The properlY is located on the north side of Tamiami Trail East (US 41) and the south side of Floridian
Avenue approximately 230 feet northwest of Martin Street, in Section 29, Township 50 South, Range 26 East,
Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach)
E. Petition: PUDZ-2006-AR-9143, Standing Oaks, L.L.C., represented by Dwight Nadeau, of RWA, Inc. and Richard
D. Yovanovich, Esquire, of Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A., requesting a rezone from Rural Agricultural (A) to
Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) to be known as Standing Oaks PUD. The 41.H acre Rural
Agricultural zoned site is proposed to permit 164 single and multifamily residential dwelling units at a density of 4
units per acre. The subject site is located at 6473 Standing Oaks Lane, 6400 Standing Oaks Lane, and 6565 14th
Avenue N.W., in Section 31, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Nancy
Gundlach) CONTINUED TO 5/27/08
2
F. Petition: PUDA-2007-AR-12322, Livingston Professional Center LLC, represented by Robert L. Duane, AICP, of
Hole Montes, Inc. is requesting an amendment to the Hiwassee PUD to revise existing development standards,
transportation requirements and properlY ownership information. The +/-I2.52-acre subject properlY is located 1400
feet north of the intersection of Eatonwood Lane and Livingston Road, in Section 13, Township 49 South, Range
25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss) CONTINUED TO 511/08
G. Petition: PUDZ-2007-AR- 11398, Shoesop Properties, LLC represented by Tim Hancock, AICP, Davidson
Engineering Inc., requests a rezone from the Estates (E) Zoning District to the Commercial Planned Unit Development
(CPUD) Zoning District for a development to be known as Fakahatchee Plaza CPUD. The 5.46-acre Estates-zoned
properlY is proposed to permit a commercial general office and/or retail facility within the Neighborhood Center
Subdistrict of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP). The subject properlY is located at the northwest corner
of Golden Gate Boulevard (CR 876) and Everglades Boulevard, Golden Gate Estates, Unit 76, Tract 128, Section
6, Township 49 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: John-David Moss) CONTINUED
INDEFINITELY
H. Presentation to Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) of the Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR)
Seasonal Population Study, as Directed by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC), for
components of the AUIR on Public Facilities as provided for in Chapter 6.02.02 of the Collier County Land
Development Code. [Coordinator: Mike Bosi, AICP, Planning Manager]
10. NEW BUSINESS
I I. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
12. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
13. ADJOURN
04-17-08 cepe AgendalRB/MKlsp
3
April 17, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good morning, everyone.
Welcome to the April 17th -- there you go.
Hello? Well, it's probably better off you can't hear me.
Anyway, welcome to today's meeting. If you'd all please rise for
Pledge of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, roll call by the
secretary, please.
Item #2
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Midney is absent.
Mr. Caron is here.
Mr. Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Adelstein?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here,
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti is absent as well.
Item #3
ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
Page 2
April 17, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next item is the addenda to
the agenda. And this will probably be longer than the entire meeting
today. There's been a lot of changes. So why don't we -- I'll start
telling everybody what isn't going to be heard. So if you're here for
something that's being continued, you still can speak if you're
registered to speak on the topic, but by all means, it would be better if
you came back when it got rescheduled.
The first item that's been rescheduled is Petition
CU-2006-AR-11046. It's the VI, Roman numeral six, Partners
Limited. Moraya Beach Club.
That's been continued to an uncertain time. I don't have a date
for its continuance, but it's not being heard today.
Kay, do you know of a date, approximate?
MS. DESELEM: It was continued indefinitely. We don't know
yet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because none of that's written on
the agenda.
Weare going to hear Item B and we are going to hear Item C.
Item B is a dock extension, and Item C is concerning Ave Maria.
Item D has been continued. It's petition CU-2007-AR-12359, SS
Naples, LLC. It's for a self storage facility on the East Trail.
Item E is being continued, Petition PUDZ-2006-AR-9143. It's
the Standing Oaks, LLC. I don't even know where that is. But it's
being continued to 5-27-08.
And we have Petition PUDA-2007-AR-12322, the Livingston
Professional Center, LLC, which is an amendment to the Hiwassee
PUD. That's been continued to 5-1-08.
We have Petition PUDZ-2007-AR-11398. That's Shoesop
Properties, LLC, for a development known as Fakahatchee Plaza
CPUD. That's been continued indefinitely.
Then the other item on the agenda is the Annual Update and
Inventory Report from comprehensive planning, Item H.
Page 3
April 17 , 2008
So we have three items left for today's agenda, not including the
consent agenda.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, could I ask staff, when these
items get continued, and not last minute like the one last night where
there was no possibility of notifying people, do you notify your
normal list of people to be notified on these things?
MS. DESELEM: Generally speaking the planner does go ahead
and send out a notice to, like you say, the normal list, so that
everybody knows in the board's office and in staff so that they know
to take that petition off the agenda.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, because with respect to Item
B, the Moraya Bay Beach Club, I was getting phone calls from people
at my home at 10:00 last night because they did not receive
notification that it had been canceled. I happened to mention it to
somebody during the day and then I started getting phone calls.
MS. DESELEM: That's my petition, and I too was getting a lot
of calls. There -- the notices that go out to the surrounding property
owners, we have no way to notify the surrounding property owners.
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I know, but don't you
normally notify groups like associations and that kind of thing?
MS, DESELEM: What I did on that one, I had gotten a lot of
inquiries by phone and bye-mail, and attempted to contact those
persons whom I had e-mailed messages to and let them know that in
fact that one had been continued.
And yesterday throughout the day, as I continued to get phone
calls, I did tell those persons and asked them to pass the word.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. I just wanted to know how
the process worked, because --
MS. DESELEM: The notifications that the staff planner sends
out are just mostly in-house as far as the board, minutes and records,
clerk's office and County Attorney's Office, transportation, those
Page 4
April 17, 2008
parties within the county that would be interested and may have to go
to the hearing.
But we don't have any way to notify the property owners again.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So if you're a civic group or an
association that's on a notification list, you wouldn't get notified?
MS. DESELEM: No. The only thing they can do is hopefully
call the planner and ask.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, just so you know, the day that you
notified us I notified the Vanderbilt Beach Property Owners
Association. So they were aware of it. I'm not sure of what other group
up there, if there are others. And I have their addresses. I do notify
people, of the ones I keep possession of.
Mr. Bellows?
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. A lot of it has to
do with timing also. If we have a continuance early enough we can
mark it on the agenda that gets sent out to all those groups that the
items continued. But it's very difficult once the item's been advertised
and the agenda's been mailed. Then we may be able to hit some of the
homeowners associations, but it's really too late for us to get all the
word out.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Good, thanks.
MS. DESELEM: In may also, the one item that was referenced,
Item 9-E, I believe you said it was continued to 5-27. In actuality
that's a Board of County Commissioners date, and the correction is
5-15, May 15.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, our agenda said 5-27, that's why I
read it off that way. No problem.
So that petition, Standing Oaks, will be continued to 5-15-08,
assuming that we approve all the requested continuances.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I just wanted to say, Kay,
isn't there a way you can post the agenda on the internet and update it
Page 5
April 17, 2008
instantly, and thus somebody could check it whenever they want?
MS. DESELEM: The agenda is posted on the internet. But
again, when you get last minute continuances like these, we don't
always get that.
MR. BELLOWS: One other point--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Bellows.
MR. BELLOWS: The packets that you get may have the older
ones. In this case you do have a slightly older one. But the one on the
internet, it would be the revised one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Are there any other comments or questions about the agenda?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there a motion to
approve the revised agenda with the continuances as stated?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley made the motion--
COMMISSIONER CARON: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- seconded by Ms. Caron.
All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0.
Page 6
April 17, 2008
Item #5
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 25, 2008 SPECIAL
MEETING (COCOHATCHEE); MARCH 6, 2008 REGULAR
MEETING
Next item is the approval of the minutes from the February 25th
Special Meeting on Cocohatchee.
Is there a motion to approve?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein made the motion.
Is there a second?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'll second it.
Any discussion? You all didn't want a motion to make approval.
Maybe there's some discussion needed? If there is, let's hear it.
Ms, Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll just make a comment on the
motion itself. And the motion itself was that we were sending it to the
BCC for their review and further comments.
I think it was not the intent of this board for it to be on a consent
agenda as it ended up on. It got pulled, but it was sent forth.
And I think for myself I'm going to be pretty cautious if I have
any questions or concerns about anything of voting in favor when I
thought it was being sent for their review and discussion, and it for
some reason got onto a consent agenda.
And that's just a comment for myself for the future.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I mean, how the BCC
schedules their agenda isn't something I concern myself about. We
send it to them; they can do what they want with it, so --
Any other comments on the February 25th special meeting?
(No response.)
Page 7
April 17, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, is there -- I'll call for a
vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
March 6th regular meeting. Is there a motion to recommend
approval?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein again. Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Wolfley. Discussion?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I just wanted to correct for Mr.
Arnold out there that on Pages 29 through 38, he's referred to as Ms.
Arnold and not Mr. Arnold, so perhaps we could get that changed for
him.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, maybe he's changed.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Maybe we should have a
discussion, yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You never know which way these
things go.
Okay, thank you for that correction.
With that correction in mind, are there any others?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying
Page 8
April 17, 2008
aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
Item #6
BCC REPORT - RECAPS - NOT AVAILABLE A THIS TIME
Okay, the BCC reports. None available at this time, so we'll pass
that.
Item #7
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
On to Chairman's Report. I've got a few issues.
First of all, congratulations are necessary for Mr. -- I was going
to say Kolflat, but I'll say Mr. Klatzkow. Mr. Klatzkow, welcome to
your new position. We certainly congratulate you on your successful
position and we look forward to dealing with you in the future. I hope
it always continues.
MR. KLATZKOW: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, the history in the past has been the
actual County Attorney never comes to these meetings, so it would be
Page 9
April 17,2008
nice to see you here.
MR KLATZKOW: No, I'll be here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless it's an emergency and it gets to
be such a problem. Who knows. So it would be good to see you.
Yes, sir.
MR KLATZKOW: Did we do the number four, planning
commission absences?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I should bring that up. Good point,
thank you.
Item #4
PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
Anybody not planning to be here for our next regular meeting,
which is the next meeting this board meets? I believe it's May 1 st.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, looks like we have a quorum.
Two other items I wanted on the Chairman's Report, and that is
a discussion concerning our consent agenda. The consent agenda I
think is working out really well. And maybe we can even make it
better.
The County Commission has a consent agenda that goes beyond
just review, but also has items on there that don't have any concerns,
weren't objected to by any members of the public, were generally
no-brainers. And I would like to suggest that staff put together a list of
a possible way that we could add things to our consent agenda, subject
to any member of this panel or the public pulling if they feel
necessary. But if it's an innocuous little thing that doesn't have
anything but just a formal need to come before us and then go on,
maybe we could just save some time for the public and everybody by
considering those.
Page 10
April 17, 2008
I don't know what may come up as a result of this request, but I
think we at least ought to entertain it.
Does anybody have any objection to that?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can you give me an example,
Mark? I can't think of anything that would.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can think of one on the 1 st, Mr.
Dubow. There was obviously a mistake made in the way his
presentation was done.
If you remember the gentleman, he was enjoyable to talk with.
He had where he was looking at a setback. He forgot to ask one thing.
Unfortunately, staff doesn't have the latitude to grant him that. He has
to come through the whole system again.
And it's going to be another one of these things where I'm sure
we're not going to have a problem with. Even if we did and we got the
packet, and one of us felt, oh, wait a minute, we didn't really want this,
we still just pull it from the consent and it goes on regular. But if we
don't, it sure saves a lot of time with everybody.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Good example.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, anyway, that's kind of what I was
thinking. As long as we don't mind, let's see what staff can possibly
come back with.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, just a quick question. Does
that also save the petitioner any money?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't know. Maybe they get a discount
if they don't have any opposition. We start a discount program.
W e'lllet staff come back with it.
Then I have one last thing. On May 1 st -- well, today's agenda
was supposed to be long and difficult. I don't expect it to be, especially
since 70 percent or so have dropped.
But one of the things that got continued to May 1 st was the
initial report of the rural lands stewardship committee. And prior to
Page 11
April 17, 2008
that report, I had been starting to do some background reading on it
and I found a report dated December 31 st, 2007 written by DCA for
the legislature. And in it, it assessed the two existing rural land
stewardship programs in the state: One, I believe, in DeSoto County
and the other one here in Collier.
For the sake of brevity, I copied the portions of it pertaining to
Collier and the introduction to the program, and especially the last
page of this document, which is the last page of the issues pertaining
to Collier.
The DCA had some very concerning things to discuss about our
program. And I'm passing this out to everybody so that you have a
chance to read it in plenty of time prior to our May 1 st meeting.
The package that you're going to be getting that I've seen so far
doesn't include this. There's nothing to hide in it, it's a public
document. I wanted you all to have it so that ifthere's anything that
needs to be further discussed when that presentation's made, this
package is available.
MR. KLATZKOW: And I would request that staff include that
in the package that's going to the planning commission then, so the
public has access to it as well.
MS. DESELEM: I will.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here's copies of it. I have some extra
copies. So any time later during our break if you all want them, you're
more than welcome to them.
Okay. And with all those housekeeping matters out of the way,
we're on to our -- Ms, Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Is the RLSA meeting still
scheduled for the 1 st?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yes, it is.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It is. Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Dubow will be up first on the 1st to
get rid of his problem. And then we'll go into the first agenda item.
Page 12
April 17, 2008
Item #8
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
Okay, with that, our first process will be our consent agenda.
And I guess I need the County Attorney to tell me -- we have a
multitude of items on the consent agenda. All the GMP amendments
and Tamiami Crossing, couple other regular hearings.
Can we do the GMP amendments as one motion, subject to any
discussion and then each of the other ones as one motion, or the whole
consent agenda is one motion? How would you prefer?
MR. KLATZKOW: You've normally done this where if you've
had an issue with it you've pulled it; otherwise, you've simply
approved the whole thing and we're done with it.
So unless there's something you specifically want to pull, I
would just do a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've got, unfortunately, questions.
Ms. Caron apparently has too.
Why don't we start with Ms. Caron. And what one are you on?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I'll go to B, which is the
B&B Cash Grocery Stores.
I thought that in our discussion there was a commitment to
enhance landscape buffers that should be delineated in this.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's item eight? It's called
Handy Food Stores or B&B?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I think it's--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to make sure I get to the right
one. I actually went through and checked all these, so --
COMMISSIONER CARON: I think it's known as both. It's
petition V A-2007-AR-12668.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the one that -- my consent item
checklist says Handy Food Stores on it.
Page 13
April 17, 2008
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, okay. Well, I'm just reading
off the agenda we received.
When I looked back at things, I had notations that said there was
a commitment to enhance landscape buffering.
And I know, I remember specifically that that was pretty
important to Commissioner Midney in that he said that the location as
it exists today is pretty rundown and miserable and an eyesore to the
community, so he was pretty pleased that they were going to do that.
And I don't know if it needed to be in here or not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought -- well, I remember some of
that discussion. And when they said they were going to enhance the
landscape buffers, and I thought they said voluntarily, what they
meant was that they were bringing the buffers up to the code
requirements that are today, not making them beyond the code
requirements, because we didn't get into any specifics about the type
of vegetation or the number of trees.
My understanding was they were just making sure that they were
going to come up to today's standards and that was the enhancement.
It would be greater than what it is currently. Is that--
MR. MOSS: Right. For the record, John-David Moss, zoning
and land development review.
The applicant -- this was the petition where they've already
submitted the SDP, and so we know exactly what they're proposing.
They're bringing up the landscaping to the maximum extent possible
to be in accordance with the code of today.
Of course the site was originally built in 1972, so they can't do
everything that they would be required to do today. But they are
bringing it up to the extent possible, and they're doing a lot of
landscaping.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, so it won't actually be to
today's code, they're just doing whatever they can possibly --
MR. MOSS: Right. Right, whatever is feasible.
Page 14
April 17, 2008
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. I'm glad that's on the
record.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there anything else?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is on Item 8.A, which
is the Tamiami Crossing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: One thing. In that, there's a
couple things that looks like staff is asking us questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They are.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So I think shouldn't we, when
that's ever the case, answer those questions?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was on my list of things to do, so
you might as well lead it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So I guess the first
question is up at the top, gross according to CCP motion -- so Kay,
should that -- who should we address this to, I guess?
MS. DESELEM: John-David's petition--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: John, why don't you do that,
why don't you take us through the questions and get us to --
MR. MOSS: Yeah, the first area of uncertainty was number one,
permitted uses, which you pointed out, Commissioner, we didn't know
whether gross was to come after 235,000, as it's listed there in red, or
if it was to come after square feet, which is how it's normally
expressed. So it's just really a technicality, but Margie didn't want to
jump to any conclusions.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My take would be the second
one, gross commercial floor area. I mean, I guess --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody think that they intended
differently?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No? Okay.
Page 15
April 17, 2008
MR. MOSS: The next one, the same category, number 10.
Because it includes non-depository credit institutions, we wanted to
include that there.
There's an error in the LDC. It doesn't list depository and
non-depository. So Margie just wanted to clarify that. That's why you
see that there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me back up. Number 10. Did we
actually discuss that issue at our meeting?
MR. MOSS: No. It was something that Margie discovered, an
inconsistency in the LDC afterwards, and so she just wanted to rectify
it since it was coming back to you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any issue from a legal
perspective that this should have -- would this entail any public
process that we didn't go through?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. If the petitioner has a problem with that,
he can being it up before the BCC. But I'd like to clean it up now. And
I'd also like to ask staff to, during the cycle, to clean this up as well if
there's an LDC issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MR. MOSS: The next one is in section two, prohibited uses. We
included tattooing establishments, which was a condition stipulated by
the CCPC at that meeting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We wanted them, didn't we?
Mr. Wolfley, you had a comment?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, I -- it seems petty, but I
just want a little clarification on group 5813, which has to do with
lounges or cocktail lounges or drinking establishments, only in
conjunction with eating places.
Now, I know this came up when we were talking about some
things in Immokalee and talking about -- this always seems to come
up.
Are we going to run into problems again? I mean, is this
Page 16
April 17, 2008
referring to the Applebee's, the -- so on and so forth, where they just
serve alcohol in a non-bar type setting where there is 51 percent -- is
that what that means -- of food?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, I think from an
informational viewpoint, staff can respond to your question. But we
certainly can't change it whether it is or not, so --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, I just want clarification
myself. I left my book here and my groups listing, SIC codes, and it
disappeared. So I couldn't look it up.
MR. MOSS: I don't have my SIC code book with me either, but
that's my understanding, that it's just -- we won't run into problems
like that. This would be just a restaurant that serves alcoholic
beverages.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, because the second time
around it says cocktail lounges.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's clear to me it's cocktail
lounge first.
MR. MOSS: But it says in conjunction with eating places.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In conjunction with,
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's what my question was.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Not an issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can ask the question. You can, after
this meeting, call staff and try to get a better understanding of the
whole thing. But we cannot change it here today. It's not language we
recommended for stipulated changes at our last meeting. And the
consent agenda is only to review what we previously stipulated. So
that's kind of where we're at.
I mean, I don't have any problem with you wanting to know
more about it, David, but I don't know how much we can do about any
changes today, unless we do a rehearing, so --
MR. MOSS: The next change is section three, and of course that
Page 17
April 17, 2008
just had to be included because the prohibited uses was added as
number two. So that's just a little housekeeping task.
The next item is in table one, in Exhibit B, the minimum yard
setbacks from Tamiami Trail. We've included one foot of setback for
every two feet of building height but not less than 25 feet, which is
what you all had directed at the last meeting.
However, as Marjorie noted in the footnotes there, the CCPC
motion was silent as to whether setback measurements is applied to
zoned or actual height. And in the minutes the discussion mentioned
both.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, it would be zoned height.
I think that would always be the default. Because actual height is a
special definition. We really don't have requirements on it yet.
MR. MOSS: That's what we assumed, but we didn't want to
second guess you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have any objection to
that?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. MOSS: So the next one was the setbacks from Collier
Boulevard for principal uses. One foot of setback for every two feet of
building height, but not less than 25 feet.
And then all of the minimum yards for accessory uses have been
established to be the same as the principal structure.
If you'll turn to Exhibit E, the landscape buffer, subsection A,
we've added that the developer requests a deviation from subsection
4.06.02, Table 2.4, footnote three of the LDC, only for that portion of
the project immediately north of Tract A. This deviation would
provide relief from the above-referenced LDC provision. And that was
-- if you all recall, it was just the portion over Tract A that was going
to be affected by this buffer.
Page 18
April 1 7, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: J.D.?
MR. MOSS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It might be simpler just to have us tell
you what questions we have about it. We've all -- I mean, I think
everybody here should have read their document. And I only had --
my only point was to respond to two of the questions raised and then
raise one question of my own. That might expedite this.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I just have one more, if
we're going to --
MR. MOSS: Okay. It doesn't have anything to do with A, does
it?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No.
MR. MOSS: All right. What about C, the parking distribution--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll ask you.
MR. MOSS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Comment, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mine would be on D, the
question of that arbor, I think the conclusion of just eliminating the
concerns you have in the parentheses. What we're saying is it has to be
an eight-foot walkway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 9, by the way, of this document.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that is, the walkway is the
walkway.
And then the height of it, you know, some part of it has to be at
least 12 feet high. Obviously if it's a sloped roof, the highest part.
But we don't want something is to be -- you know, we want to
make sure that part of that walkway is 12 feet high to block the view
of the building.
MR. MOSS: And what about the eight feet? We weren't sure if
you meant that the walkway had to be eight feet wide or --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The walkway shall be a
Page 19
April 17, 2008
minimum of eight feet.
MR. MOSS: Is that in width?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, it's -- is there
confusion with that?
MR. MOSS: Well, it just seemed like a really broad walkway,
since you had suggested that it be located in one of the islands in the
parking lot.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the walkway is running
perpendicular from the building. I mean, maybe -- is that not clear?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what Mr. Schiffer is saying, the
walkway will be eight feet wide and its peak will be 12 feet. Now
where you go from there is a design nature in regards to sloping of the
roof and items like that.
If that was Mr. Schiffer's intent. Was it?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. But there was one
important thing, is remember, we had it coming down the center of the
building. If you look on the site plan, we wanted to make sure -- you
see coming out of the center of the building, there's like a -- right there
there's a landscaped isle. We wanted that to be elaborated to be that.
MR. MOSS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't think there's anything in
this that's making that clear, so --
MR. MOSS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe the applicant could
change the site plan and show the walkway, or at least point to where
it's going to go or something.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, J.D., that's the only walkway
of its nature shown on the entire site plan. It's the one continuous
walkway from the south to the north to the center of the building. It's
pretty easily referred to and described.
Why don't you just describe it in reference like I just said and be
done with it.
Page 20
April 17, 2008
MR. MOSS: We'll do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have any objections to
Mr. Schiffer's clarifications as far as meeting our intent?
Mr. Y ovanovich?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I have one as well, if you give me a
chance.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not done yet.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm just saying, we're fine with Mr.
Schiffer. But I just want to make sure we can have an opportunity too
to clarify one --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer, are you finished?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done, Yes, thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one, and that's under E.l,
environmental.
I think -- and staffhas already suggested the language. My point
on this was that it would only be included if supported by the LDC. So
staff is suggesting adding language to clarify that this language is
consistent with the LDC requirement prior to the BCC hearing.
And that was language I got from you separately after we talked
yesterday. And if the commission has no problem making sure that's
included as part of the end of E.l, then I don't have any problem with
it.
MR. MOSS: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Yovanovich?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It was actually on the same item. But I
believe if it's consistent with the LDC, I believe we were supposed to
complete it prior to SDP approval, not prior to the zoning hearing on
this matter.
And I checked with Susan Mason and she's fine with that being
the stipulation.
Page 21
April 17, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's more appropriate, by all
means.
Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so that's the clarifications for
Tamiami Crossings and the responses to the questions.
Is staff clear on those?
MR. MOSS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That takes us through my questions on
the consent agenda. Does anybody else have any other issues?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On another application?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anyone at all, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: On D, which is the Immokalee
Chapel-- and to John. And the question is number five, we were
discussing calling that a side setback instead of the northern boundary
because the property, the shape of it, the flag shape, there could be
confusion as to whether it is a -- but actually, as I look at it now, you
did put the word side.
MR. MOSS: Yeah, we put both side and northern to --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Never mind. I'm done, thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions on
the consent agenda items?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with those comments and
clarifications we've provided to staff as we've noted on the record, is
there a motion to recommend approval of the consent agenda?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Commissioner Adelstein,
seconded by Commissioner Wolfley.
Any further discussion?
Page 22
April 17, 2008
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in favor, signify
by saying aye,
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Consent agenda passes 7-0.
Okay, next petition, we'll get into our advertised public hearings,
the first of which is BD-2007-A--
COMMISSIONER CARON: We need to do D.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's on the consent agenda. We just
approved it.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, all right, that's fine.
Item #9B
PETITION: BD-2007-AR-12653 - VENUS CAY BOAT DOCK
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Advertised public hearings, Item B.
Petition BD-2007-AR-12653, Martin Hussey with a 43-foot dock
facility to accommodate one vessel.
All those wishing to testify on behalf of this issue, please rise to
be sworn in by the court reporter.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there disclosures on the part of
planning commission?
Page 23
April 17, 2008
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, the applicant may
proceed.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Morning, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning.
MR. SCHNEIDER: For the record, my name's Eric Schneider
with Turrel, Hall and Associates, representing Martin Hussey.
We're requesting a 23-foot boat dock extension for a dock
protruding a total of 43 feet from mean high water.
This project is located in Venus Cay, Port of the Islands, in a
manmade canal.
And ifthere are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them for
you.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Any question? Go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have some questions. One --
and I'm trying to find the best drawing. Where is the exact property
line?
MR. SCHNEIDER: If you look at the existing conditions
exhibit, which I'll put on the overhead here, these lines right here are
the exact property lines. And the riparian lines run directly out from
those property lines.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think my question is,
which one is the rear property line -- looks like there's an offset line
for survey work. But what is the rear property line on this project?
MR. SCHNEIDER: Oh, everything is referenced from the mean
high water line. As far as the property line itself, I think there's a
platted mean high water line, which is intended to be the property line.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You supply us -- there is a --
from Court Gregory Surveying, there is a survey.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Can you put that up on the --
MR. SCHNEIDER: Sure.
Page 24
April 17, 2008
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is -- that furthest line out, you
think that's the property line, or is there -- your testimony, there is
essentially no rear property line on these lots, it just goes to a high
water.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Yeah, everything that we've referenced is
the mean high water line.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So your measurements, though,
in other words, the 43 feet is from the mean high water line.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Looking at this, the survey
that's on the screen, is the mean high water line towards the waterway
or is it --
MR. SCHNEIDER: It is the second dotted line landward.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Yeah.
MR. SCOFIELD: For the record, Rocky Scofield.
Mr. Schiffer, in this community, like several others that we do,
like Southport on the Bay, they have -- when they were platted, they'd
draw in a platted mean high water line, which is the rear property line.
And then when we get ready to do these petitions, then we have a
survey done and get the actual mean high water line, which may vary
a foot or two, usually, in that case. But the mean high water line is the
rear property line.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Next question is -- can
you put up the section. The 18-foot dimension there, is that going to
be the width of where the boat could pull in or the width of the lift?
Because some of the documents are showing it as a 13- foot.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Yeah, the inside of the lift will be 13 feet,
approximately. The -- that figure must be from the outside of the
pilings.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And the fact that that
goes up high -- and the reason I'm asking that now, by right we have
the ability to put the canopies on that, so --
Page 25
April 17, 2008
MR. SCOFIELD: That's wrong.
MR. SCHNEIDER: That figure should actually be 12-and-a-half
to 13 feet--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
MR. SCHNEIDER: -- the inside of the slip.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or maybe what looks like the
lift part of it should be pulled over one more piling or something. I
think that's probably the problem.
So it's not going to be wider than 13 feet?
MR. SCHNEIDER: No.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then the last question is
why do you need the walkway to go around the boat totally? I know
that would be nice, but the concern is you're coming out farther into
the waterway, you are starting to get in the view of some of the other
properties to your right as we look at this, so what is -- is that
necessary?
MR. SCHNEIDER: Well, the idea on that is since they're
allowed one slip, he did want to be able to access his boat for
maintenance purposes, mostly just for routine maintenance and
washing.
We tried to minimize it by making it three feet wide, but --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I'm done, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Can you put up that other
illustration you had showing the as-is condition?
MR. SCHNEIDER: The existing conditions?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, please.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No, you had another exhibit that
showed the actual dock, and this does not show the dock. Yes, it does,
I see it
What is the distance that they have now as far as the existence
Page 26
April 17, 2008
where the boat is docked? How far out from the shore?
MR. SCHNEIDER: With the -- I think the dock is only out about
18 feet. But with his boat it's another seven feet, so --
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: So what is it, 25 feet, is that
what you're saying?
MR. SCHNEIDER: Yeah, ifhe's got his boat dock there, it's
about 25 feet.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So he has 25 feet now, and now
you're going to extend that to 34 feet.
MR. SCHNEIDER: 43.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: This illustration I have shows 34
to the side that you load the boat.
MR. SCHNEIDER: Oh, to the side, Yes, yes. And he does need
that extra depth. If you'll take a look at the bathymetrics, he does need
to be out further for the type of boat that he's proposing.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, the print is small, but it
seemed to me that the depth didn't change that much. That basically
was my question, why -- what is the justification for extending this
dock based as far as water depth.
MR. SCOFIELD: The existing dock that you see there, that was
put in under the old rules, under the 20-foot rule that didn't have to
come from a boat dock extension. If you look at that, a lot of those
docks were put in and they didn't include the boats.
This was done quite -- this was always done. People got a dock
out 20 feet, 18, 19,20 feet. As soon as they put a boat there, they're
not in compliance.
But anyway, that's why we're back there.
If you look at the bathymetric surveys, in order for this
gentleman to get his boat in here and put a boat lift in, we're into -- we
have to be into three-and-a-halfto four feet of water so we can get a
boat down at low tide. That's why the reason for the extension and
we're here. And also, there's a -- it's a very shallow rip-rap shoreline
Page 27
April 17 , 2008
with mangroves.
The reason for -- a lot of these things were passed there, a lot of
people had two slips until it was brought to the attention these people
are allowed one slip. So we're designing all these now with one slip.
The walkway on the outside of this boat is brought there for
transient, so friends can come by if they want to dock. Because now
there's no place other for them to come by, stop by.
Some of these people, a lot of the time they'll come in, and
without having to pull onto their lift, they'll want to pull out if they're
going out in another few hours. That's the reason for this walkway on
the outside. Also for maintenance of the boat. They can walk around
it, wash it and get to it.
So it's just basically one slip with a maintenance and a little
transient place to dock on the outside temporarily. It's just a very
temporary thing.
A lot of them, we've permitted a few of these with this design so
far. This dock is not out any further than a lot of them, as you can see
in the aerial overhead that you have, 43 feet for this extension. And
there's no permanent mooring allowed on the outside slip.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Now, this is a 30-foot length
boat.
MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And what do you perceive the
depth requirement for that length boat to be? And what's your basis for
that?
MR. SCOFIELD: The depth? Well, we have enough depth there.
It draws about two-and-a-half, two feet.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I mean the draft of the boat.
MR. SCOFIELD: The draft of the boat is about two feet.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, this indicates that there is
two feet there.
MR. SCOFIELD: You have to have a lift. The lift that comes
Page 28
April 17, 2008
down underneath the boat takes up 18 inches. And if you're on a very
low tide, you're going to be on the bottom anyway.
Normally we like to get out into four feet of water at least into
these things, but this is about the minimum distance out that we can go
on this one.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: The justification is dependent
on the draft of the boat. The justification for extending is based on the
draft of the boat.
MR. SCOFIELD: That's right. The boat normally draws to -- a
30-foot boat is two to two-and-a-halffeet.
On the inside there of this it's showing just a little over three feet.
If you get an extra low tide, you're going to be sitting on the bottom
with that boat anyway. A lot of these things, even this one on a real
low tide, won't be able to get his boat on a lift. So they're subject to
tides also, coming in and out on a, at least a medium, a normal low
tide or a little bit higher.
But if you look on the aerial, this is pretty common, this distance
out that they're requesting in this area. These are all rip-rap shorelines
and they're shallow, and people are not in there dredging, which they
could.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I wasn't comparing it with what
the other existing docks are, I was looking for the justification for this
one there on its own. The fact that others extend that far out is not
justification for --
MR. SCOFIELD: Well, the justification is the water depth. And
it's pretty clear, you can see all these water depths are very shallow
until we get out to the boat, which is only -- it's three feet on the
landward gunnel side of that boat.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: That's all I had, Mark, thank
you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the
applicant?
Page 29
April 17, 2008
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: If you take a look at the existing
dock, the extension from the shoreline out to the platform currently,
are you changing that in the new design or does that remain the same?
MR. SCHNEIDER: It actually does go out a bit further. I think
from -- let's see, I don't have a figure out to it. But it does go out a few
feet past the existing platform, just to gain some water depth. And like
Rocky said, to gain the extra water depth to run the lift underneath that
vessel.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
Okay, thank you.
Does staff have any comments, presentation?
MS. CASERTA: For the record, Ashley Caserta, zoning and
land development.
No presentation, just here to answer questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you might want to get a little
closer to the speaker.
MS. CASERTA: No presentation, just here to answer questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Does anybody have any
questions of staff?
Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, relative to the draft of this
boat, do we have any basis or standard that we can compare for
different length boats as to what the required draft is?
MS. CASERTA: There's nothing in the Land Development Code
that states that.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Well, that just says shall be
reasonable draft, it doesn't say relative to feet.
What I'm thinking of, is there any kind of standard you have that
says a 30-foot boat length averages about two-foot draft, 35-foot so
much draft, that would have been information that you'd have as a
Page 30
April 17, 2008
basis?
MS. CASERTA: There's nothing that I used to base that off of.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Rocky, I have one question, if you don't mind.
That's a long channel that leads into taking you out to the gulf.
What are some of the largest size boats in that marina that's there that
this area's adjacent to?
MR. SCOFIELD: Up to 50 feet we've got boats in there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what are the depths of some of
those boats, would you imagine, at the greatest?
MR. SCOFIELD: The drafts?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. SCOFIELD: Four-and-a half feet, five, some of them.
There's -- you know, they're restricted. The canal, the upper part of the
Facaunion Canal there, you know, towards Port of the Isles in this area
is fairly deep. Obviously when you get west it gets shallower in some
areas. But we do have -- I did an extension for a gentleman in here a
while back on the next canal on this aerial north, and he had a 55-foot
boat he had brought in here, I think it drew four-and-a-half feet of
water.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the channel and the canals in that
area are designed to accept deeper draft boats?
MR. SCOFIELD: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have an objections from any of
the neighbors to this request?
MR. SCOFIELD: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Anybody else --
MR. SCOFIELD: You can look on the aerial just real quick, and
Page 3 1
April 17, 2008
you can see how the shaded, the lighter color around these peninsulas
here, how it's filling in, and the rip-rap and mangrove shorelines. So
they're trying -- people aren't normally dredging in there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you happen to do any silt testing on
the depth of the silt that was there?
MR. SCOFIELD: No, we did not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then in the future, in case you have
questions about drafting and depths, if there's a -- maintenance
dredging can be done if silt builds up on the natural bottom of the
existing -- the original dredging. You might want to show that the
original dredge was down to "X" number of feet and this is just simply
filling in so it makes more sense.
MR. SCOFIELD: Dredging from a vacant lot on these things is a
doable thing. A lot of these places -- this was an older dock that was
built in there. I don't even -- it was on four-by-fours. The old dock is
falling in. I don't even --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not disagreeing--
MR. SCOFIELD: Don't know if it's permitted.
But I'm saying to bring a big dredge up into here is, you know,
quite a deal. But from a vacant lot, it could be done easily.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But what I was getting at is that you
have a problem of silt fill and it was originally deeper at one time --
MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- it's not so deep now. Dredging is a
difficult manner with a completed uplands structure, so that just
supports your argument. Thank you.
MR. SCOFIELD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of anybody?
Mr. Adelstein?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I have two questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of who?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: For you.
Page 32
April 17, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For the applicant, okay.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What is the depth of the water
at 43 feet?
MR. SCOFIELD: It's about four feet.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay.
MR. SCOFIELD: The outside -- the boat slip, if you're looking
at the proposed dock there, it shows there's an overlay of depth right
there on the proposed dock.
The boat slip going in where the boat is moored, the landward
side of that slip you have -- it's showing 3.2 feet and then 4.4 feet, a
little over a foot difference inside that slip.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And that's 43 feet?
MR. SCOFIELD: At 43 out to the face of the dock you have
five-and-a-half feet. That's the little walkway on the outside of the
boat. It drops off another foot in three feet right there. That's where it
drops off pretty good.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: What is the minimum depth
you must have?
MR. SCOFIELD: To get that boat on there on a lift, they're
going to need, oh, about three-and-a-halffeet of water to get the boat
on the lift,
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So the entire dock out would
be exactly how many feet from the shoreline?
MR. SCOFIELD: To where the boat is?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes.
MR. SCOFIELD: To the middle line of the boat is about 3.7,3.8
feet.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: How far out is it in footage
actually?
MR. SCOFIELD: Well, let's see. If it's three, you have six, nine
feet, 10 feet in, about 34 feet to the centerline of the boat.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: That's a full length, 34 feet is
Page 33
April 17,2008
the length of the --
MR. SCOFIELD: It's the distance out from the shoreline to the
center. It would be the centerline of the boat. Then you would go
another four, five feet, it's probably -- it's 40 feet to the outside of the
boat.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay.
MR. SCOFIELD: Then there's a three-foot little skiff dock,
access dock on the other side.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So you're talking about 43
feet.
MR. SCOFIELD: Forty feet to the outside of the boat and the lift
piles, and you have a three-foot catwalk on the other side of that.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Forty-three is what I have
down here. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rocky, couple questions.
One, I'm starting to have a concern with this outer dock. And I
know that that's a nice luxury, but essentially at that point in time it's a
noncompliant dock, and because it is down at the end of a cul-de-sac,
the vacant lot to the right essentially is really going to be pinched with
view no matter what. And then as you come around -- so is that
something you really need?
It's not something you're entitled to. Again, I understand the
luxury feature of it, but here's what could happen, is the guy could put
another boat out there. Your testimony is really true, people are
building 20-foot docks and then they're putting the boat onto it.
Essentially that violates the extension already.
So there's nothing that we would do other than, you know, have
to police the fact that there's not another boat sticking out there. So is
that something you could live without?
Or could we word it this way? Could we give you 40 feet, and if
you want to put it in there or not, it's up to you. But I know that you're
Page 34
April 17, 2008
pinching the water. I mean, these are low water dimensions. There are
-- most of the people in the county have to judge their boat launching
off of their lift with, you know, high tide or higher tide.
So anyway, the question is: Do you -- is that a deal breaker, that
outer dock area? Because it isn't something that we're really supposed
to or necessarily give you. Again, I know it's a good feature.
The people could theoretically tie up to the pilings that would be
there for the lift and then hit that one little perpendicular area and walk
m.
My concern isn't for what you described, my concern is that a
guy could park a boat there and there would be two boats on the thing.
MR. SCOFIELD: But that's -- you know, that being policed -- I
mean, the owners know that they're only allowed, especially now,
only one vessel in this area. Obviously people with vessels, they
would like to get around them to maintenance them, and that's mostly
what it's for. Someone coming in there, maybe, you know, happens
once in a blue moon to -- a friend coming in to see him and docking
his boat for a while, or that he may pull up there and then leave out in
another few hours.
I mean, it's a good situation. The dock -- the corner lot there,
we've done a lot of those, too. And you can see on the canal below
that on the aerial, there's a guy in that corner lot that we just did that
boat dock extension not too long ago. We actually had to remove it
and replace it because he was -- it didn't conform, when that
gentleman did there.
But the docks coming out in those areas, they were be able to get
out. And he'll have to be out as far -- well, he'll have to be out
probably a little further than this dock to get into deeper water. And it
would be a straight out dock.
So it doesn't hinder him too much, The people are aware of these
situations when they come in there.
The feature, the skiff dock on the outside's a nice feature that
Page 35
April 17, 2008
people like to have. They know they can't have two vessels. It's just a
nice feature to have,
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rocky, essentially the existing
dock is noncompliant once you put a boat up against it.
MR. SCOFIELD: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in other words, this guy's
behavior, he's not too sure of that -- I don't think he feels like he's
doing anything wrong, he just doesn't know that he's --
MR. SCOFIELD: Right. Yeah, he has this, and the old dock is
dilapidated, it's got to go anyway.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The second issue is, now in the
LDC by right you're allowed a canopy. The canopy can essentially
extend a couple feet off each side. It could be 35 feet, it can be 12 feet
in the air, it could be -- so in other words, we can't -- is that something
we could eliminate from this dock? Would they ever intend to want
that?
MR. SCOFIELD: You know, I have not seen the canopies in this
area. Now there may be. Someone may know better than I do. But I
haven't seen any down here. But I'm sure that's a stipulation that could
be put on because that -- a canopy on this situation would block view.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And look at that vacant lot to
the right, if it's still vacant, from this aerial. You know, that lot is not
going to have much of a view no matter what, so -- so the concern is
it's hard for us to let it go past here today without knowing that by
right they could put a canopy on it, which would essentially set a --
you know, in your 13 feet, you know, that would be a 20 by 35-foot
canopy sitting out there.
MR. SCOFIELD: You know, Eric just mentioned to me when --
you know, you have to -- you're supposed to get state and federal
permits even when you do anything anymore. And the county requires
you show them your state and federal permits.
Now, I know it hasn't happened sometimes in the past on these
Page 36
April 17, 2008
canopies. But in most instances the state is not going to allow, a lot of
times, these canopies because it shades more area then. And we have
to go through and, you know, comply with the DEP permits.
So that's something they'd have to go through and -- up in this
area it probably would not be permitted. I don't know that for a fact,
but that's my guess.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because it is by right allowed
since the LDC changed. During those hearings we didn't hear any
testimony that don't waste your time, these won't be approved. So we
have to assume that they're --
And then the other thing, you'll fix that drawing showing 18 feet
instead of --
MR. SCOFIELD: Yeah, that's a mistake. Lifts are normally 13
feet square. You know, that's about -- that's the box they fit in. But
that will be corrected.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant or
of county staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, do you have any public speakers
registered?
MS. DESELEM: No, sir, we have none.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll close the public hearing
and entertain a motion.
Anyone?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Everybody's going to run away
from boat dock motions. But since I've gone forward before I can do
it, if nobody wants it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just need someone to make a motion.
Anybody?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make the motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer.
Page 37
April 17, 2008
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this motion's going to be to
approve with some conditions.
First of all, I think he's reaching out to an appropriate level of
water, so there's no concern there. He's not getting greedy on the
water.
But my motion would be for approval with the exception that no
canopy would be allowed on this dock and that the extension really be
for 43 feet, which means he can cut that outer dock out ifhe wants, or
he can figure out how he can pull the thing in if he wants. So it would
be not for 43 but it would be for 40 feet and there would be a
limitation on not having a canopy without coming back before this
board.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second to the motion?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I'll second the motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commissioner Adelstein seconded the
motion.
Is there a discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For my part, I don't see the need to
restrict the canopy. The canopy issue was only one originating in
North Naples. The Board of County Commissioners in their own
independent districts didn't support it countywide. We have an
alternative LDC amendment that clearly dictates when and when you
can't have a canopy, and if you can what the criteria are.
I don't know why we need to further restrict it. Why don't we
just let it go by what the LDC was voted in to allow? Why do we need
to individually restrict it? There's no complaints from the
neighborhood and there might not be -- a canopy may be a good way
to preserve someone's boat.
Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, I don't agree with the
restriction to 40 feet. I think 43 feet is fine. If you've done any
Page 38
April 17, 2008
boating, especially up towards -- and a dock like this, it's extremely
convenient or nice to have that access on both sides.
And as he mentioned, if somebody drives up with a boat, where
are you going to temporarily harbor it or dock it? That three feet I
think is pretty critical in this situation, or many -- any situation.
Especially with regard to the depth closer in, and you can visibly see
that in the colored picture they passed out.
So I would request Mr. Schiffer to allow that 43 feet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I can answer?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The concern I have is that, first
of all, our code on boat docks, especially on extensions, doesn't really
introduce the privilege of having visitors dock too, I think it's a good
one. And I do think we have some dock problems. It wouldn't kill us
to workshop on what to do with docks to begin with, but --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Down here?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I don't know the dock
problems, I'm just going by what's in the code.
The concern I really have, if you look at the handout that Rocky
gave us, is there is some lots to the east that if you did put a canopy on
that boat and you did stick that into the air that would be the prime
view of those lots with that canopy in the air.
So you can vote against it but, you know, you let me make the
motion so this is what you get.
I think -- I still think limiting the canopy -- that doesn't mean that
if all the neighbors start to put canopies on it they can't come back
here and lift that.
And then the 43 feet means he can move it in if that outer dock's
that important, or he can take it off and he's -- as he shows it and he's
in compliance.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
Page 39
April 17, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If your intention is to vote against the
motion, pursuant to the latest discussion from the Board of County
Commissioners, they'd like to know why.
I'm going to vote against the motion because I see no reason to
deviate from the recommendations made by staff. I think they're as
thorough as they need to be. And so for that reason I'm going to vote
against Mr. Schiffer's motion.
But I would vote to approve it consistent with staffs
recommendations. That's my reason.
So anybody else going to vote against this, you need to state
your reason. And let's start with Mr. Wolfley.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm just going to ditto what you
said, Mark. I agree with -- I will vote for the boat dock extension and
against the -- Mr. Schiffer's -- I just agree with what you said.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm going to ditto.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So would 1.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, you were the second.
You're not going to vote for the motion?
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: I made the second so the
motion would move.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'd rather we go just forward with
the vote then and go from there.
You already heard me.
Ms. Caron, Mr. Schiffer, Mr. Kolflat. Anybody else have any--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark, let me ask
something. If we vote and let's say the negatives win, that doesn't --
does that deny him the boat dock?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we can take another vote.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or we would have another vote.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Another vote.
Okay, so the motion's been made for recommendation of
Page 40
April 17, 2008
approval, subject to two stipulations. There's been discussion.
All those in favor of the motion, signify by raising your hand
and saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two in favor.
All those against, same sign.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
One, two, three, four, five against. Motion fails.
I'll make a motion to recommend approval subject to staff
stipulations.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Murray.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion, please
raise your hand and signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
All those opposed?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-2. Thank you.
Next item up -- and Cherie', are we're doing okay? Because this
one might be a little longer. We'll give you a break at 10:00, if that's
Page 41
April 17, 2008
okay?
THE COURT REPORTER: If it's okay with Kady.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it's okay with Kady?
Item #9C
PETITION: DOA-2007-AR-12651, AVE MARIA
DEVELOPMENT,LLLP
Okay, next item is up is Petition DOA-2007-AR-12651. It's the
Town of Ave Maria Development of Regional Impact DRI. Couple of
modifications to that DO.
All those wishing to testify on behalf ofthis subject, please rise
to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(All speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the planning
commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had conversations with a
representative of the applicant and the e-mails and conversations with
a whole herd of attorneys. And --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: A herd?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A herd. I don't know how else to say it.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: A gaggle.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A gaggle, yeah.
And with that -- and everything that I brought up will be
discussed today. So we'll go forward here.
Go ahead, the applicant.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. My name is John Passidomo. My address is 821 Fifth
Avenue South, in the City of Naples.
Our firm represents Ave Maria Development in the matter
Page 42
April 17, 2008
pending before you for consideration this morning.
Our petition seeks to make non-substantial changes to the DRI
development order for Ave Maria to implement two recent legislative
changes enacted to bolster the deteriorating Florida real estate market.
The first legislative change simply documents automatic
three-year extensions already made by the legislature in all phase,
build-out and expiration dates for DRIs under active construction on
July 1st, 2007,
The second legislative change recognized a growing discrepancy
between maximum income limitations and credit qualification
requirements is denying affordable housing buyer's access to
affordable housing units.
The legislature therefore set up a procedure to ensure that after a
reasonable period of time and a good faith effort having been
expended to sell affordable housing units to buyers in one income
classification, buyers in the next income classification could in fact
buy those units at the same price originally offered to the lower
income classification.
The specific legislative requirements are set forth in your staff
report.
The legislation, you may remember, was cosponsored by our
own Representative Mike Davis. We've been able to retrieve a
transcript of Mike's remarks in introducing the bill on the floor of the
House on April 26th, 2007, and thought you might find Mike's
comments instructive. With your indulgence, Mr. Chairman --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Certainly.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: -- I'll share them with the commissioners.
The highlighted part is Mike's remarks. Mr. Chairman, just for
purposes of the record, let me just read Mr. Davis's remarks in
introducing the legislation. And Mike said, "Thank you, Madam
Speaker. This amendment does relate to developments of regional
impact. We found kind of a glitch in things here that when we
Page 43
April 17, 2008
required as part of a DRI the construction of certain income levels of
affordable housing that sometimes that particular income level is not
what is needed in the community, and this provides a process by
which they can bump up to the next higher income category."
And the amendment was adopted without discussion or debate.
Apparently Mike concluded in the commonsense, practical
approach he brought to everything he did that if no person fit the
designated income classification, that at least the unit could be
occupied by someone in the next higher income category, rather than
having the unit lay fallow.
The proposed DRI development order before you today does
three simple things: It authorizes the sale of low income affordable
housing units to moderate income buyers upon a finding of
compliance with the statutory criteria. It describes the nature and
extent of documentation the county will require to actually effect the
conversion. And it imposes a five-year deed restriction on the sale of
the unit.
The proposed amendment only establishes the appropriate
procedures. It doesn't affect the actual conversion. That responsibility
is delegated to the county's housing and human resources staff.
Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to -- the commission would like
testimony as to the extraordinary difficulty that has been experienced
at Ave Maria in attempting to sell affordable housing units. We're
prepared to submit that testimony. But the commission knows
probably better than anyone in Collier County the kind of problems
that the real estate market has encountered. But if that testimony is
required, we'd be happy to proffer it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's see where our questions lead.
Mr. Adelstein, then Mr. Murray, then Mr. Wolfley.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: You're starting here at 2008
right now. How long would it take to do this, anyone of these
buildings to be made?
Page 44
April 17, 2008
MR. PASSIDOMO: Well, there is an inventory of unsold units,
and that inventory has to lay fallow for six months after a good faith
effort to actually sell those units, and the result of that effort has to be
unsuccessful.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: How long would it take to
actually have the buildings built? In this document it comes up with
one thing, on December 31 st, 2019 would be the first ones to come up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Adelstein, these are already built.
There's buildings sitting up there unoccupied because they can't get
buyers into them in the price range that their document currently
allows them --
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Those are already actually
finished --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're already there on the ground.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Okay, thank you.
MR. PASSIDOMO: That's part of the sense of urgency that we
feel, that the units are there, we can't find any buyers who are
income-qualified to buy those units, and we don't have any reasonable
prospect of being able to sell them to anybody in that category.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Morning, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What indicators do we now have
that the next higher income level group will acquire these units, since
it is a bad market? What do we have to show the promise?
MR. PASSIDOMO: Well, I can ask Kelly Lauman, the district
manager for Ave Maria sales, to actually address that kind of a
question.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Then I have another
question for you prior to her testimony.
Are there any other changes? You've said this is an insubstantial
change. As a result of this change, are there any other changes
affecting the fiscal conditions of Ave Maria? Are there any changes to
Page 45
April 17, 2008
roads, infrastructure, anything else consequent to this?
MR. PASSIDOMO: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So then I would appreciate the
testimony of the young lady.
MS. LAUMAN: Hi, my name is Kelly Lauman. I'm the general
sales manager for Pulte Homes at Ave Maria.
The question was what certainty do we have that we would be
able to sell these to the higher income bracket? You know, that's a
question if I could answer I would probably not be in the position that
I'm in.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Let me correct you. I didn't say
certainty. But what do you have as indicators that you'll do better with
that income level as opposed to the prior income level?
MS. LAUMAN: The demand within which Ave Maria exists, I
mean, we have hundreds of people visiting us on a weekly basis. And
we do have interest in Middlebrooke. Our sales teams are able to
compile a list of people that, as we go into future neighborhoods we're
kind of collecting names that we can't serve currently in the price
ranges that we have.
So again, hard to speculate how many of those we would have.
But currently we have 10 completed units on the ground within
Middlebrooke, and we would like to be able to see if we could get
through the majority of those by selling to the next income bracket.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What will you do if you fail to
sell them to that income bracket?
MS. LAUMAN: We'd just continue to market them. We've
already made substantial discounts to the units. We're offering
incentives of as high as $25,000 on those that are completed, and that
has, you know, not brought about any change.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Well, the concern of
course that everyone has, not just this board but everyone has, is that
the people who are potentially your service workers, those folks get
Page 46
April 17, 2008
the opportunity to live in a community and provide assistance right in
that community in a walking distance, et cetera.
So the concern I have certainly is how much effort has been put
in? Maybe you could help us with the record. How much effort has
been put into making sure that we did get out to those people, that we
aim to do that?
Now, we recognize the financial situations. They've always been
poor. But conditions are changing. What incentives did you offer?
MS. LAUMAN: Okay. I can tell you first kind ofa
chronological order of what we've done so far to market
Middlebrooke. We posted Middlebrooke on our Pulte.com website,
which is traditionally what we would do when we're entering and
opening a new community. We did that in January of2007. It was
January 27th of2007.
In March, March 27th of 2007 we released the first five
buildings within Ave Maria for sale to the general public. We had a
list of about 125 interested applicants at that time, people who had
expressed interest and had asked to be put on our initial contact list.
We went through all of those with a call and e-mail campaign that
probably lasted about a week around that time. And then we executed
our first contracts on March 29th.
From that point we started an aggressive PR and advertising
campaign. We met with several of the larger employment agencies
and things without (sic) the county. We met with the Collier County
Sheriffs Office, we met with Mr. Eastman with the school board. We
made several attempts to get information out to the residents of Collier
County about Middlebrooke.
We also had repeated visits with the housing authority, with
Marcy Krumbine and her staff. And some of those meetings included
that we participated in the Collier County Public Schools recruitment
fair through Lisa Carr and her group.
We had follow-up meetings. We actually participated in the
Page 47
April 17, 2008
Collier County Sheriffs Office homeownership fair. That occurred in
May of 2007. And we also participated in the Collier County Public
Schools new hire orientation August 9th and 10th of last year.
On August 20th we placed the unsold homes within these first
few buildings on MLS. So we placed them on MLS on August 20th of
2007, and they've remained listed on MLS through that entire time.
Right around that time and through October we began the
process of opening our permanent sales centers within the Town of
Ave Maria. Those sales centers are staffed by knowledgeable sales
associates seven days a week. Middlebrooke is prominently displayed
in all of those centers and is part of our presentation for each of those.
We've had subsequent meetings with the Empowerment Alliance
out ofImmokalee, and we've carried on, you know, a lot of those
marketing efforts that we have.
And please understand, we would market the home as a low -- to
those low-income buyers for a period of six months prior to being able
to release to the moderate. You know, we would make significant
effort to find a low-income buyer. It's just that when we have people
that we feel we can serve with this product that we're unable to and it's
sitting there vacant, we would like the opportunity to help those
homeowners.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I thank you for that very
extensive resume there.
But now the other question, the indicators as to what the
probabilities are by moving to the next higher income level.
Do you have anything you can help us with, rather than us -- you
know, the purpose of those homes was to provide for those people.
Now, if we move it to this level, six months later you come back or a
year later and you say, you know, we'd like to go to the next level. I
don't think that would happen, but what indicators do we have?
MS. LAUMAN: It would be speculative to say that we knew
what we could do at this point. We're just looking for an opportunity
Page 48
April 17, 2008
to better serve the residents of the county.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand you. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, just some clarifications.
On Page 4 of the staff report, which has a graph on it, are you familiar
with that? It shows moderate, low and very low as income levels. And
then in the paragraph below there, it discusses gap housing.
In the graph and gap -- gap being teachers, police officers,
government employees and that, correct?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: That's correct, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Do you consider them -- which
of those categories do you consider the gap housing here, just so I can
be straight?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Moderate.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Great.
Now, Middlebrooke, what was it initially aimed for? What type
of classification of income?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Low income. Low income.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Low income.
And that has been an issue. And you are now trying to offer
those to which group?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Moderate income.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The moderate, okay. That's it.
Thank you, Mark.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay --
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Gable would like to
respond to Mr. Murray's question. We think it's an important question
to explain why do we have a reasonable expectation that we can
actually sell to the moderate buyers when we've been so unsuccessful
in trying to sell to the low-income buyers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. One point I'd like to make,
Page 49
April 17, 2008
though. You're not excluding still selling to the low-income buyers.
You're simply opening your market up to a broader range. And if a
low-income buyer comes along, he's certainly welcome to buy it. But
you want the opportunity to sell to that next level up in case you can't
find that lower income person.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: That's absolutely right, Mr. Strain.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Sure, Mr. Gable can go, fine.
Then we'll take the rest of the speakers.
MR. GABLE: Blake Gable, vice president of real estate for
Barron Collier Companies.
You know, one of the things that I think is important to note.
You know, when we went through our process with Ave Maria, if you
recall, we have about 1,900 units that fall into these affordable
housing categories. So this is our first attempt to get those units
underway. Middlebrooke is designed for about 326 townhomes, all
with the intention of selling them to low.
It's also important to note that when these units are released to
the public, they're released as low units. It's only after a period of six
months.
So where we are currently is we've only built 50, 48 -- 48, and
we only have a handful that are unoccupied. So as each of these
buildings comes online, we're going to continuously market to the
low. And that's where our main attempt is going to be.
It's only after a period of time where if we're struggling at that
point then we try to go to the moderate.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'd like to thank you for
answering that, embellishing the response, because the truth is now
that you're going to provide the opportunity to everybody. You just
want to be able to sell --
MR. GABLE: Oh, absolutely. Our commitment on affordable
housing hasn't changed whatsoever.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that's great, because the
Page 50
April 17, 2008
units should not sit there with -- you know, unoccupied. So I think this
is good.
MR. GABLE: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I guess anybody can
answer this. But the concern I have is that obviously Ave Maria is this
balanced community. In balancing it, it figured out how many of the
different income levels it needs.
Is the problem here that these levels were built too soon? In
other words, the reason they're not selling is that the need for these
people in this price range to live at Ave Maria and work at Ave Maria
is not there.
And if that's the case, isn't this going to jam us up in the future?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Let me ask either Mr. Gable or Kelly to
respond to that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
MR. GABLE: One of the things that we've tried to do is match
up our affordable housing demand with the construction of the
commercial. That's kind of the way we looked at it.
You know, these units came on as part of our attempt to really
start the community with every price range offered. And, you know,
we always felt going through the process that the lower income units
were important to have early on.
I think some of the issues we've had, obviously we don't need to
have a lengthy discussion about the current real estate market, but that
has certainly been an issue. And one of the things that we've been
struggling with a little bit is as mortgages and credit levels have
tightened, it's kind of impacted that level very significantly.
So all we're trying to do here is -- you know, I don't personally
think at all that we came on too early. I think we're just trying to allow
more people the opportunity to get into these homes. It's not any more
complicated than that.
Page 51
April 17, 2008
And as we continue to move forward, as I said, these unit will
always come on as low before they move to moderate. So this is only
after a period of time do we ask to have this relief.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But since this is a new town, the
need for this unit would be based as the town grows. So the concern I
have is we could make a mistake here and sell units that we're going to
need in the future to a group that we're not going to need that many
units for.
MR. GABLE: Well, recall we have 1,900 of these, 700 in the
low category overall, over the course of the 11,000 homes we're
permitted for. And I can assure you we're not going to be in a position
where we're going to continue to build homes and townhomes that
people aren't going to be able to buy.
So you're never -- the market really kind of prevents that from
happening, We're not going to have a situation where -- because of the
way the legislation was drafted and because of the way that the rules
are with this six-month period of time, we're never going to be in a
position where we're getting rid of all of our low affordable housing,
it's just -- it's not set up that way.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe you can tell me then,
we're really only talking about the 700 units that would be in this price
range, the low price range. So how many of those have been built
already?
MR. GABLE: Forty-eight.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How many of the moderate
have been built already?
MR. GABLE: I think we have a handful that have been
qualified.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Guess.
MR. GABLE: Six, eight.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You've only built -- so out
there, the affordable housing -- well, let me ask you this: Very low,
Page 52
April 17, 2008
how many apartments for very low?
MR. GABLE: We haven't got to the very low yet.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So you've built 54 units
in this program, 48 of which the are low, six are moderate. So you
want to move some of the moderates into the low housing essentially,
I know it's the same price, so you're not making any money
doing this.
MR. GABLE: No.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, isn't the reason we're
doing this today is so we can take inventory from the low and let
moderate people buy it?
MR. GABLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so that's moving
moderate into the low.
MR. GABLE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, again, my concern is
that, you know, this is supposed to be a balanced community. If you
take too many of those units and put it in the wrong category, then
down the end of the trail you're not going to have the low people
living in Ave Maria.
MR. GABLE: Well, I think probably the most important point to
note is, again, the market will usually take care of that. Weare not
going to be in a position, if we expect to stay out of bankruptcy, to
continue to build a bunch of homes that sit empty for six months
before we can try to move on to the next income category.
So this is really a measure only if after six months -- and you
heard what Kelly said about all the efforts that we've taken, the
countless meetings with everybody that's out there, trying to move
people in this low category. So we're not -- these units will be
marketed to low every time before we move them on to the moderates.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the impression you're
giving is that the six months shows that there's not a need when in the
Page 53
April 17, 2008
real estate industry today the timing of unit sales, who knows what
that's showing.
Anyway, how many of the low units are we talking about you
would want to move today, if it was available, into the moderate
category? Or that's not what's happening, I understand, you're moving
moderate by low.
MR. GABLE: Right.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: How many of the 48--
MR. GABLE: We have 10 right now that would be available.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the moderate, the six, those
have been sold.
MR. GABLE: Those have been sold.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, I'm done.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, did you have any questions?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Does Ave Maria have bus
service?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: No, they do not.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I know Ave Maria doesn't have
their supermarket yet. That's been in the paper that Publix is just
beginning that.
Do you have a pharmacy?
MR. GABLE: No, we do not. Not right now.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Doctor, dentist?
MR. GABLE: Yes, we have doctors, dentists.
COMMISSIONER CARON: More than one?
MR. GABLE: Well, we have Emergency Physicians Network of
Naples and staff at the clinic there. How many actual doctors are in
the building, I'm not really sure.
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, that's okay.
And you've built a total of 58 of these low units and you've --
MR. GABLE: Forty-eight.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- managed to sell 48 of them and
Page 54
April 17, 2008
you've only got 10 left and you think that's a problem? Boy, I bet there
are a lot of people in real estate who would like to have that problem.
MR. GABLE: No, I don't think that -- I think the point is, and
what the state legislation is contemplating and taking into
consideration is after a certain period of time we have done what we
said we were going to try to do, okay, which was build a unit that's
affordable for somebody in the low category.
If that unit is sitting there and I have the ability to sell it to
someone who still qualifies for an affordable housing -- at an
affordable housing level, it's not a bad thing to allow more people to
get into a home. It's the same price --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Can I ask you this?
MR. GABLE: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CARON: May I ask you this.
If you release these 10 units and sell them to the next level up
and you can get rid of them just like that, that's obviously a good
thing, could you commit to making up those 10 units on the other end,
on the back end? I mean, this is a project that's going to span over
years.
MR. GABLE: Long period of time, certainly.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So that we'd never actually lose the
700 --
MR. GABLE: Of the low?
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- low income.
MR. GABLE: I don't think I could be willing to make that
commitment, because at the point in time -- you have to remember,
we've marketed to this specific buyer group, the unit's been sitting
there empty for a period of time, and then we're just trying to put
someone else again who qualities at 80 to 120 percent of median
income into this very unit.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't understand. One of the
other things that you're trying to do with this petition is extend your
Page 55
April 17, 2008
DRI --
MR. GABLE: That was automatic. That was a state --
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- at the other end because you
know it's going to take you longer to market this entire product.
Why should it be any less for the low-income housing? I don't
understand why they can't move along with the rest of the
development.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the DRI that they have and the
various documents -- and I probably know those as better (sic) as
anybody -- require them to have a certain percentage of each available
as they move forward with their development.
If they have to continue to produce those percentages, which
they do, and those percentages remain unoccupied, they're building
more and more stock that doesn't get utilized. That doesn't put the tax
base, doesn't put the people in the houses, doesn't create the needs that
the county has to get tax revenue back from those sources.
So to open this up to another level but not exclude the original
level it was intended for -- and I probably was more critical of Ave
Maria than anybody -- I certainly think this is a positive thing to do.
And I understand your concerns, but if the market isn't there, I
don't know how we force it upon someone in a time frame that's
unreasonable or even be able to predict that by the end of the project it
may even be needed in that particular project for what they have to
offer. So --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, I just think it is sort ofa cart
before the horse thing. You're supposedly marketing to low-income
people who probably need bus service, certainly don't have the money
to drive their cars the 14 miles it takes to get to a supermarket now.
I think marketing -- and I will want to definitely talk to staff
about this, because in affordable housing workshops Marcy
Krumbine's been saying that we have a definite need for this category.
And so she knows these people.
Page 56
April 17, 2008
At the last workshop, she showed pictures of the people. These
are people that they know. They apparently have names and addresses,
and a roster of people.
So if they're not, then somebody -- there's a disconnect
somewhere here, and I'm trying to figure out where it is, whether it's
really in your marketing or is it something -- the county's planning on
all these low-income people that just don't exist out there.
MS. LAUMAN: Well, you know we've again spoken with
Marcy and everybody in the group from her office extensively, and
we've had several conversations.
The need certainly exists. The demand is such that there's so
many other factors to that that these people -- you know, some of them
are here in the county, yes. They do meet with Marcy and her group.
Several of them have to go through extensive credit counseling and
rehabilitation and all those things where, once again, it's a much
longer process. Some of them again have the want but maybe not the
ability to move forward with these things.
So do the people exist out there? Yes. But with the changes in
the sub-prime market and the credit markets in general, we find more
and more that they're just not in a position at this point to move
forward.
And other projects that are similar to ours are experiencing the
same thing. You know, I stay in good contact with a lot of our
competitors that are building the same type of product. You know,
Lennar has a project right around the corner of 951 and Immokalee
Road, and they're experiencing the same challenges in serving this
buyer group; that you go through 10 that qualify on an income side to
come up with, you know, perhaps one that can even make the first
couple of steps toward homeownership from, you know, down
payment, credit qualifications and that sort of thing.
So it's certainly a dilemma that I know everyone's aware of. But
that's about all I can comment to.
Page 57
April 17, 2008
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, did you have something
else?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I believe that she just made the
comments I was going to make, And I was going to parrot what you
said. I mean, it's a situation where they're either going to sell some
homes or go out of business. I mean, you have to keep moving homes,
we need the tax base in Collier County.
I think that it would be in our best interest to go along with this
petition.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any others?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, what would be the
problem if you sold -- took these units that you can't sell as low and
sold them to moderate and maybe even at the price of moderate and
just take them off of the moderate inventory and not take a unit away
from the low. Which is essentially meaning you'd be required to build
that someplace else. You see what I'm saying?
In other words, if a moderate person buys a unit intended for
low, why doesn't that just count towards the moderate? And even if
you sold it at a price that a moderate should pay for it.
MR. PASSIDOMO: Well, it's important -- I think, Mr. Schiffer,
you raised and Mrs. Caron raised the whole question of 48 units
having been sold. It's important to recognize that only four of those
units were sold to low-income qualified buyers. Thirty-two were sold
to Ave Maria University, 10 are left pending, one is actually under
contract, to equate to the 48 that have actually been built. But only
four of those 48 have been sold to low-income qualified individual
owner occupants.
As Mr. Gable has suggested, there's no reason why -- there's no
marketing strategy that would possibly imagine that these would be
Page 58
April 17, 2008
built. They'd be held for six months, there would be an effort made to
sell them, and then they would be disposed of as moderate at a later
time. It just wouldn't make any sense to do that.
What's going to happen now is that if there is not a market, they
won't be built in the first place for speculation; they won't be built in
any event.
As to your suggestion, the legislation doesn't authorize us to do
that. We're trying to take advantage of the legislation that was enacted
in order to create this flexibility to make sure that these existing units
are sold and that we can actually sell them to people who are qualified
to buy them right now.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But again, my concern is if 700
was the number needed to balance the city at the end, prematurely
building them and losing them in the beginning is not the -- may not
help the ultimate outcome of what Ave Maria is supposed to be.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me read a section of your DRI that
might put this to bed. And it's under conclusions of law. It's in their
DRI. And it says, the construction of affordable housing units shall be
phased at least proportionately with the nonresidential development so
as to be available as the project builds out and jobs are created.
You have a slew of nonresidential development out there that
probably outweighs even the residential. We forced you into this
disproportionate ratio of sales. I don't think it's illogical for them now
to look for some relief rather than have these sit there when they've
got the nonresidential proportion there that they had to create the
residential for.
So I mean, I think we put them in this predicament --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What are those ratios? I mean,
where are we then? How much of the commercial is built out, how
much of the residential is built out?
MR. PASSIDOMO: I'll ask Mr. Gable to respond to it.
MR. GABLE: My guess here -- I haven't actually looked at the
Page 59
April 17, 2008
numbers from the commercial side of things -- is if our ultimate
entitlements called for about 1.2 million square feet of commercial,
nonresidential use, we have probably built several hundred thousand
square feet. And that is comprised of a couple of office buildings, you
know, Florida Community Banks is moving their headquarters there.
We have another office building. Those two are probably 60,000
square feet.
We probably have on the order of75,000 square feet of retail
space. We're soon to break ground on our Publix in the next few
weeks, which will be about 40,000 square feet. Arthrex is building a
very large manufacturing.
So we're trying to keep up with the affordable housing as it
marches along with the commercial. We're just struggling to sell some
of the affordable housing right now.
I mean, I can tell you without a doubt that we have been
marketing these units to the low for almost a year and a half now. And
as Ms. Lauman mentioned earlier, we started off with a list of 125. So
that gave us what we believed at the time was enough interest to begin
the low project. And that's why we broke ground. We've built the
infrastructure, the pads are ready to go. I mean, we can build these
units consistently for a significant period of time.
However, we're not going to be building units, I can assure you,
on the hopes that after six months of them sitting there we can sell to a
moderate. That's not the way to be successful.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you have 700,000 of
tenant-occupied space out there?
MR. GABLE: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, he said several--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're talking about shell
buildings, empty buildings --
MR. GABLE: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to say 700,000. I don't
believe I said that. I said we have 75,000 square feet of retail space.
Page 60
April 17, 2008
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Occupied, not shell building?
MR. GABLE: I would say about three-quarters occupied on the
retail, or soon to be occupied, under construction.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so that's way less than a
tenth. So you don't know what kind of need you're going to have for
low in the future then.
Anyway, my concern is that, you know, for example, those 10
units, could they go to the workers for the Publix when that opens?
And will they be available if -- in other words, if we give these away
MR. GABLE: We're not giving them away, they're still being
purchased by someone who qualifies for affordable housing.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We move them into the
moderate market, would there be available units for low, for the
workers of Publix when that opens?
MR. GABLE: We have approved a project of Middlebrooke that
has 326 units that were designed for the low category, okay? We've
built a total of 48. I can assure you we're not going to begin
construction on another building until we know that we have either the
demand from the low or there's some sort of excess demand from the
moderates that would allow us to have the comfort that we're going to
be able to sell these units moving forward.
So the answer is yes, if there is a demand there, I can assure you
we can build the product.
THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Gable, you're going quite fast.
MR. GABLE: Yes, ma'am, I'm sorry. I'll slow down.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She's got to type as fast as you speak.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I'm done, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're going to give Cherie' a
break. We'll be back here at 10:20 to resume. Thank you.
MR. GABLE: And I'll speak much slower.
(Recess.)
Page 61
April 17, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we left off, we were asking some
clarification questions to the Ave Maria presentation.
Are there any other questions of the applicant at this time?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, does this legislation that is
on the board here, does that apply to all affordable housing projects or
does it just apply to affordable housing within DRIs?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Just within DRIs.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a couple, John. I'm going to start
by asking the County Attorney a question so I can lead into yours.
Jeff, a while back when the legislation about the extension of the
DRIs became automatic with the legislature, I think I talked to
someone in the attorney's office, I'm not sure who, but it was my
understanding that it was automatic because it was a statute, and that a
formal request wasn't required.
Is that a reading from the county's office; do you know?
MR. KLATZKOW: They get it automatically. I think it's nice to
have it in the order, though, for people to reference it. But it's not
something that we really have discretion on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought. So the phasing is
a given. I'm not sure why you threw it in here today, but so be it.
But in looking at the phasing, it brings in some other questions,
and that is, kind of along the lines that you were saying in the
beginning that the marketing has taken a toll in the real estate market
-- the economy has, and that there needs to be some adjustments and
that's why the legislature went forward with the three years.
I got to thinking about that and looking at other documents that
related to Ave Maria. There are two other documents that have
phasing issues in them. One is the DCA and one is the interlocal
Page 62
April 17, 2008
agreement.
I'm not asking you to do anything on that issue here today, but I
would like to take -- ask staff to look at producing some kind of report
in conjunction with your client to come up with how that phasing and
how the project's marketability or processing to date has coincided
with the expectations of the DCA and the interlocal agreement.
And this should be done before the Board of County
Commissioners hear it so that if there are any issues out there that
need to be extended within the DCA, since you're asking for an
extension on the DO, it would seem logical that that would apply then
to the DCA if it warrants it.
And I don't know if Nick from transportation can offer any
guidance on this. Of if the fact that he can even have his input
provided. But I think it's important that the documents all coincide. If
one is legitimately extended, maybe the others need to be, too. Or vice
versa. I don't know. But I think it ought to be looked at before we go
to the BCC hearing.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Mr. Strain, before I turn it over to Nick, it's
important to recognize though that we're not asking for an extension
on the DO, The legislature has enacted an extension on the DO.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida
with transportation.
From the testimony I've heard and from reports through Ave
Maria, sales are not going as planned. So that was recognized by the
state and that is where that extension came forward.
In reviewing the DCA and the documents, it talked about, in
paragraph nine of the DCA, reasonable certainty of impact fees to
come in. I think right now they've produced about $9 million with the
schedule that was provided to the BCC, where they were looking for
about $16 million. So we're a little bit short.
The county is also looking at the road costs that were estimated
Page 63
April 17, 2008
at that time. They did -- there was a contribution of fill which was
underestimated as well, too.
So your point that it should be reevaluated is a good point, in
that things have changed. Fill costs have gone up, construction costs
have gone up, so the fill being donated has more value but we're also
paying more for roads. Our impact fees have gone up 30 percent, but
our road projection costs have gone up even higher than that.
So ifthere's an extension of time that's given by the state for real
estate purposes, I would think it would be fair that the developer and
the county reevaluate the agreement and make any adjustments if
needed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and part of that, though, Nick,
goes beyond your world. I mean, you focus very good and very well
on transportation. I know Ave Maria has contributed greatly in other
elements of the community, far beyond just impact fees for roads.
They have ad valorem taxes, they have a whole pile of contributions
in land and other things that they've done for essential services and
things like that.
I would like to suggest that you get together, or whoever in staff,
get together with the applicant's people, kind of put a laundry list of
where this place -- where everything stands so that when the BCC
receives it, if there needs to be an adjustment in the time frame, so be
it. There may not -- one may not be warranted, and I'm not saying
there is or not, but I think it ought to be looked at.
And I'd certainly suggest that be done as part of the way this
moves forward to the BCC, if you feel you can fit some time in to
meet with the applicant and work these things out or talk to them.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'd be happy to work with the
applicant to evaluate the agreement, monies paid, construction
estimates and timing. I think it's a good way to move forward.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any concerns about
that idea about not -- okay, thank you. That's all I have to say on the
Page 64
April 17 , 2008
subject.
John, I hope that works for you guys.
MR. PASSIDOMO: Certainly, Mr. Chairman. We'll be happy to
meet with Nick.
I think it's important to recognize the DCA was enacted before
the DRI was adop -- development order was adopted. There were
projections made. I'd be happy to meet with Mr. Casalanguida to
reconcile that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just think it ought to be at least
addressed and explained and see where it all lies. And if there's a
warranted extension needed for either party, fine. And if there isn't,
then that will come out of the conversation as well.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: I'd be happy to meet with them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I have the utmost faith in the BCC
of balancing out what needs to be balanced out.
So are there any other questions of the applicant before we go to
the staff report?
Go ahead, Mr. Passidomo.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, there's a point that I'd like to
make. I think it goes to questions that Mr. Schiffer has raised and Ms.
Caron has raised.
There's an important distinction in the deed restrictions that are
imposed on moderate level housing and low-income housing. As you
remember, the low-income housing has a five-year deed restriction on
it; five years on the profitability needing to be shared if the price
exceeds a certain price point.
These units that are being -- or potentially could be converted
from low income to moderate income purchasers carry along the
excess baggage of a five-year deed restriction.
So what happens is we create a situation where the developer
continues to be incentivized if they do in fact find themselves selling
-- having built these units, having made a prudent business decision to
Page 65
April 17, 2008
build these units, they want to sell these units to low-income buyers.
Because when they sell them to a low-income buyer, there's a
five-year limitation. If they sell them to a moderate income buyer,
there's also a five-year limitation.
Great preference is to sell a moderate income unit to a moderate
income purchaser because there's only a two-year limitation.
I think it's important to recognize that there is excess baggage
that goes along with that, it's incorporated into the resolution that you
have in front of you, and it creates an incentive for the developer, if
the market didn't provide a sufficient one, to sell these units to
low-income buyers. That's why they continue to aggressively market
them to low-income buyers. But you can't sell to somebody who
doesn't qualify.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions?
(No response.)
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Staff report? Is that you, Kay?
MS. DESELEM: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're sitting in all the seats today,
huh?
MS. DESELEM: Yes. For the record, Kay Deselem, principal
planner with zoning.
And you do have a copy of the staff report in the application
package before you. And we are recommending approval. I won't go
into all the issues because you have, in part of the presentation with
the petitioner, gone through the staff report and some of the things that
are included.
And I just wanted to explain partially a question that came up to
the petitioner about the procedure that we have here. And you kind of
questioned why we're doing it as part of this amendment process as far
as the automatic quote, unquote, extension of the DRI for three years.
Page 66
April 17, 2008
Staff is working on a process that will memorialize all the DRIs
as they seek to do so, which has been discussed with the Regional
Planning Council, in that most of the DRI petitioners want to have
something in their documents or something in writing from the county
that memorializes and recognizes that three-year extension that the
Florida Statutes has in it.
So we are setting up a process that will most likely do it
administratively, since it's not something we can truly deny, it's part of
the Florida Statutes. But it will at least provide a record, a paper trail,
as it were, to follow.
This petitioner actually had submitted a letter and would have
gone along through that process once we establish it. However, he
opted as part of this amendment to just go ahead and include it that
way anyway. And we will make that process available to others, if
they wish to incorporate it as part of a process of an amendment
they're already working on. Otherwise they will have the option to just
memorialize it through an administrative action.
So I did want to address that question, since it did come up.
But as you can see in the staff report, we have included the
human resources, emergency management, comprehensive planning
and transportation planning staffs comments, ifthere were any, or
have so noted that they didn't have any or had no objection, if that was
the case.
There is a zoning review section and we are recommending
approval of it.
And I don't have anything other than that. Other than I will need
some clarification. You had talked about you want staff to work with
the applicant to produce some kind of a study.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have language. When we get to that
point I'll --
MS. DESELEM: I needed to make it clear to you, however, that
this particular petition has already been scheduled before the Board,
Page 67
April 17, 2008
and the executive summary for this petition will be due in about less
than a week. I'm going to say two days, but I know it's less than a
week.
We don't have time, based on that time frame, to do any study
and incorporate it as part of this particular petition.
And in retrospect, obviously from a planner's standpoint, I don't
necessarily know that this is the appropriate place to put it. Perhaps
there's a separate item under Board agenda. But it's not -- I wanted to
offer that as a thought, that we didn't really include that as part of this,
and the extension is automatic. And we really don't have the authority,
as I understand it, to say yes or no anyway. It's just memorializing
what's in the Florida Statutes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, when I get done I'll have language
I'll introduce. Thank you.
MS. DESELEM: Okay.
And other than that, that's my presentation. I'll entertain any
questions you might have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have questions of staff?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, one quick thing. Since
they've only built six moderate units and moderate would be the ones
who will be able to buy these units, what would prevent them from
building all 700 of them, say we can't sell them and then moderate
buys them all?
Is there anything that would -- that requires them to stage the
construction of these low and moderate units to be proportionate to
how the town's being built out?
MS. DESELEM: I believe that Mark read a portion out of the
DRI development order that says they have to be done proportionately
through the project.
And they would have to go through the same procedure. You
know, market them for six months, do the whole thing. They could use
Page 68
April 17, 2008
this for any units that qualify. But they are required to build and the
required units phased throughout the project.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think, remembering back
in the hearing, what Mark was reading was the requirement for them
to keep up with the development. It didn't say anything in there that it
couldn't go ahead.
And that's my concern is that is this a problem of building things
ahead and thus we might eliminate something we'll need in the future?
MS. DESELEM: I didn't look at it from that aspect, but I don't
believe they can.
If you'd like, I'll go back and look at the language more carefully
to see exactly what it says. But my understanding was that the units
have to be made available in each phase. And I don't know that there's
anything to preclude them from building them earlier. I think it's more
a caution against having them come in later rather than earlier.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Exactly. All right, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Kay.
Kay, do we have any public speakers?
MS. DESELEM: No, sir, we --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Put your other hat on.
MS. DESELEM: -- do not. Wait, let me go -- no, we don't have
any public speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any final comments from
the applicant, closing statements if they -- it's optional.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll close the public
hearing and we'll entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make
a motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Wolfley.
Page 69
April 17, 2008
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: To forward Petition
DOA-2007-AR-1265 I to the Board of County Commissioners as
described in the amendment DRI development order resolution with a
three-year extension, with a recommendation of approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second -- oh, and go ahead.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I was going to say and you may
have some comments, but that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, once I make them I'll ask for the
motion maker and a second to verify.
Is --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- there a second? Mr. Murray
seconded.
Okay, discussion. From my perspective, I had mentioned, and I
might as well start out with that, I'd like to recommend that we add as
a stipulation that the transportation department will review the DCA
and the interlocal agreement for the applicability of time extensions
prior to the BCC hearing.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Makes good sense.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any -- does the motion maker
and the second accept that as a stipulation?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll accept that.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: (Nods head affirmatively.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any further discussion?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I wouldn't mind a
stipulation. And go to the resolution Page 2G. And what I wouldn't
mind adding in there, and there's a couple of places it could be, is that
these units have had a CO for six months before they can sell them.
The way it's worded, they have to market it for six months. It does
state that it has to have a CO. But it could be -- that six months could
Page 70
April 17, 2008
be prior to the CO?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What difference does it make, Brad?
Pre-selling is very common. I'm just wondering --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I understand that. But I just
want to make sure that the people really -- these units are really to be
made for these low income, that holding it for six months is not in the
advantage of the developer. And that way it would be to their
advantage to have a low-income person buy it right away, not let it sit
on their inventory for six months.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you suggesting then another
stipulation?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or take Item ii and state at the
end of that that it has to have a certificate issued for the unit for six
months, would give me that.
MR. KLATZKOW: The statute requires the CO be issued.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The statute requires it?
MR. KLATZKOW: It requires that. They issue the CO and then
it sits for six months. And if they can't sell it they can then go to the
moderate.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Because the way it's worded
here, it says it has to be marketed for six months. It does say it has to
have a CO, but it doesn't say it has to have a CO for six months. Are
you saying the statute does say that?
MR. KLA TZKOW: That's how I read it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So then --
MR. KLATZKOW: If you want to make it clear in the
resolution, that's fine with me. But that's my understanding.
Mr. Passidomo, if you have a different understanding?
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Thank you, Mr. Klatzkow.
We think the statute is absolutely clear as to its interpretation in
that the language in the resolution follows explicitly the language in
Page 71
April 17,2008
the statute. We don't think it requires, and we think it would not be
helpful at all to change it in any way.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, they're not saying the
same thing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Klatzkow, does statute give
us enough cover to accomplish Mr. Schiffer's goal?
MR. KLATZKOW: As I read it, yes. But, you know, ifMr.
Passidomo reads it a different way.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think he said that.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Yeah, I don't think he said that either.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, what he said is that the
resolution is written exactly what he understands the statute to say.
Thus me trying to add that is unnecessary.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, before we even get into a debate
over the legal merits of the statute, why don't we see if there's a
support for your additional stipulation.
Does the motion maker support Mr. Schiffer's stipulation?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, I think it's pretty clear here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, do you -- well, if the
motion maker doesn't, it doesn't matter what the second does.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's moot.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, there wouldn't be any support to
change it under the current motion, so we don't even have to go into
that at this point.
Is there any other discussion on the motion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, all the -- Kay, you're looking--
MS. DESELEM: I just needed to get clarification. In what
context do you want the transportation to do what they're supposed to
do? Is it supposed to be incorporated as part of the recommendation
that goes to the Board, or is it in a separate context, or --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we're recommending to go to the
Page 72
April 17, 2008
Board a -- that the transportation review the DCA and the interlocal
agreement for applicability of the time extensions prior to the BCC
meeting so when it gets to the Board they can make -- transportation
can present the issues regarding the timing of the DCA and the
interlocal in regards to the extension of this DRI.
MS. DESELEM: Okay, thank you.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: At the appropriate time can I respond to
that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MR. P ASSIDOMO: When we talked earlier about whether we'd
be happy to participate in discussions with transportation, we are on a
voluntary basis, But to have that imposed on us on an issue that's
outside the scope of the question that was noticed and the question
that's before the planning commission and the question before the
Board of County Commissioners we think is inappropriate.
We welcome an opportunity to meet with Mr. Casalanguida. We
think you've raised important questions. But they don't relate to the
issue in front of the planning commission today. The extension was
automatically created by the legislature; it's simply being documented
today. It can be in this resolution, it can be outside of this resolution.
The only issue before the planning commission today is the
ability to later convert the status of the affordable housing units, and
the transportation question is outside the scope of that issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I disagree with you. I certainly ask that
my stipulations stand in the motion. If the motion maker changes his
mind, so be it.
As far as you participating, if you choose not to, no one's putting
that burden on you. It says transportation to review DCA. Nick has
offered to meet with you to try to get your input on it so that it
becomes as fair and balanced as possible. That's your prerogative.
Page 73
April 17, 2008
MR. PASSIDOMO: Mr. Chairman, we will be there. We'll be
happy to meet with Mr. Casalanguida. All I'm simply suggesting is
that it doesn't have anything to do with the resolution in front of the
commission right now.
We will go ahead and meet with Mr. Casalanguida whether you
put it in as a stipulation or not. We think it's a meritorious issue. We
welcome an opportunity to speak with him about it, but we think it's
outside of the scope of the issue that it's in front of you today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any change that comes forward has an
opportunity for review. This particular change, while it does benefit
you, and I think it's reasonable, I see nothing wrong with it. The fact
that the time extension is there certainly provides an opportunity to at
least discuss it and see where the merits of that may go in regards to
the taxpayers' impacts. I don't see how that hurts anybody. And
especially if you feel as strongly as you do that your project is moving
accordingly, maybe positively to the taxpayers, not negatively, I think
that's going to work well for you.
So in my situation I think it should stay. It's up to the motion
maker, though.
Motion maker still accept the stipulation?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I don't think it's unreasonable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second accept the stipulation?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion as
stipulated, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
Page 74
April 17, 2008
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Thank you all.
Item #9H
AUIR SEASONAL POPULATION STUDY
Okay, the last item on today's agenda is Item H, which is a
presentation by Collier County -- to the Collier County Planning
Commission for the AUIR seasonal population study, presented by
Mr. Bosi.
Michael, it's good seeing you again.
MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chairman Strain, planning commission
members. Good morning. Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning.
The reason why we're here today, back in 2007, November 5th,
when the Board of County Commissioners heard the Annual Update
and Inventory Report, the AUIR, Commissioner Coyle specifically
said he would ask that somebody take on a special study soon so that
we can go ahead and pass this AUIR with our recommendations and
modifications as they came up today.
But immediately after that, I think we need to start an action
program to specifically address how we apply the population figures
and the peak population figures to specific government facilities.
Because it's clear the government facilities are differently impacted.
And basically the stem of that comment was the seasonal
impacts on each and every department isn't uniform across the board
in the Commissioner's thinking, and he wanted us to look at that, look
at what the demand numbers that we have on a year-to-year basis and
a month-to-month basis and to see what are the actual demands that
Page 75
April 17, 2008
the season places upon our infrastructure and service providers.
To initiate the analysis, the current methodology of how each
department in demands to the seasonal population influx has to be
established.
Currently within the AUIR all the divisions, all the infrastructure
providers are listed on the slide on the overhead. Transportation and
drainage canals are the two areas where for the five-year capital
improvement programs that you see within the AUIR and eventually
make it to the CIE, they're not based upon population projections.
Transportation is based upon actual trip counts at the stations.
Population and population projections are utilized for the LRTP or the
long-range transportation planning process.
Drainage in canals, population is not utilized, it's based upon a
level of service where it's a 25-year storm event within the urbanized
area and a 10-year storm event within the rural areas.
As you can see, potable water, wastewater, solid waste, regional
parks and community parks all use peak season population for the
purpose of the AUIR and capital improvement programs.
The reason why I put a red line there on the slide is that
designates the difference or the distinction between the Category A
facilities, which are the ones that go within the CIE, and the Category
B facilities, which are not regulated by the state and not subject to the
concurrency management system. And that distinction will come into
play during our discussion.
Basically, how we utilize peak season for our capital
improvement planning within the AUIR and within the capital
improvement elements is the peak season population is simply the
mid-range permanent population and projections allocated to Collier
County from the Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research,
or BEBR, with a 20 percent upward adjustment to account for the
seasonal population influx.
Now, this current methodology came about during the
Page 76
April 17, 2008
EAR-based amendment process. At that period of time, and I'm sure
everyone on the board or on the commission who was here at the time
remembers that we had a dis -- an issue with DCA in how we did our
capital improvement programming.
For public utilities we were using a BEBR high number with a
33 percent markup. And for the other categories, we were using about
11.6 to almost a 12 percent increase for a seasonal population.
BEBR said at that period of time we can't have varying levels of
population projections, it has to be a consistent methodology that's
utilized by the county. And at that period of time the director, my
director, Randy Cohen, brought the item before the planning
commission and ultimately approved by the Board of County
Commissioners for the utilization of the 20 percent.
And Randy is here during the course of our discussion if we get
into some of the motivations -- or the factors that were utilized to
arrive upon that mark.
Based upon the man numbers experienced over the last three
years, the EAR-based amendment process that I just spoke about, to
utilize the 20 percent peak season factor, and also that weighted
population, or a seasonal population markup is utilized within the
impact fee studies, staff recommends that you have to continue to
utilize peak season population for capital improvement programming.
And I realize that places a kind of an odd dichotomy within the
requests that are being -- that the commissioners have asked you to
perform. The commissioners are asking you to look and say, okay, we
have 20 percent, is that appropriate? Is that appropriate to use that 20
percent at every infrastructure provider, every department? Is that the
demand, the increase that they're experiencing?
What we can't do is utilize a permanent population, because
we've come to an agreement with DCA that for capital improvement,
the capital improvement element, we're going to use a 20 percent
markup.
Page 77
April 17, 2008
So what options will that give you if you see a department or
division where you don't see that that 20 percent is appropriate, you
don't see the demand that's being placed upon that department as being
appropriate?
And a possible suggestion is if the increase in demand upon any
of the facilities would suggest a less than a 20 percent increase, then
the appropriate action may be a corresponding recommendation to
reduce the level of service for that facility.
And conversely, if you saw that the demand was much higher
than that 20 percent, it may be a suggestion from the advisory board
that the level of service be increased accordingly.
As part of this vetting process, we were at the productivity
committee yesterday, and unfortunately the productivity committee
was unable to arrive upon a recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners. There was a 5-5 split as to whether to forward the
motion that that was profited (sic).
And basically the split was there was a certain component of
productivity committee that felt that the seasonal influx across the
board was not strong enough to justify the utilization of 20 percent,
and there were five members who felt that the numbers were strong
enough.
What I'm going to do as part of this presentation, we'll go
through every single one of the components that were listed within the
seasonal population study. And as we did yesterday, I would suggest
-- I would welcome questions at each slide from each side instead of
having to wait till the end to go through -- if that's the discretion of the
chairman and the commission.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean at each slide. You're talking
about right now? Because my questions pertain to the slide you just
had on here.
MR. BOSI: Absolutely. Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's up to you.
Page 78
April 17, 2008
MR. BOSI: I think it would work much better if the questions --
if you have a question upon that slide, a slide, let's address those
questions before we move on to the next one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I'll turn to my colleagues first.
Questions on the slides presented through to now?
Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. So let me just see if I can
get this straight. So in other words, this was based on a 33 percent
seasonal increase and now you're trying to reduce it to a 20 percent?
MR. BOSI: No, up until 2005 we were utilizing 33 percent
increase for wastewater, potable water and solid waste and we were
using ll-and-a half percent for parks, for libraries, for jails, for all the
other categories.
There was an issue with that from the Department of
Community Affairs. They said we had to use the same seasonal
population markup for everyone.
So the planning commission and the board decided during the
EAR-based process we were going to utilize 20 percent. And last year
was the first AUIR where 20 percent was applied across the board.
What Commissioner Coyle said was he's not sure if that 20
percent markup was appropriate for every single one of these
departments, and he asked us to look at that, complete a study, take it
before you to see if there's recommendations as to whether that 20
percent was appropriate for that department or there should be
potentially an adjustment.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. I don't know whether this
is time, but I read a report the other -- well, a couple of weeks ago that
the population of Collier County has decreased by 3,000 people. Does
that sound pretty -- I mean, I'm just wondering if this is going to have
an impact on -- now I know that we're talking about two different
things, but will this affect that, the reduction of population?
MR. BOSI: Well -- and absolutely. The very last slide that I
Page 79
April 17, 2008
have --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to get --
MR. BOSI: No, no, no, it's part of -- it's part of the -- the overall
purpose of what we're doing here is really, to me it's completing
another portion or a puzzle of the AUIR review.
We've learned a lot about what we used as the drivers of our
capital improvement programming, we've learned a lot about the
comparative analysis of where our levels of service standards compare
against other communities, and now we're looking at it, now we're
trying to see well, DCA's saying that we have to utilize the 20 percent
across the board.
Well, we understand that that's their requirement. But there's still
ways that we can make adjustments where we don't see that at the
local level that we would feel that that 20 percent is warranted or
adjusted.
And to hit your point, Commissioner Wolfley, was we received
the BEBR population bulletin, and this is going to be the basis that we
utilize for this coming AUIR, for 2008 AUIR. And I believe I sent the
population numbers to you last week.
And the numbers that they had projected, 2010, it's almost seven
percent less than what they were projecting for 2010 last year. When
you get to 2020, it's eight-and-a-half percent.
So the projections that BEBR has allocated for us has dropped
roughly around eight percent for the next -- going out.
I wasn't -- I'm not sure as to what population study that you were
speak -- that you were referring to. But yes, absolutely, the changes in
this market are going to have a direct and a bearing upon the AUIR
you see coming in the fall and the projects that are associated with it.
Because unfortunately, Mr. Wolfley, you weren't part of the
AUIR process last year I will get you a -- just a book just so you can
look through it for some light reading.
But you'll see that the number of projects that we had on there
Page 80
April 17, 2008
within our five-year window, this coming AUIR those projects are
going to be pushed out even further.
And one of the comments that I made to the productivity
committee, and I will most certainly echo it to the planning
commission, and your understanding, I think, will definitely be
granted, is we're trying to -- as a comprehensive planning department,
we're trying to find out what the new growth reality of this county is,
based upon the changing conditions that we've seen within the market,
within the economy, within the job market, and what is the new--
what is the new growth reality that we can identify and say this is
what we should be utilizing as an appropriate measure for planning
purposes going forward. And the only -- and there's a number of
factors that we can look at.
But the greatest factor that we need to have certainty towards
that conclusion, I believe, is a little -- is a sample of time. And we are
in the process of trying. And DCA and BEBR -- and BEBR was
actually a month later in their issuance of their population bulletin,
because they realized that what was going on in the number of COs
that have been issued and the vacancy rates that are associated with
those COs, that they had -- that their standard practice of population
projections really needed a fine-toothed comb within the scrutiny.
So yes, it definitely does have a bearing and will have a bearing
upon the AUIR product that's going to be coming forward within the
fall.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on slides up
through the 20 percent slide?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Bosi, I went through and did
an analysis of each page that you're going to go to next.
In regards to the percentages of your three-year average by
quantity, I omitted the transportation, because Nick's always magical
with his numbers, so there's no sense in me trying to debate Nick's
Page 81
April 17, 2008
magical numbers.
But I did two things: I took and split the year in half. I took the
six high and the six low of the averages and then went through and
averaged them to see how the percentages came up, to see if it came
up to the 20 percent.
Then I did -- I used Nick's logic. Nick's logic is that when you
compute the level of service for roads you don't count the highest two
months. So I took off the highest two months, and I counted the five
lowest and the five highest and averaged those out to see how it
compared to the 20 percent. Because logically, counting the highest
two months means we'd be building for the maximum possible usage
when we already have a percentage of excess in all our systems
anyway. So it seemed reasonable maybe we didn't need the top two
months.
Well, what I came up with as a percentage is far different than
20 percent. If you omit the top two months as we do in transportation,
your average of the averages is 13.25 percent, not 20 percent.
And if you do that and include all six and six, a total of 12
months, it comes up to 16.6 percent. So we don't ever hit the 20.
So I think by what I'm seeing on this particular slide is, if we
leave the 20 in, and I'm not sure why we would, then we would reduce
the level of service to compensate for the change in the real
percentage that that particular facility has.
And also, from a perspective of the productivity committee, I've
seen a draft report by Ms. Vasey, and it was done very well, as Janet
always does everything very well, and very thorough. And she
questioned many of the seasonal inputs.
I don't agree with every one of her points, but I certainly think
they're worthy of consideration. Some of them end up being the same,
whether they're for her reason or for your reason. The season, whether
it's the season because of tourists or the season because it's the dry
season affects water consumption. So we .do have an issue there.
Page 82
April 17, 2008
But I'd like to -- how could we consider changing that 20 percent
to a number that corresponds more to what we really are using in the
categories?
MR. BOSI: Well, I would say your method of evaluation would
be appropriate and a very good starting base for that, if you had a
facility where -- and let's just take libraries, libraries for example.
If the libraries only within your methodology for establishing
what is the actual increase and demand between the non-season to
seasonal months, and it happens to be 13 percent, you would say well,
we're putting a 20 percent markup on there, but really it's only a 13
percent. So there's a seven percent excess that's being built into the
system.
Well, that would be your level of service. .33 square feet times
seven percent would correspond to what the appropriate level of
service for libraries would be, based upon the real demand that they
experience from a seasonal to a non-seasonal.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Randy?
MR. COHEN: Let me go ahead and clarify for the record where
the population methodology came from, as well as the seasonal
population rate.
By the way, Randy Cohen, comprehensive planning department,
for the record.
And I believe some of the members of the planning commission
were not privy to this when this transpired.
The first thing that happened was we were using two different
population methodologies, one for water and sewer, and one for -- and
one for the rest of the capital facilities.
At that point in time the Category B facilities were part of the
CIE as well, too. So it was applicable to all of them. And that was the
11.6 percent number that Mike talked about from a seasonal
adjustment perspective.
DCA came back, based on the Florida Administrative Code, and
Page 83
April 17, 2008
said that Collier County, you have to do two things. You're not in
compliance with the Florida Administrative Code, 9J-5.
First, you only can have one population methodology that's
uniform for your county applicable to capital facilities.
Two, you have to use permanent population plus some seasonal
adjustment factor.
Based out of that, they drafted some language that gave us some
flexibility, which we did not have a problem with, and it's germane to
the discussion today.
That language in essence stated, and I'll kind of summarize it a
little bit, that we had to use the permanent population plus an
adjustment to account for seasonal population in that we could adjust
it annually, taking into consideration various factors.
When we came up with the 20 percent number, the main reason
for that was when we took a look at the water and sewer district, I
don't know if everybody recalls what happened in 2001 when we had
a problem with respect to a failure at one of the plants, that we wanted
to assure through public utilities that we did not have that transpire
again. It was a major issue and it resulted in a DEP consent order,
which was very problematic to the community.
When we looked at the seasonal population in the water and
sewer districts apart from the county -- I'll take a quick look at this
document here just to make sure. In the water district itself, 29 -- 23.9
percent of the units in the water district were held for seasonal use.
The sewer district is different than the water district in terms of
boundaries. But in the sewer district, 19.9 percent of the vacant units
in there were held for seasonal use.
We took those numbers and we met with our public utilities
staff. And what we asked them was how does that correlate to your
peak demand? And their peak demand is based on looking at a
three-day average event to where they can provide adequate water or
process sewage with adequate capacity.
Page 84
April 17, 2008
When they looked at that rate, they were sitting right at an
average of sitting in the 20 percent range right there.
The point there was is that we only could have one
methodology. When we went to the Board of County Commissioners,
the way the staff report was written was done in a recommendation
form to go with the 20 percent.
We could have possibly went a little less, possibly as low as 17
or 18 percent to accommodate water and sewer. But the commission
was unanimous in providing us with direction that they didn't want to
see that debacle that occurred in 2001 again and they wanted us to
bump that percentage up a little bit to make sure that that didn't
transpire.
As a result of that, that 20 percent applied across the board.
Commissioner Coyle was very concerned about that 20 percent
applying across the board because the demand side, which Mike has
been referring to, may not be at that 20 percent level.
Us being backed into a corner by the Florida Administrative
Code and only having one methodology, we realized that in order to
protect our public utility, we needed to keep that at that 20 percent, but
at the same time realizing that the demand side for some capital
infrastructure and services may not be at that level.
We thought it would be appropriate, as the Commissioner did, to
take a look at the demand side. And if the numbers didn't show a 20
percent demand for those other items associated with capital
infrastructure and 20 percent, to adjust the level of service accordingly
down, based on that demand.
So we're not really looking at adjusting, I think, the seasonal
population percentage because of what the adverse impact would be
on our water and sewer utility, but looking at the other areas of capital
infrastructure and services see whether that demand is there. And if it's
not, reduce the levels of service accordingly downward to account for
that reduction.
Page 85
April 17, 2008
And that's kind of where we're at.
We do have the right and the ability to adjust that seasonal rate
down. But I would urge you to do that -- if you choose to do that, or
recommend doing that, to proceed with extreme caution because of the
water and sewer elements that are involved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray, then Mr. Wolfley.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: What -- say just as an example,
what would the impact be on an organization like EMS?
MR. COHEN: And EMS is something that Mike's going to get
to. But if you actually look at EMS itself, I think the call volume in
season actually goes up above 20 percent, when he gets to that slide.
So you're going to see some divergence where some of the impact on
some of the services is a little higher and in some areas lower.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you, but I'm not sure I
understand. What I was trying to relate to was if you're going to
reduce the level of service because an arbitrary 20 percent may not fit
all categories, you're suggesting that because they might have
something in excess of 20 percent, say 23 percent, that their level of
service would not be adjusted down when we see the AUIR?
MR. COHEN: What I would say is this: If you looked at Mike's
slide in terms of demand, in some areas the demand might be greater.
And if the demand was greater, you may want to increase --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Level of service going up.
MR. COHEN: -- the level of service.
In other areas where the demand is way lower, you may want to
recommend a correlating reduction in the level of service.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you're not just -- okay, so
you're not just talking about a reduction in level of service, you're
talking about an apropos level of service for each particular
organization.
MR. COHEN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's different. Okay, thank
Page 86
April 17, 2008
you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: One simple question is who
does the adjustments?
MR. COHEN: What would transpire as part of the AUIR
process, and also this process right here, when you look at those
demand numbers that you see today, I would expect you to make a
recommendation with respect to each particular category, okay?
And then it would come back -- it would go to the board, the
board would take it and consider the recommendation, and then we
would come back as part of the AUIR process--
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Staff recommends and then the
Board of County --
MR. SCHMITT: Staff--
MR. COHEN: We would follow the BCC direction with respect
to your recommendation and then their action.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Understood.
MR. SCHMITT: Mr. Wolfley, actually the planning commission
and the productivity committee, when we present these, you actually
review it and would make the proposal, the Board would approve it.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, or Randy, since -- BEBR
abandons calculating tourists or seasonal residents, right? At the end
of the report you sent out there's a note stating that they don't consider
tourists or seasonal residents, right?
MR. COHEN: They're not factored into it, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
Are we able to track tourists through another method and then
kind of split them apart rather to come up with our seasonal? Can't we
track that pretty accurate?
MR. COHEN: Yes, sir, I believe we can do that through Jack
Page 87
April 17, 2008
Wert's department.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. So then it's really the
seasonal residents that we have to predict, correct?
MR. SCHMITT: And we could do that based on hotel
occupancy. We can do that through some form of rental, number of
rentals. But we know we do not have a capture -- we do not capture all
the rentals in Collier County. They're required to do an annual rental
program. We know we don't capture all of them.
But yeah, we could take a pretty good estimate of the seasonal
population, primarily based on tourism and hotel, you know, the hotel
tourist tax, those kinds of things.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I think to try to figure out
what's happening, it might be good to split that seasonal population
into two, tourists and seasonal. And you're right, we're going to lose
somebody.
MR. COHEN: And let me clarify. That 20 percent seasonal rate
that you see on the slide right now, that doesn't include hotel, motel
and that like. That's just seasonal residents themselves that occupy
vacant units as identified by the U.S. Census.
MR. SCHMITT: But also we have to consider the number of
seasonal population who actually have a home down here. They are
legal residents of the State of Florida but they may go up north for five
months or four months.
So again, when we look at that, especially water-sewer when
we're doing a -- issuing a building permit, adequate facilities are based
on the number of units. And of course then usage rate, Phil -- at least
the utilities looks at that and that's how they issue the certificate of
adequate public utilities, based on the usage rate.
But again, that's all -- it's a mix down here. And we basically
still have to make sure we have the adequate capacity to continue to
issue building permits.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the resident who goes away
Page 88
April 17, 2008
for the summer, he's considered a permanent resident, correct?
MR. COHEN: The way a permanent resident is calculated is if
they live here over six months of the year and if they've declared this
to be their Florida domicile.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So he would, okay.
The other question, Randy, back when we were using the two
numbers, was the problem -- did they state to us that we could not use
two numbers or did they state that you had to back up why you were
using two numbers?
MR. COHEN: I'll clarify it. First of all, they didn't even realize
until we went through the EAR-based amendment process that we
were using two methodologies. That's when that came about.
The Florida Administrative Code precludes that; that means
specially says you can't, okay.
In as far as the seasonal population, what they basically told us
was, is we know you have a seasonal influx of residents. You need to
determine what that is and provide us with adequate data and analysis
to justify the number that you choose. And that's what we did.
So it was a mandate from them. We got an objection from them
as part of the ORC for the EAR-based amendments that we needed to
change our population methodology, one. And two, use a seasonal
adjustment factor that was consistent.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what they're saying is that
you have to come up with one population for everything, you can't
justify different populations.
MR. COHEN: That's correct, sir. And that becomes problematic
because, again, what we're looking at here is the demand side on
public facilities and capital infrastructure, which is not always going
to equal that 20 percent number.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me ask you this then: Is
there a requirement that we can't have level of service different from
permanent residents, seasonal residents?
Page 89
April 17, 2008
In other words, since we have to have two populations, can we
have a level of service that's different for a permanent resident and
different for a seasonal resident?
MR. COHEN: The question hasn't been answered before, but I
would say probably not. I think what you're getting at again is the
demand side. And what you can do is you could adjust for usage by
seasonal residents, and that's probably the best way to do it. That's the
way most governmental jurisdictions do it, because they get saddled
with the same type of population constraint that we're looking at right
here.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Randy, you had previously talked about
what you expected us to do with the slides that follow this. I don't
mean to go to those right now but I would like you to restate that.
MR. COHEN: I think what you need to do is you need to look at
the demand that's being placed on each of the capital facilities. And in
the context when we have that influx of, say, the seasonal population,
which is 20 percent, you look at the demand that's being placed on --
we'll use libraries, for example. Y ou'lllook at that number and I'll say
-- say it's 15 percent greater. Obviously you may want to look at a
reduction in level of service if you see something that falls lower than
that number. Or if you see something that's higher, you may see
something -- and I believe the numbers in EMS are higher, based on
the type of population that we get on in.
You may want to look at adjusting the factor to account for
increased call volume because they're serving a greater need.
So you're never going to get exactly that 20 percent number, but
there may be some things that transpire where you have some major
divergence from that, and it may be appropriate to adjust accordingly
based on the demand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what you're suggesting is that
we leave the 20 percent and we go through each one of these charts
Page 90
April 17, 2008
and suggest changes to the level of service to offset where the 20
percent may be too excessive,
MR. COHEN: Or in some cases not enough, yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why wouldn't we -- if we have
reasonable evidence that the 20 percent across the board is too high,
why wouldn't we look first at suggesting a base that is more
reasonable across the board and then adjusting level of service based
on a more reasonable base, rather than accepting an unreasonable base
and adjusting the level of service inawkwardly (sic) downward --
inordinately downward or upward because of that?
Your logic is reverse of what I would think would be the best
way to approach this.
MR. COHEN: Well, we know what the base is probably for the
most important capital facilities in terms of what happened based on
Board direction, which was water and sewer. Not to take away from
the other capital facilities. And that's why we used that as the base
guideline when we had the population methodology approved,
because that's what the BCC actually focused in on,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But if we use water and sewer
and we use the base of seasonal, saying an average between the too
high omitted and all 12 months involved and say it was 15 percent
instead of 20, then the level of service was adjusted differently for
each subsequent capital element, why wouldn't that work?
MR. COHEN: Well, if you eliminated the two peak months from
water and sewer, what you would end up having is you would be
eliminating their peak demand and they would not be able to supply
adequate water or adequate sewer capacity for those two months
because of the three-day weighted average.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, they have built-in multiple
redundancies in the system, they have a built-in reserve in the system,
they have interconnections within the system, they don't count the
storage capacity of the pipes in the wastewater service. There's an
Page 91
April 17, 2008
array of elements that they would have to cover their bases that they
don't rely on, they just have.
Now, if a couple of months of the year, just like transportation,
we got out of hand, they had all that redundancy in the system to rely
upon, that engineering puts the redundancy there.
So we're not only paying for the redundancy, we're paying for an
excessively high amount above the regular population to begin with
and we got the redundancy built in on top of that higher amount. So to
me we have double redundancy.
So I'm real concerned that we've gone in the wrong direction
with what you're suggesting. But we'll get into it.
MR. GRAMATGES: Commissioner, if I may. This is Phil
Gramatges, public utilities engineering department.
We do know that our records show that we have in the past come
very close if not exceeded that 20 percent difference.
And when you talk about that 20 percent, we're talking about an
area that we do not want to take risk, because we're talking about
public health.
I was not here at the time, but I do know that four, five years ago
there was an emergency meeting here with the BCC where they talked
about the fact that we were running out of capacity and we had to do
some emergency changes in order to be able to cope with it.
We obviously do not want to be there again, and we have indeed
put some safeguards in the system to be able to take care of that.
But I would point out as well that as Commissioner Wolfley
mentioned, the population overall is coming down. We really don't
know what the peak population is going to be in the next few years.
On top of that, we're in the middle of a drought. If you look at
the numbers right now, the numbers look artificially low.
Weare taking some risks in here that we are very uncomfortable
with taking for that reason. We expect that if indeed the permanent
population is going down, it's quite likely that the peak population will
Page 92
April 17, 2008
go higher than 20 percent, simply because the base has been reduced,
and we have no way to determine whether or not the seasonal
population is going to go up or down. I would like to assume that it
will go up. I don't know. Nobody really does.
Weare taking some risks, once again, that we are very
uncomfortable with taking. We've already gone from 33 percent peak
population to 20. We were very uncomfortable with that. We certainly
would be very uncomfortable with going any lower than that without
having any substantial data that supports a lower percentage than that.
And we don't believe that we have that data right now.
Now, you talk about redundancies. Yes, indeed, we have
redundancies in the system. We have what we call reliability in the
system. Because we don't know when a major unit is going to be out
of service. We do very good maintenance, we keep everything in line
and we try to do the best we can. In fact, we do as well as any other
utility we know of as far as safeguarding our assets to make sure that
they're there when we need them. But as you well know, stuff
happens.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And your reference, as well
as Randy's, and I think Mike's to the incident that occurred back, I
think, '01 concerning the overflow of that one sewage plant, I
understand where the county's position is on that. Although in talking
to some of the engineering community, the reasoning for that isn't
always attributed to the same reasoning that you all believe it is. It
could be debated of course by what engineer you're talking to.
So I don't put a lot of faith in that as an example of why we had
failure in the capacity. I think it may have been also failure on the part
of other elements that didn't necessarily go back to capacity
requirements. But I just wanted to make sure I don't agree with that
statement from the three of you.
With that in mind, we'll move forward, unless anybody else has
any other comments at this point.
Page 93
April 17, 2008
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Phil?
MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand your plea. But if
the percentage were to go down, 15 percent was the number that the
chairman related to, your level of service would be adjusted up. Is that
-- that doesn't compensate for that?
MR. GRAMATGES: Unfortunately the level of service is an
even more contentious issue than the 20 percent increase during the
season.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Because of the population?
MR. GRAMATGES: We have had several discussions about the
level of service because it varies very radically from year to year. And
in fact we're looking at that level of service right now very, very
critically. We mayor may not reduce it; it depends on a lot of
circumstances. But certainly we're looking at it very critically.
So we're talking about two different variables that if we begin to
play with both of them, we are getting ourselves into an unsafe zone.
We are hyper-conservative. We recognize that. But once again,
we're talking about public health here, so therefore we are compelled
to do that.
I may want to add as well, if! may, that the data that was
provided to comprehensive planning for this study that they conducted
is an average over a maximum month. We need to provide service on
a day-to-day basis. And if the service is needed at 3:00 in the
afternoon on a Wednesday, it has to be there, And if you average
during the month, it's not really going to give you what a particular
day in the year is going to provide.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That certainly would be true.
Maybe that's the wrong approach using an average, but I'm not going
to tell you your business.
Page 94
April 17, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. With that, Mike, let's
start moving through your presentation, please.
MR. BOSI: The first slide that I have in -- what I realized is the
slides that I had provided with the population study, they'll give you
the percentage of the 12 years -- or the 12 months out of each
individual year and what that percentage represents. And sometimes a
difference between the 10 percent to, say, an eight percent, two
percentage points, what does that really mean.
So what I did, I said okay, I took it --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just -- the book that you passed out
started out with transportation.
MR. BOSI: Yes,
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you went to potable water. And I
don't disagree with you, transportation it isn't worthy to be considered
here today.
But I mean, did you skip by that for a purpose?
MR. BOSI: No. And I guess I should have context why that is
being skipped by. It's not part of the population, and seasonal
population is not factored into transportation's capital improvement
element.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron had a question too.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Before you go one minute further,
does everyone on this panel, with the exception of Mr. Kolflat and Mr.
Strain, have a copy of this presentation?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I don't have that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't.
COMMISSIONER CARON: None of us have it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What presentation?
COMMISSIONER CARON: The presentation that's going
forward now.
MR. BOSI: The presentation wasn't provided. There was a
population study that was provided to each individual members at the
Page 95
April 17, 2008
COMMISSIONER CARON: This is all I got. You know, the
BEBR is all I've got.
MR. BOSI: I e-mailed the BEBR population. I've never e-mailed
this presentation to any member.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So this didn't go out to
anybody else --
MR. BOSI: No.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- except Mr. Strain and Mr.
Kolflat. Okay.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, no, I'll requalify my
statement, then. I have his original.
MR. BOSI: And I didn't send this to any member.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where did you get yours from?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I got mine from -- they gave it to
us, and I had it, and it said 4-4-17.
MR. BOSI: Yeah, the population study, This is different. This is
a separate document. This is a power point presentation I put together.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Forty-one pages.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I don't have that one. I got a
different version of that.
MR. BOSI: Everyone should have a 41-page study. This is just
basically the slides that you have --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I haven't got his slide, in case you're--
that's not what mine --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I don't have that slide.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When was the study given out,
Mike?
MR. BOSI: At the last meeting in March.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which I have.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do have the 41-page.
MR. BOSI: Mr. Schiffer, I'm sorry, you weren't provided a--
Page 96
April 17,2008
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, no, I didn't go back. You
did e-mail us some stuff and I did print that. Maybe on that e-mail you
should have noted, you know, to please include this to your other
stuff. I'll probably go back and it would probably be sitting in my
study.
MR. BOSI: I apologize for not making that distinction.
The first slide, potable water. And the reason why the
transportation was excluded, like I said, they don't utilize seasonal
population as part of their CIE, their five-year CIE.
But why I did provide that, as part of the AUIR, it's really trying
to -- we're trying to provide an understanding of exactly what's going
on with the demand factors within this community. And we gave the
transportation trip count stations from various portions of the county,
just to provide another glimpse, another portion of the pie for
understanding of what is being experienced throughout this
community over the past three years.
What I did for the power point presentation, realizing that I had
just broken out what percentage each one of those months represented
for the year, I basically said, well, March and August. Pretty much can
assume March and August are the diametrically opposed months for
seasonal purposes.
In 2005 I compared the demand for March and August, and it
was 158 million of gallons daily difference. That was 18.93 percent.
In 2006 that same comparison yields a 30.97 percent.
And a 2007 March to August comparison is at 33.11.
And you have to -- and to me you're trying to compare the
season, right? So you've got to look at the same year, what happened
within that year. March to August to me was a fair representation of
what the seasonal months -- there are 100,000 different ways that you
could analyze the season. And what's most appropriate, as
Commissioner Strain had indicated, he had followed transportation's
approach, which is just as valid and which can provide just as much of
Page 97
April 17, 2008
a telling story.
But for potable water, these numbers would suggest to staff that
a 20 percent markup is appropriate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, how do you set the level of
service to correspond with that markup?
MR. BOSI: The level of service would be set based upon the
system capacity and the -- and I guess I should defer to Phil upon this,
but the level of service would be based upon the system's capacity
compared against the demand numbers that are being expressed
against it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if! remember, we have like
1 85-gallon per day per person. That had to come from somewhere.
And if the suggestion is that the changes to the AUIR percentages can
be balanced out by modifying that level of service, then we're talking
about modifying the 185, I would think. And if that's the case, where
does that come from, so how do you modify it?
MR. GRAMATGES: Commissioner, once again, Phil
Gramatges.
The level of service is determined by what the average citizen
consumes in water in an average year, and is generally based on the
base population.
We assume that the peak population will utilize the same amount
of water per capita per day during the peak population. And that's the
reason why we treat level of service separate from peak population.
Now, the way in which we determine where the level of service
has been is a combination of experience, several years of, you know,
working with the utility, and also with studies we have conducted with
outside consulting firms on that level of service.
As I mentioned before, we have -- we are looking at that level of
service very carefully right now because we have, through a lot of
effort, by the way, by this utility, it changed the culture of Collier
County into more of a conservation-like culture. And we have seen
Page 98
April 17, 2008
that the consumption per capita has slowly and painfully but certainly
positively been going down.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, in order to try to
understand better what the comprehensive planning department was
suggesting between adjusting the various departments for level of
service, if we leave 20 percent the same. If you're 185, and I think
that's the right number, if!'m--
MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, it is 185, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the 185 is an accurate reflection of
truth based on the ground facts, that that's what the population uses
and that sets the level of service, how do you change those facts then
to adjust the level of service to offset any lack or excess in the 20
percent seasonal markup?
MR. GRAMATGES: Like I said before, we treat the level of
service and the population -- and the peak population as separate
issues. We don't adjust one and automatically adjust the other. I mean,
you're proposing that we do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no, I'm not proposing. It was
suggested as a solution.
By the way, you do do that in your waste division. Your
calculations there change based on the other priorities that you have.
So you do change the waste division's tonnage. I proved that the last
AUIR. I can do that again if I have to.
But Mr. Bosi, or Randy, what is it you were suggesting then
earlier when you said if the 20 percent were to stick but we found that
to be inappropriate for all divisions we would then look at a different
level of service. How would we change for example the 185 gpd in
this regard, to modify the level of service either higher or lower to
offset the 20 percent if that's too high or too low?
MR. GRAMATGES: If I may for clarification, two items if I
may, Mr. Chairman. First, when you mentioned that we changed the
level of service and wastewater, we don't change it, it's different
Page 99
April 17, 2008
because we have two different regions --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not wastewater. I'm sorry, solid waste,
not wastewater.
MR. GRAMATGES: Oh, solid waste, I'm sorry. My apologies.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I should have been clear, solid waste.
MR. GRAMATGES: What I would suggest is that since the
peak population was set based on what water and wastewater needs
were, that water and wastewater remains the way it is and the level of
service for the other units that see less of a peak population impact be
adjusted.
So when you're saying how would you adjust water and
wastewater, I would suggest that we don't adjust water and
wastewater, we adjust everything else to compensate for the fact that
their peak population impact is less than ours.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that changes the dynamics,
because you're now looking at a benchmark, basically, and utilities
becomes the benchmark and everybody else fluctuates to that
benchmark. So you're setting the percentage here based on an
established level of service and then now that percentage doesn't
fluctuate because of the benchmark being here, but everybody else's
level of service does.
Is that the way I think you're approaching it or suggesting?
MR. BOSI: That would be -- the benchmark has always been,
and the reason why we utilize 20 percent, we rose every other
category up to that 20 percent was because they are the benchmark.
And I think you're correct in that statement.
And that was really -- when we constructed the adjustment level
of service, we weren't really contemplating that it was going to be the
potable water and wastewater that was going to be adjusted, because
we feel that those particular areas justify that 20 percent markup. And
that's the reason why we arrived upon that 20 percent. But it would be
the other areas that we'd have the corresponding adjustment to level of
Page 100
April 17, 2008
servIce.
And remember, Commissioner Coyle had asked is it appropriate.
I guess that's the question that's being asked, is 20 percent appropriate
for each individual department and division?
And what comprehensive planning was trying to do was trying
to find what you do when you find that it's not appropriate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think to answer
Commissioner Coyle's question, you have absolutely proven it is not
appropriate for every division. So that takes care of that question.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, explain to me what
you've done. You've taken and studied -- for three years you've taken
the historical data on the usage, correct?
MR. BOSI: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then what you've done is
you've taken the highest month, the month with all the seasonal
people, and then you've taken a low month, the month that everybody
goes away, come up with a difference and then you come up with a
percentage.
And the percentages are all over the place. And I'm not even sure
that that's a good methodology. And then you walk away from this
chart saying see, 20 percent's fine. How do you see 20 percent making
any sense to this --
MR. BOSI: You've got a 20 percent -- because population is the
-- the 20 percent population markup is the figure that's being applied
across the board. We don't care about the population. If there was a 50
percent increase in seasonal population but across the board the
demand numbers on the systems were only 10 percent, then the most
appropriate adjustment would be the 10 percent, as what the actual
systems are experiencing.
The demand that's being placed upon the systems is what we're
looking at. And we're not trying to figure out whether it's 20 percent
Page 101
April 17, 2008
population for each individual department. We're trying to figure out
that 20 percent markup that we're utilizing, that we're saying on
average is our seasonal increase, is that 20 percent increase in demand
being experienced by each one of these areas?
So these numbers are across the board because these numbers
are what the actual demand that these facilities are experiencing on a
comparison between the seasonal month and the low seasonal month.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But wouldn't you be better off
trying to figure out what month everybody's here? Let's say September
everybody's back in town. That is when our permanent population is
probably closest to what it really should be. And then try to find what
that seasonal difference is and then try to find if that 20 percent makes
sense.
MR. BOSI: Well, I think -- I guess that's what I was doing. I
guess I was incorrect in assuming that August was a representation of
the non-season.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, the fact that it's the lowest
on this chart, that would be a good clue that people aren't here. Or at
least that's the least demand on the system.
MR. BOSI: And to me that's why I picked -- chose it as a
representation of being non-seasonal.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so you think that at that
point in time when it's the lowest, when essentially, Mike, what's
really happening is people are on vacation, people are at their summer
homes, people are out of town, the permanent population. So I think
that's a really bad gap.
MR. BOSI: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And even with that, where in
this number -- for example, 2007 is 33 and -- percent. Why does that
justify 20?
The next one's 30.9. Why does that justify 20?
MR. BOSI: Because it's 13 percent higher than 20. And I think it
Page 102
April 17, 2008
would substantiate that utilizing 20 percent is probably a little risky.
But you're not being over-conservative by utilizing 20 percent if
you're seeing a 33 percent increase in demand on the system between
the non-seasonal months and the seasonal months.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, one comment, and you
don't have to respond to this. I think there is other forms of math other
than averages to study this kind of a situation. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, something that I -- for the first
time I'm understanding a little bit better. Our 20 percent seasonal
projection or increase is a benchmark based on utilities. And utilities
sets the benchmark and the demand based on their gpd, what they
come up with, the 185 in this case.
So now if we focus down and scrutinize, in order to change that
20 percent we need to fully understand how the 185 came about. And
based on Phil's prior statements, and I asked whether it was -- how
factual it was on the ground truthing, he mentioned it was some
intuition, experience, past performance and things like that.
You know, looking at all that now, I would certainly like to see
the absolute way that the 185 was determined, right down to the
decimal point. Because that now is the driving factor between the
demand that drives the 20 percent that we're all deciding is the right
seasonal benchmark to start and calculate the rest of the county's
budget needs with. And my God, now there's a finite number we can
get down to and see how legitimate that number is. Because if that
number changes, the whole system is a domino effect, it would seem,
if we're using that as the benchmark.
I don't know, it's just a suggestion. I certainly would like to see
those, irrelevant of to day's outcome.
MR. SCHMITT: I was talking to Phil. That's part of our AUIR.
Go ahead, Phil, because it's usually a five or six-year running
average.
MR. GRAMATGES: Yes, Commissioner. If you look at our
Page 103
April 17, 2008
actual -- if you take our actual demand and you divide it by the
number of people, you end up with a rough estimate of what the level
of service should be.
It has been coming down for the last five years. It has been as
high as 220 gallons per capita per day. This year is a lot lower than
that, mainly because of the drought, of course. But when we look at
the level of service, we tend to average over several years. And if you
do that, you'll end up with something that's a lot closer to 185 than any
other number.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I understand your averaging, and I
understand that it was higher at one time. But I would love to see the
calculations, the computations and the data that you put together to
arrive, say, years ago at even the higher number, versus what -- even
today's number.
Instead of the 185 being an average of the years, how do you get
to the 185? How do you actually get to that number? How do you
know that's the number? How do you know that I use 185 gallons of
water per day?
MR. GRAMATGES: Well, the number is probably 184.7 or
something like that, of course. There's some Kentucky Windage in
that. But it is certainly very close to that mythical 185, to be sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you have the ability to provide the
data that shows how you got to the 184.7 or whatever number it is?
MR. GRAMATGES: I certainly would have to talk to our
potable water department. And I know that they have done this
calculation, they didn't really pull it out of their hats. So, yeah, I would
say certainly that that calculation was made at some point in time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it would be helpful to see
that calculation. And if that calculation has other numbers in it that are
based on other sources, then those numbers as well, so that this whole
thing rolls up to a logical benchmark that's proven beyond a doubt.
Then I think the BCC and maybe this board and the productivity
Page 104
April 17, 2008
committee might find more reliance on this 20 percent as being a true
benchmark of the seasonal pattern, if we're going to use utilities as the
benchmark.
And I would have to go back to Janet Vasey's comment that I
saw in her draft report that some of the months of the season are
dictated more by being possibly the driest months versus seasonal
population. And if that's the case, there's another factor that would be
helpful to understand how we got to that 185 exactly.
So that's just a suggestion, Mike.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, just --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, you know what might be
useful on this, and actually I wouldn't mind -- let me ask you if you
could, if this is a spreadsheet, could you send these out to us so that
we can have fun with math too?
MR. BOSI: Sure.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But it might be interesting to
see if you take these millions of gallons, divide the 185 and see what
this is telling us our population is. Because theoretically, if we're
doing it right, if it works one way, it works the other way. It would be
curious to see what that's tracking.
And Phil, one horrible thought. Do you think that the reason the
numbers are low in the summer could be -- well, no, it would be the
other way around, pipe leakage, it would be higher in the summer
based on that. Never mind, you don't have to get up for that.
MR. SCHMITT: Primarily the figures are lower because of the
population but also because you're in the rainy season. The
preponderance of the water we produce is used for irrigation. It's gone
down because there is -- or has been, Phil, use of reused water, the
best -- providing as much reuse water as the system can handle.
MR. GRAMATGES: That is definitely one factor, yes. But
indeed, I mean, the summer is the rainy season. People don't turn on
Page 105
April 17, 2008
their sprinklers when it rains, so therefore that brings down the
average.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As we go on, gentlemen, this is one of
those days where we're getting close to lunch. I have no confidence
that if we don't take lunch we won't be here for two more hours. I
would think that in about six minutes, we might best off take a
one-hour lunch and come back and wrap this up. Even if it takes 15
minutes or an hour or whatever, it would be nice to get done with it
after lunch.
Is everybody in agreement?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sounds like a plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that would give us another six
minutes and we'll break at 11 :45. So give us -- Mike, let's go through
as much as we can in the next five minutes or so.
MR. BOSI: In the second one, wastewater -- and Mr. Widdes
was at the productivity committee yesterday and he was able to
explain, the '06 and '07 numbers when you compare the March to
August were somewhat puzzling to me. Mr. Widdes had explained it
as the system is not 100 percent closed, and actually some of the
rainwater entering into the sewage system has actually -- in March of
'06 compared to August '06, August was a higher demand month for
wastewater than what March was.
So if you look at the wastewater numbers, I mean, the three-year
average would confirm that 20 percent would be appropriate. The first
year in '05 would seem that it would be appropriate. But as a whole
these numbers would suggest that 20 percent would be higher than
what the actual demand is placed upon the system.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, let me tell you something.
Remember how I explained to you how I split this up? I took the six
lowest months and the six highest months, averaged them out, took the
difference of that average and then gave the percentage that it ranked.
And I did the same by dropping the two high months, so I ended up
Page 106
April 17,2008
with five and five.
If you go to potable water demand and you do the six and six,
you end up with a 23 percent population increase as a need -- 23
percent increase in usage. If you do the five and five, it's 21.7.
Now, when you go to wastewater, and it's probably because, as
Mr. Schmitt said, it's most likely to do with something with irrigation,
your wastewater only shows a 7.7 increase for six and six; not 20
percent, not 23, as potable water, but 7.7 percent increase. If you go to
-- if you eliminate the two high months you're down to 6.67 percent
increase. I think that's a significant difference.
And I'm wondering how then, if we set the benchmark for
utilities, how we adjust it based on those two factors.
MR. BOSI: That, I wouldn't have a reasonable explanation, other
than saying that the ability to draw potable water is now the
benchmark? Or I should defer to Phil on this.
MR. GRAMATGES: Hi. Phil Gramatges again.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You like the easy questions, I know.
MR. GRAMATGES: The picture as far as wastewater is
concerned is a lot more complicated, for several factors.
In the first place, of course as Mr. Schmitt said, there is a big
factor in potable water, which is irrigation. And irrigation happens a
lot less in the summer than it does in the winter. So therefore, the
loading on the wastewater plant does not change as much or as
drastically as it does with potable water.
At the same time, however, we experience a problem with
wastewater that is come common to all utilities and that we have less
than they do but we still experience, which is infiltration. We have
infiltration there from rainwater. When it rains very hard, and you
know how hard it rains here, some of that water accumulates on top of
the manholes, leaks into the manhole and ends up in our system.
Also, when the level of the water in the ground goes up higher, it
covers some of our lines and infiltrates into those lines and ends up in
Page 107
April 17, 2008
the wastewater plant.
We have tried to analyze this and we have conducted some
studies both inside and independently and it's still somewhat of an art
to try to figure out why those differences exist. But indeed, the
anomaly you see here we estimate is due to those factors. The rest of
them are more typical of what we see in those differences from year to
year.
Now, we cannot use a peaking factor that is different for water
than it is for wastewater. So we're stuck with the 20 percent whether
we want to or not, unfortunately.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but you do acknowledge that the
numbers shown here do reflect the inflow of any rainwater that might
have gotten into the system during these periods of time.
MR. GRAMA TGES: It does, for sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so even with that influx, we're
still not exceeding eight percent on seasonal on the averages as I did
them, which I think are more detailed than yours. You took two
months, I took the whole year.
So based on that, we're not exceeding eight percent versus the 20
percent we have in the seasonal population.
MR. GRAMATGES: Now, as a last remark, I don't know if the
eight percent is right. I do know that the percentage for wastewater
would be less than 20 percent. It certainly would be less than what it
would be for potable water, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: These numbers calculate out to eight
percent. Whether they're right or not I -- that's a whole 'nother
program.
Why don't we take a break and come back and -- did you want to
ask a quick question, Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: My question was, since this
shows essentially the opposite demand as the other one, doesn't it
make other people feel like the methodology we're using of coming up
Page 108
April 17, 2008
with a magic population number doesn't make sense?
And Randy, the reason we're doing it is because you're saying
we have to do that, DCA says we have to have a magic population and
then we twixt the level of service to make it work; is that right?
MR. COHEN: We have to establish one consistent level of
service, which would be --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, population.
MR. COHEN: One population, excuse me. One population level
of service, which would be a permanent population plus a seasonal
adjustment factor.
Again, based on the Board direction, we did go with the 20
percent. If we did go with a lower percentage, we would have to in
some instances increase the level of service to account for -- in
particular water, to account for the situation where we weren't taking
into account that differential that occurred.
So it works both ways. Which factor are you going to deal with?
Are you going to deal with the seasonal population?
What we looked at in establishing the seasonal population
countywide, we started with the U.S. Census and what are the number
of seasonal residents that come here. And countywide the number was
23.7 percent.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm not looking for the history
of it, I'm just saying that the methodology seems really confusing.
Let's stop it there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we take a one-hour break for
lunch -- actually a 59 minute break for lunch and come back here at
12:45. Thank you.
(Luncheon recess.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, welcome back from the break,
everyone. We were in discussion on the upcoming population
statistics for the AUIR for 2008. And we were in the middle of
discussions with Mr. Bosi, and I think we'll just take off where we left
Page 109
April 17, 2008
off.
MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chairman.
The last slide we had reviewed was wastewater. The third of the
utilities is the solid waste.
And I -- maybe the most appropriate is I will give the March to
August comparison for the '05, '06, '07, and then Chairman Strain
might want to share what the transportation approach percentage
would provide for each one as well, just to give another perspective. If
that's the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's call it the Nick Casalanguida
approach. Nick's got some name on record here. He's not even here
but he'll appreciate it.
MR. BOSI: He may want to copyright that. So we'll definitely
use it before it costs us money.
'05, the March to August comparison is 18.93 percent difference.
In '06, the March to August is a 25.33 percent. And in then '07 March
to August would be 19.21. Which would suggest that the 20 percent
markup is somewhere in line with the demand that that system is
. .
expenencmg.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now for Nick's approach. If you
take the six lowest and the six highest and you take their average, find
the difference, you'll find that the gain is 16 percent.
If you take the five lowest and the five highest, excluding the
two highest, you end up with a difference of 13.5 percent. So in
neither case do you get to the 20 percent.
MR. BOSI: On park visitation by month, '06 March to August
comparison is 27.17. 2006, 47.21 percent. And then in '07, you have
March 1st to August is 27.45 percent. The seasonal discrepancy would
seem that the 20 percent would be appropriate based upon the
demand, based upon this analysis.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And for the -- if you use the six low and
the six high, you end up with a 29.6 percent. If you use five low and
Page 110
April 17, 2008
five high, you end up with 20.9 percent.
MR. BOSI: This next category, jail population. '05, the
difference between March and August is negative .5 percent. March to
August '06 is 4.4 percent. And '07 is a negative 4 percent. This most
definitely would suggest that this is a component that is not affected
by the seasonal population.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would say.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. The six low and the six high
correlation comes out to 4.23 percent. Using five low and five high, it
comes out to 3.8 percent.
MR. BOSI: On the -- one second, I'm sorry. On law enforcement
and the calls for services experienced, a negative 15 percent between
March and August for '05. For March and August of'06, a 5.8 percent.
And a March and August for '07 a 5.68 percent. And it would suggest
that there is no correlation between season and -- or the demand upon
the service.
The one caveat I would add to it was based upon Page 34. And it
talks about -- and I spoke directly with Chief Smith, and he said one of
the reasons behind these numbers, and it's flat, is the Sheriffs Office
takes an approach to maximize the assets available. And during the
season there's a basic directive to the deputies and law officers that it's
reactionary because of the call volumes. And in the non-seasonal
months it is more of a proactive approach. And they say that those
numbers are bared (sic) out by the numbers that are generated by calls
initiated by a patrolman and then calls that are initiated by an actual --
just a citizen.
So there is a factor that mitigates somewhat, but law
enforcement would be one by the numbers that would suggest that
there's not a seasonal effect in terms of the demand placed upon the
organization.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Using the six low and the six high, it's
5.3 percent. And using the five and five, it's 4.2 percent.
Page 111
April 17, 2008
MR. BOSI: Next for library, and library circulation is the
circulation of all the materials. '05 it's a 21 percent. '06, the
comparison March to August is 20.23 percent. And March to August
for '07 is 18.5 percent. Roughly around but would substantiate that 20
percent for this analysis.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mike, if! may?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You have a difference for three
years of28.6 but none of the other figures get up to that number.
MR. BOSI: And that top one -- and I think that compared --
that's three months average, the average out of three months -- or the
three-year average for each month, you would take the highest and
lowest of that average relates to 28.6 percent. But that doesn't -- it
doesn't tell you when those months are coming in.
So as we've talked about it more, I haven't highlighted that. I'm
not sure of the statistical significance of that comparison, because it
doesn't really tell -- it's not locked into a March to August comparison,
it's just highest to lowest month.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, this one didn't have as big ofa--
it had a much, much bigger spread between the six-month and the
five-month analysis. The six low and six high gives you 22.3 percent.
But if you take out especially March and February, the highest skewed
months, you end up with only a 14 percent for 10 months of the year.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: This circulation is amount of
materials circulated, correct?
MR. BOSI: Correct.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Makes no differentiation as to
the type of material, whether it's a book or --
MR. BOSI: No, just all material: Books, videotapes, everything
that's available for checkout at the library.
Page 112
April 17, 2008
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Given an equal weighting.
MR. BOSI: Yes, correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, just out of curiosity from another
statistical viewpoint as a comparison, have we ever checked the
Naples Daily News circulation for the 12 months of the year?
I mean, I'm sure they've got those statistics and they would
probably -- I don't know why they wouldn't mind revealing them.
There might be a good understanding of how many papers are sold,
because you're going to sell a lot more in season you would think than
off season.
MR. BOSI: Definitely we'll-- as part of the 2008 AUIR, I'll
mark that down as another piece of the puzzle that we can try to
pursue to add to the books read or review.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It might buffer your position, or then
again it might show a whole difference. But it would be interesting to
see it.
MR. BOSI: This next is door counts for libraries.
March to August '05 is 21.4 percent. March to August for '06 is
22.2 -- I'm sorry, I'm still on circulation.
March to August for '05 is 30 percent. March to August for '06 is
32.3 percent. And '07, the March to August comparison is 30.2
percent. Would suggest that the 20 percent markup is somewhat
appropriate.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the order that I had gotten this
document in had the door counts first and the library circulation
second. I think the prior picture was library circulation, was it not?
MR. BOSI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that one did have a closer
relationship, 21.7 to 18.8 for the six and five months.
The door count one has had the wide separation, 22.3 on the six
and six analysis and 14 percent on the five and five.
MR. BOSI: And the last of the departments for comparison, we
Page 113
April 17,2008
excluded the dependent fire districts and government buildings
because of lack of comparable statistics of demand upon those.
EMS. EMS March to August of '05 is 25 percent. March to
August '06,27.6 percent. And '07, same comparison, it's 29.9 percent.
This is -- and as you see within that graph that was contained
within the population study, to me this is the department that most
accurately really portrays that curve that you get from a seasonal
influx.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the six and six month comparison
is 19.9, which hits your 20 percent. And the five and five comparison
is 15.7 percent, so --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can we go back to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- parks?
MR. BOSI: Go back to?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Parks and recreation. Sorry.
Just I know you want to have consistency, I appreciate all those
factors. You've chosen August and you've chosen March. And I don't
know, August would seem to be a month where park usage would rise,
and it seems to be borne out by what I'm looking at here.
Do we -- are we constrained, even though sometimes we can see
reality reflecting something entirely different than what we'd like? Are
we constrained to use the same formula each time, or is it just for
something you have some latitude?
MR. BOSI: Are you speaking about the number comparisons
that I put together?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, the baseline is your March
and August usage. You've chosen August consistently as your lowest.
MR. BOSI: I didn't choose it as the lowest, because sometimes it
wasn't the lowest. Remember on wastewater it was actually higher
than March. I chose August because I thought that represented the
opposite of season.
Page 114
April 17, 2008
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Population reduction, not
necessarily usage.
MR. BOSI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What I guess, I'm -- I just
wondered, if you look in here, August seems to be pretty high usage.
So I'm not sure it reflects what it is you intend. But okay.
I'm trying to find out if you're constrained, you know -- I
recognize your need for some consistency, I'm just trying to figure out
if that's an aberration we can live with, or --
MR. BOSI: Well, as I said, I just tried it for consistency. There's
so many different ways that you could approach to evaluate what's the
best way to evaluate the increase and the demand upon these systems
from the non-season to season.
The approach that Mark has borrowed from Mr. Casalanguida
seems very appropriate as well in terms if you're taking out some of
those peaks and valleys and you're getting maybe a little bit more
representation of where that flex in demand may be at.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand that. But you're
asking us to review what it is you prepared and then we're to make a
determination based upon it. And so I think it's a fair question for me
to ask you, if there's any latitude we can enjoy, other than being
arbitrary.
MR. BOSI: I think there is latitude within --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you.
MR. BOSI: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: That's what I'm trying to get at.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Mike, to answer the
Commissioner's specific question, he's asking if there's a -- how we
apply population figures and the peak population figures specific to
government facilities. It's clear they're impacted differently. I think
he's 100 percent right, the 20 percent doesn't apply to all the
categories. And I think that your analysis has proven that.
Page 115
April 17, 2008
And I think it even gets proven stronger if you were to take the
year and split it in half to six high and six low or even drop the two
high points.
Now, there's different types of services we have in government.
Some are essential and some are convenient. Parks is a convenient
service, water is essential.
And on the essential ones, you may not have the latitude of
ignoring the highest peak months, because without water we have a
big problem.
But on the park service, if we don't have a park that functions
like the roads in the optimum condition for one or two months a year,
we could live with that. It's not life threatening.
And maybe from that perspective we can look at a way of
modifying this whole thing. And I don't know where to go with it. I'm
just kind of throwing that out as a point of discussion.
MR. BOSI: As we were talking about, and I heard the
conversation that you were having specifically with Randy, I don't
think that I had given you enough, because I didn't give you the level
of service standards that are currently allocated for each one of these.
So there's no way that you could be equipped to say okay, well, this is
15 percent based upon our five and five split average, we think it
needs to be lowered down to 15 percent.
But what I think we can do is for each component that we feel
that it's not matching up to that 20 percent, that we let the
commissioners know that in your review that you feel that there is --
there is a difference between what our population increase is providing
for and what the demand is being levied against that.
And based upon that, during the upcoming AUIR we -- we'll
address these concerns within a potential level of service adjustment
as we see fit, based upon the numbers that are provided. And that
might be my coordinating with Commissioner Strain to make sure that
I provide that five and six on top of this other, the other comparisons
Page 116
April 17, 2008
that is going to go part of the book that you'll see for the 2008 AUIR.
So -- because when I first started to think about this program and
this process and this request from the commissioner, I was hoping that
this was going to complete the study -- or complete the circle for us so
that when we come up -- because we've been talking about it for the
last two years, for the last three years, that there's some areas that I
think where maybe we're not on the mark with the level of service and
we may need an adjustment and it may need to be adjusted somewhat.
And I'm thinking -- and I was hoping that this would be the
opportunity that we could really identify some areas that we think that
we're going to look at really hard and long, and based upon the
numbers that we went over today, these demand numbers, and based
upon the comparative standards that we know about for levels of
service that this coming AUIR, that kind of serve notice to the Board
of County Commissioners that we think these areas would be
appropriate for a level of service adjustment.
That was just really my way of thinking how we could take this
from where we're at today towards where we're going into the fall.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have two suggestions, and I think it
would -- certainly it's going to take another meeting. But I think you
could help us by preparing better for that other meeting for us. And
that is, instead of giving us separate charts on each page like that,
produce a chart showing that the averages as I've gone over, six and
six and then five and five, and then whatever average you feel is
relevant, let us look at all three of those, and then put them all on one
page. List them all: Parks, Sheriffs office, and go down the page. And
then next to those we could determine which ones might need a level
of service adjustment if we left it at 20 percent and which ones are
more essential to a point where the peak two months are more
necessary than other ones.
And maybe through that kind of formulation we can get to a
level of service adjustment that gives us a peak we can standardize,
Page 117
April 17, 2008
like you're looking at 20 percent right now. And maybe that will be
one way of getting there.
The second component I think is critical, at least to me is, what
Phil Garcia got us into, which I think is excellent. Your study finally
answered a question I've had for four or five years, and that is where is
the basis for all this.
I understand now why and how the benchmark is here. The
benchmark is based on the most essential service, which is water. And
that water service is based on two components: The population, which
we're going to have to fix, because DCA is forcing us to -- or telling
us to. And then the other one is that 185 gpd.
So now we need to lock in the 185. If the 20 percent or the 15
percent, whatever it comes out to is fixed by population, we ought to
carefully scrutinize that 185.
And Mike, I would turn to your department to get the back-up
for the 185. And what I would mean by that is don't just get a
calculation, get the back-up to each number of the calculation. If they
say -- if the calculation includes a series of reports, get some of those
reports. See how arbitrary they're written so that we know that the 185
is the right number that drives the 20 percent to the seasonal
population number that Brad suggested we back into.
That would be critical in understanding if our basis is right. And
once we know that's right, then the rest of it becomes a matter of how
do we reallocate for each particular capital element.
At least that's how I perceive this moving forward. And I don't
know how anybody else does.
Ms. Caron, Mr. Schiffer, anybody?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think if you do it that way,
then it just -- once you have a basis, then the rest is just juggling and
can easily be accomplished. So --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Were you going to say
something, Mike?
Page 118
April 17, 2008
MR. BOSI: I'll allow for -- I guess what I was going to comment
upon is we're scheduled for the second meeting in May to go before
the Board of County Commissioners to give the results of both
advisory boards. And after that the process of developing the AUIR
for '08 starts in June.
I'm just trying to think of timing of when we can get these
accomplished so we can have this in place. Because it sounds like you
don't want to have this as part of the AUIR process, you want this
segmented before the AUIR process so then when we hear the AUIR
process these issues are already resolved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, if you're under a time
constraint like you've just mentioned, and the answer to the
commissioner's question I think is now pretty obvious. You could
answer his question and suggest to him that you've started an ongoing
request from the planning commission to study two other avenues to
come back with a more detailed breakdown that then you'll go back to
the productivity committee with.
I think their input is vital. And we might be able to break that
5-5 deadlock by going back to them with a program item by item and
basis by basis on how we got there. And all of a sudden both
committees then could have a consensus to go to the BCC to set the
pattern for the fall's AUIR.
It may take a little past May, but at least you can get the
Commissioner acknowledgment that he's onto something right.
MR. BOSI: Absolutely, and I think that's a terrific suggestion. I
would plan to do just that. We'll go before them on that May meeting
just with a real brief item to let them know that there was some
progress made on the issue, there was some areas that we had
impasses on, we'd like to -- both bodies have requested some more
information, we're going to provide them that information. And then
we will come back to each one of the bodies.
The recommendations that you will come (sic), the Board will
Page 119
April 17, 2008
get to see them during the 2008 AUIR process.
So to me that sounds very attainable and it could fit within all
the schedules without interruption between any of then.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody else comfortable with that?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, a couple things. And one
for Randy is, you're going to send us these in spreadsheet format,
correct?
MR. BOSI: Yeah, you wanted the Excel. So I could send
electronically the Excel spreadsheets to everyone, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And in the planning
community, is this only way people have been going about trying to
solve this problem? I mean, it seems a little Newtonian to me,
meaning we're looking for some sort of a magic equation that fits all,
when we actually live in a relative world.
And isn't there better ways to analyze this than --
MR. BOSI: Not in the State of Florida there isn't.
When you've got a federalist approach to planning, when you've
got one individual department that dictates the regulations for small
localities, you have to abide by the rules that are put forward.
So in terms of trying to -- I would think you would say yeah,
what is the population and what is the population demands that are
experienced by each one of these. And we should use the appropriate
level for each one of these departments for the individual population
and increase the experience.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Tell us how you really feel, Mike.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Brad, I think to be honest, I
understand your question, I think it was a good one. But the solution
I'm looking for would provide the flexibility on a
department-by-department basis to do just what you're suggesting,
because we're going to work around the back of it. Basically DCA
says you've got to fix this number. And now what we need to do is
Page 120
April 17, 2008
establish how far that number is off so we can change the other
number. That's kind of what I'm suggesting to get there.
So I think it does give you what you just suggested, but it has to
be done a little bit covertly.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It kind of does.
And randy, the other thing too, is can you send the -- and I guess
it may come out of the administrative code, where it states that we
have to have a fixed population for all of these different --
MR. COHEN: Yeah, I will get with the County Attorney and get
two provisions: One, the one that talks about one methodology which
-- and also the citation from the ORC and also the provision with
respect to using a seasonal adjustment.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, good.
Because Mike, when you send me the spreadsheet, all's I'm
going to do is I'm going to add the level of service, come up with the
population that the reality shows we should have. And then I guess the
only thing we can adjust once we determine a uniform population is
the level of service. But it is cooking books, you realize. Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually, it's making the books
truer than they are now. I think maybe the books have been cooked in
an unrealistic way because of a requirement DCA put on us. If we can
now find a way to make that requirement work and still have
flexibility, we're actually doing a better job than a worse job. So I'm
trying to look at it's half full, not half empty.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: When you're cooking, some
foods are healthier than others, so don't look at me for --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, good, Mike. I think that was -- I'll
tell you, this was one of the -- for me it's been one of the best
explanations I've had since I've been harping on population and the
AUIR for along time, so I think it's been a great exercise.
MR. BOSI: I appreciate that comment. And I hope the rest of the
planning commission would share that sentiment. Because believe me,
Page 121
April 17, 2008
I feel frustrated when I come before you and the answers that I can
provide or the situation, the equation that we're dealing with when it
doesn't add up, I don't walk away with the same type of frustrations
that you have.
So hopefully this second portion that we can hopefully bring to
you around say mid-summer can help complete the understanding, and
then this upcoming fall AUIR we may have a more straightforward
and direct approach to hearing it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Any -- go ahead, Mr. Cohen.
MR. COHEN: One other thing I want to add for you, you know,
because Nick has those magic numbers. With the trip mobility fee
that's being proposed that's in the legislature, which again would call
for a uniform methodology across the state, it very well could change
a lot of what you see in this upcoming AUIR. And I just want you to
be aware of that. Because we didn't discuss it today, but that's on the
funding side of things. And if it's on the funding side, a lot of times it's
going to push projects back in conjunction with our slowdown and
growth.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Mark, can we come back
to this in like a month or so?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would think as soon as Mike has
time to collect the data we've asked him to, he formats the -- a new
method of presentation, he'd want to come back. Because this needs to
get resolved as quick as possible, set the tenor for --
MR. BOSI: Oh, absolutely. The greatest task I have is going to
coordinate with Phil in terms of collecting all the information related
to the 185 gallons per day, as the second portion of the request.
MR. COHEN: And mike will agree to work weekends to
obviously facilitate that in a timely manner.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: And nights.
Page 122
April 17, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hope he's on salary.
Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Phil or Mike can answer,
too. The number that Phil comes up with, the gallons, those are really
pretty precise actual historical numbers. Of all the numbers we deal
with today, those are the ones we could stand on the strongest
probably, right?
MR. BOSI: I would believe those would have the most
mathematical foundations and figures to base the justification of, yes,
correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's off a gauge somewhere.
Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Thank you very much. Thank
you, Mike, Randy. And Phil, thank you very much for your time
today. We appreciate it.
Well, that gets us through the last bit of our work. Very quickly
since we took a lunch. You know, every time we take a lunch we
come back and we have a shorter meeting.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There's a message there.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Yes, there is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any new business?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any public -- Mike, you don't have any
public comment, do you?
MR. DeRUNTZ: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, seconded by Mr. Wolfley.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
Page 123
April 17, 2008
MR. MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
MR. WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER ADELSTEIN: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of course no. Motion carries. Thank
you.
*****
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1: 11 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
Mark Strain, Chairman
These minutes approved by the board on
presented or as corrected
as
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by
Cherie' R. Nottingham.
Page 124
COLUERCOUNTYGOVERNMENT
Community Development and Environmental Services Division
Department of Zoning and Land Development Review
2800 North Horseshoe Drive. Naples, Florida 34104
April 28, 2008
Mr. Eric Schneider
Turrell, Hall And Associates, Inc
3584 Exchange Ave
Naples, FL 34104
Reference: Petition No. BD-2007-AR-12653, Hussey Boat Dock Extension
Dear Mr. Schneider:
On Thursday, April 17, 2008, the Collier County Planning Commission heard and
approved Petition No. AR-12653. A copy of CCPC Resolution No. 08-01 is enclosed
approving this use.
Please be advised that Section 10.03.05 B.3 of the Land Development Code requires an
applicant to remove their public hearing advertising sign(s) after final action is taken by the
Board of County Commissioners. Based on the Board's final action on this item, please
remove all public hearing advertising sign(s) immediately.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at (239) 252-2942.
Sincerely,
~~s~a~
Senior Planner
Enclosure
CC: Martin Hussey
PO Box 420931
Little Torch Key, FL 33042
Land Dept. Property Appraiser
M. Ocheltree, Graphics
Minutes & Records (BD, PSP & PDI)
File
c
{~~
r
c
o u
< .Y
Phone (239) 403-2400
Pax (239) 643-6968 or (239) 213-2913
www.collicrgov.nct
CCPC RESOLUTION 08- 01
A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION RELATING TO PETITION
NUMBER BD-2007-AR-12653 FOR A 23-FOOT
EXTENSION OVER THE MAXIMUM 20-FOOT LIMIT
PROVIDED IN LDC SECTION 5.03.06.E.l TO ALLOW
A BOAT DOCK FACILITY TO ACCOMMODATE ONE
VESSEL FOR A TOTAL PROTRUSION OF 43-FEET
ON PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED IN
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of Florida in Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, has
conferred on all counties in Florida the power to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and
such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and
WHEREAS, the County pursuant thereto has adopted a Land Development Code (LDC)
(Ordinance 04-41, as amended) which establishes regulations for the zoning of particular
geographic divisions of the County, among which are provisions for granting extensions for boat
docks; and
WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), being duly appointed,
has held a properly noticed public hearing and considered the advisability of a 23-foot extension
over the maximum 20-foot limit provided in LDC Section 5.03.06.E.l to allow a boat dock
facility to accommodate one vessel for a total protrusion 43-feet, as allowed by Section
5.03.06.G in an RSF-4 Zoning District for the property hereinafter described; and
WHEREAS, the CCPC has found as a matter of fact that satisfactory proVISIOn and
arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by LDC Section
5.03.06; and
WHEREAS, the CCPC has given all interested parties the opportunity to be heard, and
considered all matters presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Collier County Planning Commission
of Collier County, Florida that:
Petition Number BD-2007-AR-12653, filed on behalf of Martin Hussey by Eric
Schneider of Turrell, Hall and Associates, Inc., for the property hereinafter described as:
Lot 70, PORT OF THE ISLANDS PHASE II, according to the plat thereof, as
recorded in Plat Book 21, Pages 1-4, of the Public Records of Collier County,
Florida.
be, and the same is hereby approved for, a 23-foot extension of a boat dock over the maximum
20-foot limit provided in LDC Section 5.03.06.E.l to allow a boat dock facility to accommodate
one vessel for a total protrusion of 43-feet otherwise allowed by LDC Section 5.03.01.E.I, in the
RSF-4 Zoning District wherein said property is located, subject to the following conditions:
Page I of2
1. Corresponding permits, or letters of exemption, from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection shall be provided to
Collier County prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2. Reflectors and house numbers of no less than four (4) inches in height must be installed
at the outermost end on both sides of all docks or mooring pilings, whichever protrudes
the furthest into the waterway, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Completion.
3. At least one (I) "Manatee Area" sign must be posted in a conspicuous manner as close
as possible to the furthest protrusion of the dock into the waterway, prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Completion.
4. All prohibited exotic species, as such term may now or hereinafter be established in the
LDC, must be removed from the subject property prior to issuance of the required
Certificate of Completion and the property must be maintained free from all prohibited
exotic species in perpetuity.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this
Commission and filed with the County Clerk's Office.
This Resolution adopted after motion, second and majority vote.
Done this I r;;(l day of ~, 2008.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
1~/IOw~ (J ~
Mark \Po Strain, Chairman
ATTEST:
K. Schmitt
C munity Development and Environmental
S vices Administrator
Approved as to form and legal sufficiency:
right
t County Attorney
Page 2 of 2