CCPC Minutes 08/29/2008 GMP
August 29, 2008
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida, August 29, 2008
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Panning
Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m., in SPECIAL SESSION
in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida,
with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Mark P. Strain
Donna Reed Caron
Bob Murray
Robert Vigliotti
David W oltley
ABSENT: Tor Ko 1 flat
Brad Schiffer
Paul Midney
Lindy Adelstein
ALSO PRESENT:
David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning
Randy Cohen, Comprehensive Planning Director
Michelle Mosca, Comprehensive Planning
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Thomas Eastman, CCSD Director of Real Property
Page 1
AGENDA
Revised 8/25/08
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., FRIDAY, AUGUST 29,2008, 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 MATERIAL A MINIMUM
OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE,
WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL
BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF
SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN
PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF
THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL
NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND
THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE
PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
4. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS: ADOPTION HEARINGS FOR 2006 CYCLE OF GMP AMENDMENTS, AND
TWO NON-CYCLE 2007 PETITIONS:
A. CP-2006-5, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP), to change the
Conditional Uses Subdistrict by adding the 3.54:1: subject site, as an exception to the conditional use locational
criteria for conditional uses so as to allow expansion of the existing church use on the adjacent property onto the
subject property, located on the west side of Santa Barbara Boulevard, 1/3 mile north of Golden Gate Parkway
(CR 886), in Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier Florida of 3.54:1: acres.
[Coordinator: Thomas Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner]
B. CP-2006-7, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element. including the Future Land Use
Map and Map Series (FLUEIFLUM), to change the Urban Residential Subdistrict designation in order to establish
the Italian American Plaza and Clubhouse Commercial Subdistrict in the Urban Commercial District, for a 20,000
square foot clubhouse and up to 34,000 square feet of gross leasable area for financial institutions, schools,
professional and medical offices, and personal and business services consistent with the General Office (C-I)
Zoning District of the Collier County Land Development Code, for property located at the southwest comer of the
intersection of Airport-Pulling Road (CR 31) and Orange Blossom Drive, in Section 2, Township 49 South,
Range 25 Collier Florida consisting of 5:1: acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal
Planner]
C. CP-2006-8, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element. including the Future Land Use
Map and Map Series (FLUE/FLUM), to change the Urban Residential Subdistrict designation in order to establish
the Airport/Orange Blossom Commercial Subdistrict in the Urban Commercial District, for up to 40,000 square
feet of gross leasable area for financial institutions, professional and medical offices, adult and child day care,
personal and business services, and senior housing in the form of an assisted living facility and/or continuing care
retirement center, or other similar housing for the elderly, consistent with the General Office
1
(C-l) Zoning District of the Collier County Land Development Code, for property located on the west side of
Airport-Pulling Road (CR3l), approximately 330 feet south of Orange Blossom Drive and immediately south of
the Italian American Club, in Section 2, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of
5:1: acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] <TI!ON'I'INJ.JElli'iFrROM'Ilf'I9f']!OO8
D. CPSP-2006-12, Staff petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use
Map (FLUE/FLUM), to change the FLUM designation from Urban-Mixed Use DistrictJUrban Coastal Fringe
Subdistrict to Conservation Designation, and make a corresponding text change to reference a new map of the
site, for the County-owned Mar-Good Park property located in Goodland, adjoining Pettit Drive, Pear Tree
Avenue, and Papaya Street, in Section 18, Township 52, Range 27, consisting of2.5:!:, acres.
[Coordinator: Tom Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner] CJ()l&~IlN~lTI)I<E-()I\1>8/~~r]!O~$
E. CPSP-2006-13, Comprehensive Planning Department staff petition requesting amendments to the Future Land
Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series (FLUEIFLUM). Transportation Element (TE) and Maps.
Recreation and Open Space Element (ROSE). Economic Element (EE). and Golden Gate Area Master Plan
Element and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Map Series (GGAMP/GGAMP
FLUEIFLUM). to change the allowance for model homes in Golden Gate Estates; to expand an area excepted
from the conditional use locational criteria along Golden Gate Parkway within Golden Gate Estates; to extend the
Transfer of Development Rights early entry bonus in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District; and, to make
corrections of omissions and errors and other revisions so as to harmonize and update various sections of these
elements of the Growth Management Plan. [Coordinator: David Weeks, AICP, Planning Manager]
CONTINUElliiFrROM"1l/19f']!OO8
F. CPSP-2007-6, A petition requesting an amendment to the Potable Water Sub-Element of the Public Facilities
Element. to amend Policy 1.7 to add a reference to and incorporate the County's "Ten-year Water Supply
Facilities Work Plan." Carolina Valera, Principal Planner]G()l&~~:PlTI)'FR.()IY1i8r~i9r20(J8;
G. CPSP-2007-7, Creating a new Public School Facilities Element with support document and amending the Capital
Improvement Element; Intergovernmental Coordination Element; Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use
Map Series; Golden Gate Area Master Plan; and Immokalee Area Master Plan to establish a public school
concurrency program. This is a companion item to the Public School Facility Planning and School Concurrency
Inter-local Agreement between the District School Board of Collier County and Collier County Board of County
Commissioners and the cities of Marco Island, Everglades and Naples. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP,
Principal Planner] ~0::J3:EtH.EAR.E>::"N()..S()()~~~f\.l&ii~:1::0.(J::f\..Jy1'.
5. ADJOURN
08.29.08 CCPC AgendaDW/mk
2
August 29, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to
the August 29th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission.
This is an adoption hearing for the Collier County Growth
Management Plan amendments for 2008. Well, I'm not sure they're all
2008, but -- it's 2006 actually. The meeting was actually scheduled
for Tuesday of last week. It got continued to today. And we're going
to complete the rest of the items on the agenda today.
And before we are start, if you'll all rise for a Pledge of
Allegiance.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Roll call by the secretary, please.
Item #2
ROLL CALL BY THE SECRETARY
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Kolflat is absent; Mr. Schiffer
is absent; Mr. Midney is absent. Ms. Caron is here.
Mr. Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And Mr. Woltley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, I'm sorry. I keep forgetting to
do our school board member.
MR. EASTMAN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Eastman is here.
MR. KLATZKOW: He's not voting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Thank you.
Page 2
August 29, 2008
Item #3
PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
Planning Commission absences. Next Thursday we have another
meeting. At least it isn't tomorrow, like yesterday to today. I'd like to
know if everyone is going to be here that's at least here today.
Anybody not?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On the agenda, couple of
changes. The school board issue, which is GP -- I mean,
CPSP-2007-7 will be heard no sooner than 11 o'clock. It made it on
the latest agenda. I want to make sure the public's aware of that in
case you're here for that. All the rest will go as scheduled.
Tom, since you do represent the school board, I have been made
aware that the package that this board received got to everybody but
you and you didn't receive yours until a day or two ago.
MR. EASTMAN: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I also met with the school staff to
understand -- they want to understand the concerns that we may have
or I may have about the document. And when I was walking through
the document page by page, they couldn't follow anything I was
referring to except by what they had on their notes, but none of the
pages matched anything they had. And I asked them why. It turns out
they never had the packet either.
I'm not sure what that means, but I want to offer to you all,
whenever they show up, if you want to talk with them, if they want to
request a continuance, I think out of fairness, I think this board
certainly ought to consider that.
So that's a decision that basically, I think, would rest in your lap
since it would be you that would be mostly infringed upon by not
Page 3
August 29, 2008
having had the documentation early.
MR. EASTMAN: We appreciate that very much, Chairman
Strain. We have a host of people coming today both from the school
district and outside consultants, and I would defer to them. I know
that there's been a lot of hard work on this issue, and they may want to
move forward but they also may want to take advantage of your
generous offer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir.
Okay. We'll go right into our advertised public hearings. First
one is A, CP-2006-5. It's a petition requesting amendment to the
Golden Gate Area Master Plan. It was continued from 8/19/2008.
And Mr. Weeks, do you want to make an intro, or are we just
going to go straight -- and by the way, this is the adoption hearing
which means we've gone over this in intense detail during the
transmittal. The adoption is really a result of it going through this
board, going to the BCC, going to DCA, getting their responses back,
and now responding to that.
So in -- under the fact that we have all -- we've heard a lot of this
information, we don't necessarily need to go over it all as detailed in
the past as we have, so -- so with that in mind --
MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks of the Collier
County Comprehensive Planning Department.
Mr. Chairman, I'd actually like to go back to the agenda, please.
If you'll note that agenda item 4F, which is petition CPSP-2007-6, a
petition requesting an amendment to the potable water sub-element of
the public facilities element to amend policy 1.7 to add reference to
and incorporate the county's 10-year water supply facilities work plan.
Staff is requesting that that be continued until September 18th.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's our regular meeting date?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it would be in the afternoon after our
regular hearing. I think I've already discussed that with staff, and it
Page 4
August 29, 2008
will go after the public hearing. We'll defer to the public first.
MR. WEEKS: Understood.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that fine with everybody here?
MR. WEEKS: And I'll go ahead and alert the Planning
Commission that it's possible that this will be further continued still.
There's a lot of work to be done. As we have continued to--
discussions with the Department of Community Affairs, as well as
other state and regional agencies regarding this water supply plan, all
the way to the point of the potential that we may, in fact, continue this
until next year and adopt it with the -- concurrent with the next CIE
update. But for now we ask that you continue to September 18th.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll wait to hear from you on
further continuances. Thank you.
MR. WEEKS: Could we please have a motion?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You want a formal vote?
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion to allow that--
motion to continue to September 18th?
COMMISSIONER CARON: So moved.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: So moved.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Whoa.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron made the motion.
Mr. Murray, would you accept a second?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, that's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. All those in favor, signify by
.
saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
Page 5
August 29, 2008
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0.
MR. WEEKS: Thank you.
And now for some introductory remarks. As you'll notice on
your agenda, the actual items you're going to hear fall into two
separate categories. There's the 2006 cycle of Growth Management
Plan amendments, and then there's the separate item, petition
CPSP-2007 -7, the school concurrency amendments. Those are
separate petitions, advertised separately, transmittal hearing dates
were separate, a separate Objections, Recommendations and
Comments Report, also known as ORC Report, from the Florida
Department of Community Affairs.
As you've already stated, Mr. Chairman, this is the adoption
hearing. This will be your chance to make your final
recommendation, and then when the Board of County Commissioners
considers these amendments, it will be their final action to either
adopt, not adopt, or adopt the changes to these proposed amendments.
This is a legislative action, not quasi-judicial; therefore, there is
no requirement to swear in participants or offer notice of ex parte
communications.
As required by state law, there is a sign-up sheet out in the
hallway on the table -- which is the same location as the speaker slips
are located -- a sign-up sheet that will be sent to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs for anyone interested in receiving
notice from that agency of when they are to issue their notice of intent
to find the adopted amendments in compliance or not in compliance
with Florida Statutes. And there's a separate sign-up sheet for the
2006 cycle of amendments and then for the school concurrency
amendments.
As is your standard protocol, once we get into the petitions, the
applicant will go first and then staffwill follow, and we will do our
best to be very brief. I certainly concur with you, Mr. Chairman, that
Page 6
August 29, 2008
as usual, most of the issues have been vetted through the transmittal
hearing process, though as you are aware from your staff report, that
there are some -- there is some new information for two of the
petitions, in particular, CP-2006 (sic) and '7, excuse me, 2006, '7, and
'8, which will warrant some discussion.
And finally, once the hearing is over, as always, we would
appreciate, if you do not wish to keep your binders, that you leave
them on the dais and staff will pick those up. We can reuse those for
the county commission hearing and then subsequently for transmittal
to the Department of Community Affairs and other state agencies.
Moving right on into the staff report, and I'll be brief, Mr.
Chairman, then we can move right into the first petition.
You held your transmittal hearings on these petitions back in the
spring, back in March and April -- excuse me -- and at that time you
had seven petitions before you. Now you only have five. The two
that are not part of the adoption hearings are the two petitions that
were located in the rural land stewardship area, one east and one west
of the community of Immokalee. One of those was continued at the
transmittal hearings by the Board of County Commissioners until the
next cycle. That was CP-2006-9.
And then the other petition, CP-2006-10, at the request of the
applicant, is not going forward for adoption at this time. So we only
have five petitions before you today for the 2006 cycle.
The ORC Report from the Department of Community Affairs
raised five objections and two comments. Some of those pertain
specifically to petition CP-2006-10. Because it is not going forward
there is no need for any type of response at this time to those
objections.
And I'll remind the commission that objections are the most
critical comments from the standpoint that if they are not adequately
addressed, they can form the basis of a noncompliance finding. So it's
important that the county adequately address the objections that have
Page 7
-------_._-~
August 29, 2008
been raised by DCA.
And the way we can address those is either to modify the
amendment, specifically change the text to respond to the objection,
we could simply not adopt the amendment, we could modify the
amendment and provide some additional explanation or information to
DCA, or finally we could not modify the amendment but provide
additional explanation and/or data and analysis to support the
amendment as it was transmitted.
And I think with those introductory remarks, we're ready to start
with the first petition. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Item #4A
PETITION: CP-2006-5
The first petition is CP-2006-5. It's the Golden Gate Area Master
Plan and a church located on Santa Barbara Boulevard.
Mr. Nadeau.
And from the county state attorney's side, do we need to do any
swearing? This is -- do we need swearing in or anything like that? Is
it required? I don't believe so.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, it's not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Nadeau.
MR. NADEAU: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, good morning.
F or the record, my name is Dwight Nadeau. I'm planning manager for
R W A. I'm pleased to be standing before you on behalf of the First
Baptist Church of Golden Gate. This is CP-06-5.
Nothing has changed since the original transmittal. There's a
3.54-acre parcel immediately north of the existing church. The
Growth Management Plan prohibits any further expansion. We're
proposing to add exception language into Golden Gate Area Master
Page 8
August 29, 2008
Plan to allow for this church expansion.
The two conditions of transmittal that were recommended by the
Planning Commission, that being a limitation of 12,000 square feet of
expansion area and the prohibition on child day care uses were
transmitted by the board. They -- we're still in agreement with that
and we request your unanimous recommendation to adopt for this
petition. May I answer any questions?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before we go too far, I thought
that the BCC denied our recommendation for restriction on childcare
because staff didn't support it. Am I right in that? Didn't I read that in
the ORC Report or one of the reports?
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, what happened was that at your
transmittal hearing, this body recommended that reference to
church-related day care be removed, that it simply say childcare is not
allowed as opposed to church-related. And you even asked staff, and I
said no objection.
I thought about it more after your hearing though and decided,
no, it doesn't make sense to do it that way. Remember that what is
being requested in this amendment is an exception to the locational
criteria. This property does not presently qualify for conditional use,
so this is asking for an exception for a church. All other conditional
uses are not allowed.
Ifwe keep the language to refer to a church-related childcare
center, I believe that's appropriate because the logical conclusion that
staff would reach is if they -- without that prohibition, if they were to
come in and ask for a church-related childcare center, staffwould say,
yes, that is allowed.
To say a childcare center generically is prohibited is not
necessary. The same reason we wouldn't list any other prohibited
conditional use. It's not necessary to say that you cannot have a
free-standing childcare center. It's not necessary to say that you
cannot have a nursing home.
Page 9
August 29, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the intent was that too many
churches automatically believe they have an accessory right to
childcare. That's a much more disruptive activity in a neighborhood
than Sunday churches are, and we were trying to limit that.
Now, if we worded it wrong and staff sat here and understood
that we worded it wrong, why wouldn't you have clarified it to the
BCC so it would have gone forward correctly so that we've got the
right argument in front of us today?
MR. WEEKS: We believe it did go correctly to the BCC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In what manner did it -- are we --
MR. WEEKS: In that staff said, time out. Please disre -- well, we
asked them to not follow your recommendation. We asked them to
insert church-related back into the amendment.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is it -- and then that's the way that it is
right now?
MR. WEEKS: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Okay. Are there any questions of the applicant at this time? And
by the way, those members of the public wishing to speak, when we
finish hearing all the presentation, I will ask for members of the public
to come up and speak if anyone so desires, so -- okay.
Staff presentation?
MR. GREENWOOD: For the record, Tom Greenwood with
comprehensive planning. We have no further comments unless you
have some questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's safe.
MR. GREENWOOD: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of
staff?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know we've been over all these in
detail and at length the first time around and we'd talked in depth
Page 10
August 29, 2008
about each issue, so if anybody's wondering why we don't have a lot
of questions, this is the second time to hear this and they were
responded to the first time.
So with that in mind, are any members of the public wishing to
speak on this issue; please raise your hand.
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No members of the public. And
then I guess that will end that issue. Is there a motion to recommend
approval as presented by staff with any staff recommendations as
defined for CP-2006-05?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made the motion. Is there
a second?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Wolfley.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0.
MR. NADEAU: Thank you, Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. That was surprisingly short.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That was fun.
Item #4B
Page 11
August 29, 2008
PETITION: CP-2006-7
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move on to CP-2006-7. This is a
change to the Future Land Use Element concerning some property on
the corner of Airport-Pulling Road and Orange Blossom Drive.
Corby Schmidt was the staff liaison, and I don't know who is
representing the applicant at this point. Ah, Mr. Yovanovich.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, let me interject that, as you know,
you have two staff reports because when we started we were not ready
for petition 7 and 8 for your 19th -- August 19th hearing. So when we
get into the discussion of the petition, you'll need to go through the
second staff report that is written specifically for petitions 7 and 8.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. I have all my tabs on the third
one.
Okay. Richard, it's yours. Are you going to be addressing us as
a stand-alone or asa combined--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I was going to address both, and I
don't know what you're going to do. I guess I'm assuming you'll hear
each individually, and if you decide to recommend -- follow through
with the recommendations you had before, you'll address whether they
should become one. So I don't know how you want to handle that,
Mr. Strain.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My question to staff would be, is if we
combine this into one as recommended by staff and it does get
approved, we did -- how do we -- how do we address that from a
hearing perspective? Because we're looking at them both separately.
Would there be another viewpoint that we'd have to analyze from a
combined effort other than what you've given us in our package?
Because you've done it both ways here.
MR. WEEKS: I think you have all you need in your packet and
in the recommendation. The hearings have been advertised separately.
Page 12
August 29, 2008
The petitions have been fully advertised completely and properly,
separately, but the county certainly has the latitude to combine the
petitions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we don't need any other
advertisement or anything else?
MR. WEEKS: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great.
MR. WEEKS: And I would also specifically mention that we --
perhaps you've noticed in reviewing, but in combined language, we've
been careful to make sure that we didn't step on the rights of one or the
other applicants.
Basically taking two petitions and almost like stapled them
together in the sense that they still have regulations applicable
separately to the two parcels. I will also note that this is not unique in
the sense that we have one or more other sub-districts in the county
where we have separate parcels, in fact, even separated by major
roadways that are within the same sub-district and have separate
provisions applicable to uses and development standards and so forth
for each of those separate tracts yet within a single sub-district.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I just had a question about
hearing these petitions today. Unlike the last petition where it had
gone through us for initial hearing, it had gone to the BCC, it had gone
to the DCA, and now we were just coming back and addressing
whatever problems the DCA had with it, this is -- these two petitions
are totally new. They're proposing different things than they were the
last time around. Is that appropriate or should they be going to
another cycle? I'm not sure.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Ms. Caron, I believe at the hearing we
went away from retail and we went to office and medical office uses
and financial institution. And that is, in fact, what was presented to
both the Planning Commission and the Board of County
Page 13
August 29, 2008
Commissioners. Both groups recommended approval provided we
provided the data and analysis to support the square footage
allocations that we're requesting, which we did provide that data and
analysis. Your staff has reviewed that data and analysis and is, in fact,
recommending approval.
So we did -- we did go through the process with the uses we're
discussing today at the transmittal hearing, and DCA did review that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: DCA--
MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- reviewed--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Reviewed our particular request of
medical office, professional office, financial institution, together with
the clubhouse for the Italian American Club.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I believe the same thing with the
other petitioner, because we did make those changes in front of you
all. We went away from retail to the office uses subject to our
providing data and analysis, keeping in mind that within the category
of retail is included office, so we actually narrowed the prior request.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. I understand what you're
doing.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there anything else, Ms.
Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Richard.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I guess with that, your staff report is very
thorough. We did -- at the last hearing you all recommended
transmittal of the sub-district subject to our providing the data and
analysis to support the need for the types of uses we're requesting.
Since -- and we've done that, and I believe your staff believes the
information is sufficient to justify the request.
Page 14
August 29, 2008
We have also met with your transportation department a couple
of times and have laid the framework for a, I'll call it -- I hate to use
the word consortium -- but a group of property owners to address
Orange Blossom Drive, issues on both the east and west sides as well
as the intersection of Orange Blossom and Airport.
And as you can see, it's a condition that we enter into an
appropriate agreement with Collier County to address any
traffic-related impacts. The traffic study was done and your staff has
included a condition that we cap our peak hour trips based on that
traffic study to 171 peak hour trips because that's the traffic study we
provided in support for the Comprehensive Plan amendment.
I have just two comments to the staff language that I've addressed
to both Corby and Nick, and they're on -- I believe it's on page 11 of
my staff report. And it's condition C.
And what we'd like to insert in that is, it says vehicular
intersection with property immediately to the south as required, and
we want to add the phrase, when it becomes available. So what that
means is when we do our site plan, we're going to plan for it, we're
going to show it. But if we're -- if one property owner's ahead of the
other, we will not hold up that other property owner, but we will be
required to interconnect when that becomes available, and that was
acceptable to transportation.
Now, if -- I'm going to jump over to the joint conditions which
start on page 23.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, for the Planning
Commission, that is under tab -- it says staff report 2006-6, 7 and 8. I
believe that's the one that we're reading from; is that right, David?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir, correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not the individual one.
MR. WEEKS: Correct.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. Well, I may have different page
numbers because I only have the staff one.
Page 15
August 29, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, your page numbers are working. I
just want to make sure -- we've got two sets of documents, and --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I want to make sure everybody was
looking for the same set.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. On page 23, condition B, the way
it's currently written, it says that if one or the other property owner
doesn't enter into a DCA with the county, the other property owner
doesn't get to go forward. And I'd like to revise that to say -- and I've
spoken to Nick about this. As long as we enter into an agreement with
the county to address our traffic impacts, we shouldn't be prohibited
from going forward because the property owner to the south doesn't
enter into an agreement with the county and vice versa. The property
owner to the south shouldn't be prohibited from going forward if we
don't enter into an agreement.
So I'd like to rephrase that to say -- instead of the word either
party -- either parcel, I would like it to say a parcel within the sub-
district cannot be issued Certificates of Occupancy until the property
owner enters into a developer contribution agreement with the county.
So that would address the situation that a parcel owner can't go
forward unless they enter into a developer contribution agreement.
And then when we go over onto page 24, D, small i. It says
pedestrian interconnections. I think it was just pedestrian
interconnection. I don't know that we have to have multiple. I just
want to make -- and all this, as you know, will also be further tleshed
out when we do the PUD, but I mean, I don't want to fail because we
only have interconnection versus two pedestrian interconnections.
And then keeping in -- to be consistent with the comments I
made on the separate -- in small double i, it should say vehicular
interconnection with parcel two is required when it becomes available.
And I would -- the same changes should be made in E for parcel two.
So with that, since -- if you have any questions about our
Page 16
August 29, 2008
particular request, we'll be happy to answer any of those questions.
This would allow us to come forward with a PUD, as you know, and
there'll be a whole new traffic study that goes along with that PUD,
and we'll know specific uses at that time should this Compo Plan
amendment be approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any questions from the
Planning Commission? Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. The basis for your square
footage, the changes in your square footage, what was the basis for the
40,000 square feet? I mean, did you just pull that out of the air or--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's the wrong -- that's not me. I'm the
34,000.
COMMISSIONER CARON: You're the 34-, I'm sorry.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. Before we had had -- it was 26,000,
because that was based on the retail.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We actually did a site plan, we did the
traffic study, we did the market analysis, and the -- and that all
supports the request of34,000. Because as you know, we were -- we
were converting 26,000, and it turns out that 26,000 of retail is not a
one- for-one conversion as far as traffic impacts, and the market study
actually showed that 34,000 was justified versus 26,000 of office. So
that's the change.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. My next question is that a
half mile down the road, you came before this board and told us down
at Naples Boulevard that there was no need for office, that that was
not a need, that the need in this area was for retail, not for office. And
so I'm just wondering why the -- why the change or did --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't remember I said there was no need
at all for office. In that particular center, it was a regional attractor
and office didn't make sense, and the square footage allocated in that
PUD to office, we certainly could not justify that square footage. And
Page 17
August 29, 2008
it was -- if I remember correctly -- I don't remember the exact numbers
-- it was a significant amount of office square footage. And on the --
based on the way that center was being developed with the types of
uses there, it made much more sense to convert that over to a retail
center and there was not a need to support -- I believe that number was
until into the 70s or 80,000 square feet, maybe even higher at the time.
I don't have those numbers handy, but it was -- it was a big number.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thanks.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I believe locationally, if you were
coming off the- road versus this is right Airport, from a visibility
standpoint; there's some significant differences between the two
properties, this project and that project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, did you have anything else?
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, that's it for the petitioner.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else?
Rich, I've got a few.
You're going to have to help me with the two different ones since
you guys are kind of being heard together but separate. So if I ask you
something about the other one, just tell me, and I'll save it. Fraser and
Mohlke did a report for which one, yours?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mine, Italian American Club.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At the direction of the county board, the
firm of Frazier and Mohlke Associates prepared a market conditions
report. Who paid for the report?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We did.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. I would assume you'd say that,
but it said that the staff report -- I wasn't sure because it said at the
direction of the county board. Usually when the county board directs
something, they end up paying for it, so I was just concerned --
wanted to make sure you would volunteer to pay for that.
Page 18
------~
August 29, 2008
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, just to interject --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. WEEKS: -- for clarification. One of the -- one of the issues
that staff had with this -- both of the petitions at transmittal hearings
was the lack, in our opinion, of adequate data and analysis. And so
the county commission, in directing that that market study be done,
was directing that they provide the necessary data and analysis to
staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. I just -- I know why it had
to be done. I wanted to make sure the right party paid for it.
Taxpayers shouldn't be.
Page 11 of the report is where I'll start, since you have the same
page.
MR. YOVANOVICH: Staff -- okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one you were starting to read off of
earlier.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Item B, it talks about the pedestrian
interconnections: Immediately to the south and to the west must be
pursued by the property owner and incorporated into the overall site
design. I'm not sure why we had the word pursued in there. You've
agreed to do it. You guys are coming through with a combined effort.
The southern property owners agreed to have the interconnection. So
as far as the word pursued, why don't we just say, you're going to do
the interconnection?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't have a problem to the south, but to
the west, as you know, is a residential project, but I can't require them
to interconnect. But I think they used the word pursue to discuss it
with our property owners to the west, and if they said no, we don't
want to interconnect, we didn't fail the Compo Plan criteria.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, fair enough.
So -- because the next paragraph addresses south being required.
Page 19
August 29, 2008
So I understand that. That makes sense then.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The third line -- actually the sentence
starts on the second line. Traffic and park areas, buildings and
structures, landscape buffering and open areas and other uses shall be
designed in a manner that does not impede or interfere with access
from the adjacent property to the south to minimize the impacts on the
surrounding street system.
What does "does not impede or interfere" connotate? And the
reason I'm asking this is, does it mean the first guy in sets the tone for
the location of the second guy's project? If you're going to be doing a
bypass road from Orange Blossom to Airport which the public is
supposed to access, obviously we don't want one that winds and twists
and does all kinds of things. We want it as linear as possible. So what
does "does not impede and interfere" mean in this context?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know that we're doing a bypass
road. We will be working with your transportation staff regarding
what the appropriate interconnection will be to provide access as --
from our property as you're coming east on Orange Blossom, you're
coming to our property, we need to provide access for whoever's
coming onto our property to get over to the property to the south, and
then from our -- people who are on our property going to the south
being able to get to Airport.
So we've got to provide that interconnection for people to go
ahead and do that interconnection. So we're going to coordinate that
with your transportation staff through our Site Development Plan
process, as well as the property owner to the south will be doing the
same thing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the language says, does
not impede or interfere with access from the adjacent property to the
south to minimize the impacts on the surrounding street system.
So if you've got two properties side by side, planning an
Page 20
August 29, 2008
interconnection that minimizes the impacts on the surrounding street
system seems to me that it would connect to the surrounding street
system and --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It will.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for use by the public. And I would
think that that then becomes more of a concern as regards to how
straight it is, how linear it is versus running and moving and twisting
around buildings and parking lot islands, and that's why I was
wondering how the words, does not impede or interfere with. And I'll
ask Nick to address that when he comes because I've got a slew of
questions for him, too.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll get further on that. Item D, the
third line -- and it talks about the intersection improvements. And I'm
very concerned about this. It says the plan must be completed prior to
the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy.
Now, we had the same condition on Naples Nissan, and they
walked. Nick was frustrated with it. The board gave in because the
economy's tight and they said, oh, they'll provide jobs. I'm not sure
what they did; not the board, but Nissan.
I don't like tying it to CO because it's too late. The applicant
comes in and cries, oh, my goodness, you're hurting all these poor
people's jobs, you know, if we can open up, we can employ 40 people,
give us an extra six months. So the CO doesn't work. It's got to be
done before that, before you can put that burden on anybody else. So
since it's in here as a CO, I would suggest something else, and I would
-- prior building permit --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: May I?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, go ahead.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry to interrupt you, but what I
would -- remember, I would prefer that we say -- if maybe we add the
words, not later than CO, because my anticipation is, is when we come
Page 21
August 29, 2008
through with the PUD, we will have that document done with the
county .
There will be -- we are working with five or six property owners
right now, and one of the parties to the agreement will be the county.
And the current framework actually is, is for the county to build the
improvements and for us to pay for them but, you know, that may
change. But that's the current framework right now.
So if we add the words not later than CO, CO may be appropriate
with adequate assurances to this Planning Commission. If you put
building permit in there, that may -- that may hamper our ability to get
a DCA done with -- because it's -- if I may, the DCA -- and this
doesn't go far enough.
But we're talking about this property owner, which is the other
Compo Plan amendment, us, then you jump over this side of the street,
there's a rezone in for this roughly 30 acres. They will be a party to
the DCA as well. This is already zoned. They're currently going to be
a party to this. Thank you.
Yeah, where was I? Okay. This property is the -- I forget what
they're calling it now.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Buckley--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It was Buckley PUD.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Sago, S-A-G-O.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So that's going to be party to this, so
there are multiple parties to it, including the county. And there are
people who are not parties to it that will be allocated a share of the
cost. And when they come through with their SDPs later, the county
will be picking up. those costs from them.
So I hate to hamper ourselves in the Compo Plan with that type of
language. If we put not later than, then you know I'm not going to be
able to do anything -- I may be able to get -- start my work, but I'm
certainly not going to CO. I'd like to be able to have an opportunity to
discuss it in greater detail at the PUD stage, not at the Compo Plan
Page 22
August 29, 2008
stage.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm going to -- Nick will have to
comment on this, too, because I do not -- after I saw what happened to
Naples Nissan, there was no excuse for Naples Nissan not putting
those improvements in. They knew about them. Nick had even
warned them when they bought the former owner out well in advance
that they needed to get that done. They ignored him, then they come
begging to the BCC for more time.
I don't like the idea of a PUD because that opens it up to the
political process, where in here it locks it in tighter. So I'll certainly
see if Nick has any heartburn over this and where he may want to lie
with it. But right now I personally don't like the idea of COs being the
trigger because it's too late by then. By then everybody's in place and
too easy to get a deference.
And E has the same similar problem. Discontinuing of any use
and physically closing off any of the existing easternmost vehicular
access drive into Orange Blossom must be completed by the property
owner before CO can be issued.
Again, it's back to the CO thing. So this whole thing could be
done before the building is going on. It would help alleviate traffic
and provide access during the construction phase of the project, which
will be slowing a lot of the interaction down in that corner of
intersection with people coming and going.
See what Nick has to say about it.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: If it helps, I don't think he's going to --
your suggested change is going to be a problem for us.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I have a question for the
chairman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir.
Page 23
August 29, 2008
COMMISSIONER MORRAY: I was unaware of the change at
Nissan. Are you saying that they literally will not in any way later on
be made to pay for the improvements?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, not at all. What happened is they
were supposed to have it done very explicitly by two layers multiple
words and the transportation department telling them to have it done
by CO.
They sold the company. When the sale was transpired, I was to
understand from talking with transportation, the new owner was even
notified, don't forget, you've got to get your road improvements done
by the time get your CO. They ignored it. Nothing changed. Nothing
happened.
They came in at CO and said, we want our CO because we have
all these jobs we're going to provide to county residents. It's a bad
market, people need work. Give us more time to do the improvements
to the road system. Something they knew about all along and they
didn't do it.
And now the road system is being improved. The work is being
done, but now the traffic's suffering. The left-hand turn lane's been
closed off and on for long periods of time. You had to route through
other traffic. It didn't need to be done that way, and that's -- if we now
see the problems that can occur and the wiggle room that is in our
system, maybe we could prevent it if we look at things like this closer.
COMMISSIONER MORRAY: Thank you for that. I needed to
understand that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under F, all principal buildings
shall be set back a minimum of one foot in the subdistrict boundaries
for each foot of building height. Why is that in the GMP? I mean,
why isn't that an issue addressed in the PUD where they normally are
because the pun is the document that's supposed to be the one
looking at these things and addressing setbacks? We normally do it in
the GMP.
Page 24
August 29, 2008
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That was a requirement of staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, you're compo planning. This is a
zoning issue. What is your concern here? I'm not -- and why -- if you
are setting the standards for zoning and setbacks, what has one foot
got to do -- how did you come up with that?
MR. WEEKS: I'll probably have to defer to Corby for the
specific language, but I'll just generally comment that, as you're well .
aware, this is -- this topic is something that comes up just about every
cycle of Comprehensive Plan amendments.
On the one hand, Comprehensive Plan being a general planning
document that's supposed to guide and direct development, it arguably
should not get down to this level of detail. It should be deferred to
.
zonIng.
If there's a particular concern, then it can be tlagged in the sense
of placing language in the Comprehensive Plan that draws attention to
it, such as at the time of rezoning, development standards will be
carefully scrutinized for X, Y, Z reason.
The flip side of it is that when we're dealing with these site
specific Comprehensive Plan amendments, it goes from general to
much more specific because we're not talking about a tax base
provision that might have applicability to any given number of
properties. It's only this property here. So by its very nature, we
narrow in to look at this single specific property here.
Also, because of the requirement to have neighborhood
information meetings where the public, you know, has a chance to
come in and hear about the application just as they do for this hearing
and the boards, again, that narrows the focus. And sometimes -- I
won't say that's the case here -- but sometimes the level of discussion
at those neighborhood information meetings gets down to the rezoning
level where people want to know exactly what uses you're proposing,
exactly what development standards; sometimes they even ask about
building colors and whatnot, things that go beyond the zoning stage
Page 25
August 29, 2008
even.
So because these are site specific amendments, just their very
nature tends to invite far more scrutiny than we might generally think
that we would see in a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Now, back to the broader issue. You certainly have the latitude,
and ultimately the board does, to impose these types of restrictions in
the Comprehensive Plan, but if you don't think it's appropriate,
certainly it's acceptable not to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm certainly in favor of adequate
setbacks, absolutely. That's not my issue. I just don't know -- if we're
getting into this kind of detail in one setback, why don't we get into
the detail on all of them? I mean, where do we limit it in the GMP?
If there turns out to be a reason why this is impractical, we're
stuck with it. It's much more difficult, rather than when we see the
site plan, we see the overall PUD submittal, and everything fits
together better. We feel more comfortable with even greater setback,
obviously, than what's here.
MR. WEEKS: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, I was just going to say, I
mean, the same goes for square footage. We limit them. Go ahead.
MR. WEEKS: Square footage is a different issue. But one of the
things we're required to do in the Comprehensive Plan is establish
development intensities, and that's where the square footages come in.
That is something we need to have. We cannot leave it open ended.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, anyway, let's -- 1'11-- I don't know
-- do you -- does the applicant have a need to see this in here?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, we don't have a need.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Something this commission
ought to consider only because it just clutters up the GMP and we
could address it strongly in the PUD, which is going to be vetted by
Page 26
August 29,2008
the public, through public notices, through informational meetings,
and that's a -- to me it seems a little more safer place to have such
language.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, one more comment; I'll be very
brief. And it goes back to what I was saying before about the
neighborhood information meetings and the reason that we require
those. It came about because of the -- I don't want to say the
complaint -- the observation, perhaps, or the -- if not complaint, by
some citizens that the type of notice that's required in the
Comprehensive Plan amendments is far less than that required for
rezoning. Historically was. They're moving closer to being the same,
but they're still not the same.
And so we would hear sometimes at the rezoning stage -- and I
suspect this body did as well -- the public showing up at the rezoning
stage and objecting to something only to be told, well, the
Comprehensive Plan has already been amended to allow this.
And, I think, again, this is where sometimes it's -- even down at
the level of development standards may come about where people are
showing up at these hearings, neighborhood information meetings or
public hearings, and expressing their concerns at the Comprehensive
Plan amendment stage, and that's why -- one reason why these types
of development standards creep into the plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Like I said, I'm not against
setbacks. I think we need setbacks. I have no problem with that. I
just want to make sure it's in the right place.
Page 20, the neighborhood information meeting synopsis.
Meeting was duly noticed and advertised, four people attended the
NIM; however, the applicant's agent was not present, nor was the
applicant.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's not me.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Wrong one.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Not me.
Page 27
August 29, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm curious to understand why they
didn't bother to show up.
I'm going through trying to sort out which ones are yours and
which ones aren't, Richard, so give me a minute here.
On page 23 that you had brought up some changes on, we're
starting with another discussion, and this one is number 11, Orange
Blossom/Airport Crossroads commercial districts. Now, this is the
suggested language if we combine them both. And rather than be
redundant, you know, I don't need to repeat my comments about the
Co.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On B. And I understand your change
and I don't have a concern with that.
So I guess we're onto page 24, same question there about the
one- foot setback issue. I don't have any problems with the changes
you suggested. Same question about the -- must be pursued, but you
resolved, not to impede or interfere; parcel two, the same. Oh, that's
parcel two. So you're not parcel two.
Okay, Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I have a question on parcel one.
Up in the first paragraph it says, existing institutional uses such as the
Italian American clubhouse. Are we -- I'm sorry, 23.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I was getting ready to ask that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right at the beginning of that first
paragraph, second line -- I'm sorry, third line, says, existing
institutional uses such as the Italian American clubhouse. Well, does
that mean we're going to allow anything? If the Italian American Club
goes away, we can put in any other club facility? I thought we were
doing this specific to these people.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You know, I don't know what our current
conditional use says. I don't know if it specifically says we can only
have an Italian American Club. It probably says we can have a club
Page 28
August 29, 2008
facility. Probably more generic.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But this is -- this is a way for
whatever you have now anyway. This is creating something new.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It would be for the new -- for the new
building it would allow use like the Italian American Club.
For instance, I don't know that we intended that if the Italian
American Club decided to cease and another organization like the
Italian American Club decided to buy the building and use the
clubhouse, that that would be prohibited. So I think that that's -- I
mean, when we go through the PUD we'll specifically have whatever
category -- I'm blanking as to what zoning use the Italian American
Club is -- we'll get that use so any -- whether it's the Italian American
Club or some other, you know, Greek American Club, they could then
come in and use that building. They wouldn't have to go through
another Compo Plan amendment and another rezone just because the
type of organization changed, because that's not a change in use.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Go ahead, David.
MR. WEEKS: Just a comment. The specific use, I presume, for
the Italian American Club would be a conditional use referred to as
social and fraternal organizations --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: -- and I would agree with Rich's assessment. But
our perspective would be that that category of use would continue on.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Would continue.
MR. WEEKS: Yes. And I would also point out that that type of
use is allowed without this plan amendment.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Exactly, yeah.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it, Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yep, on that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, maybe you can explain -- I
have one other item circled on page 23, item B. On Orange Blossom
Page 29
August 29, 2008
Drive, Airport Road intersection improvement plan must be approved
prior to any development order approval, and construction per the
approved plan must be completed prior to the issuance of a CO.
Next sentence says, as changed, as you suggested, a parcel of the
subject property cannot be issued a CO until the property owner enters
into a developer contribution agreement with the Collier County
Board of County Commissioners to pay a proportionate share of the
cost of improvements of Orange Blossom.
So are you constructing it or are you paying for it, or how does
that work?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: As I said, right now it's anticipated that
we will be paying for it, and maybe we should create some level of
flexibility that we will either be paying for it or we'll be constructing
it. But I mean, we were -- you know, we were clearly -- right now I
think we were contemplating that the county would actually be the
contractor, if you will, and we would pay our share of whatever that
construction price is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So part of the problem of this
intersection's going to be then, even if you -- even if you had a DCA,
if you're not contributing enough to improve the intersection and the
reliance is upon the county to do it, they're going to sit there until their
budget allows them to do it, which means you could have your
construction completed up and standing without the intersection
improvements completed.
And Nick is rising up to the occasion, so he might as well come
up here and explain to us what all this is happening, because I'd sure
like to understand before we have a messed up intersection.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: My hair's getting long.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your hai:r's getting long?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yeah. It's too hot.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to get it cut.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning. For the record, Nick
Page 30
August 29, 2008
Casalanguida with transportation.
Touch on the Naples Nissan intersection, follow up on that a little
bit and give you a little more guidance with regard to this project. It
worked well when the county said no everybody. You can't go until
the intersection's funded. You're right. The hiccup came with the CO
issue. So how do you get around that? And it's not an easy issue
because you have various developers at various stages of
development. They're all screaming to get going.
One idea might be that you do not get to go or get a building
permit until the project has commenced construction and you don't get
the CO until the project is substantially complete. So you don't get --
at least we have a broken ground on a project, whether it's them or us;
they wouldn't get a building permit, so there would be no building up,
and then the CO would come into the substantial completion. So it
would be kind of more coordinated that way.
So how do you go about doing that so it satisfies everybody?
Because you have PUDs in the areas, SDPs, Compo Plan amendments.
I think it'd be good to provide them an option as well as county
because you're right, if we can't fund that project, it's going to sit there.
So I think it goes into the philosophy, the idea, that maybe a
design, a permit and construction can be done by either party, the
county or the developers, at any point in time.
But those two stipulations about the building permit and the CO
stay with it, and that protects us, because funding is going to be an
issue. We've had people that say, well, what if I sit on the sideline and
let you fix it and then I come on line afterwards? And you're right, I
probably won't have enough money to do that intersection without
everybody participating.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I -- your suggestions help,
and that -- don't go away, all right. I know you like all these
questions, so while you're there, let me use the ones I had at least.
In a letter that came from the review by the DCA -- the letter was
Page 31
August 29, 2008
from Ray Urbanks at Florida Department of Transportation. It said in
the letter, DOT recommends that a traffic study be revised for
CP-2006-7 to establish that adequate capacity will be available for
project trips that will impact 1-75 and u.s. 41 in the horizon year
2030. Have you seen that? Did you review that? Did you sign off on
that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: 1-75 and U.S. 41?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what it says right here, and in the
interim, year 2013, yeah. It's right here. Did you do it or did you look
at it?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No. 1-75 and u.s. 41?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what it -- I'll read it again. FDOT
recommends that the traffic -- am I reading the wrong thing --
COMMISSIONER CARON: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- recommends that the traffic study be
revised for CP-2006-7 to establish that adequate capacity will be
available for project trips that will impact 1-75 and U.S. 41 in the
horizon year 2030, in the interim year 2013. Funding sources must be
identified for improvements required to alleviate all short-term
failures, and it goes on with another couple sentences.
, MR. CASALANGUIDA: God bless them. I mean, I -- you
know, they're asking -- they're asking me to look at traffic impacts to
1-75 and U.S. 41 in the 2030 year.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, here's where the concern is. If
this gets through the boards and it goes up as approved, DCA pulls it
out and says, where's the report that you were supposed to have? You
didn't even do it. So now we get another ORC Report back that
messes up the process again. Why don't we just do it. If you -- has it
been, Richard?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, this project impacting
1-75, to do a capacity analysis on 1-75 in 2030 is --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ludicrous.
Page 32
August 29, 2008
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- ludicrous.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a doubt in that, I don't. I
don't disagree with you, Nick. I just don't know why it was here, and I
would have liked to have heard someone respond to it is simply where
I'm going.
COMMISSIONER CARON: They--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: The situation is though that you
needed to respond to it, whether you did a study or not, you need to
respond to why you're not doing a study for it, I think.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think the response is -- needs to be
toned down a little bit, but, you know, it's a recommendation but--
you know, that we think that that's -- you know, that's an unnecessary
expense to a property owner to go do a study --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and they've actually talked about
why they asked for it in this report. This is going to have to come back
on consent anyway. Between now and the consent, could you provide
a response to this FDOT letter that could go with the adoption process
if it gets --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think the applicant's traffic
engineering coordinator (sic) should provide that response because --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't care who responds. I'm
just saying --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I want to make sure that they're aware
that they should, you know --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Do you agree that it's silly?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I agree that it's silly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm sure that Mr. Urbanks will
appreciate that comment.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You know, if what they're asking for
is us to do a capacity analysis on 1-75 from this project's traffic, that's
-- that's, you know--
Page 33
August 29,2008
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Miles and miles away.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'll respond.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Again, all I wanted you to do is respond
to it. We want to cross the T's, dot the I's. We want to do everything
that's required to get this off our plate if it needs to be.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner Strain, we'll go ahead and
provide that response. I just wanted to be sure when we provide that
response transportation agreed with that response, and it sounds like
they do, and I hope you agree that that's an appropriate response, that
that's a little overkill for this particular project.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to tell you something. I have the
utmost faith, in Nick's abilities. And so if Nick says it's silly, then you
can write a letter that says, this is silly, and I'll accept that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Signed by Nick Casalanguida.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Nick, by the way, this same thing
is said for CP-2006-8. The same language, the same paragraph is put
in the FDOT report involving that one as well. Again, I'm not -- it just
needs to be responded to.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll work with Rob Price, their crafting
engineer, to craft a response to that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHMIDT: Corby Schmidt, comprehensive planning
department. Just to note, the official objection from the DCA doesn't
include that requirement. Those are requests or suggestions from the
Florida Department of Transportation. They're not part of what DCA
is asking us to respond to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand.
MR. SCHMIDT: All right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't care who it was from. If it was
from a member of the public or anybody, we should respond to it.
Page 34
August 29, 2008
That's what we're here to do. And if an agency is -- asks a question,
simply respond to it. I'm not saying they're right. I just need to get the
response on the record.
On page 2 of the transmittal hearing, this -- there's another
paragraph that says, prior to adoption hearings, prepare and submit to
staff a unified analysis, design, funding, and construction plan for
Orange Blossom Drive, Airport Road intersection improvements.
Such plan must be approved prior to any development order approval,
and construction for the approved plan must be completed prior to any
Certificate of Occupancy.
Now, that was prior recommendation. But prior to this hearing
today, prepare and submit to staff a unified analysis design and
funding and construction plan for Orange Blossom Drivel Airport
Road intersection improvements.
Nick, have you gotten that?
MR.CASALANGUIDA: They've met with us twice, they've
hired an engineer, Rob Price, and a design engineer, and they're
working on that now. I have not received that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have not received it. Well, then I
believe by the time we get to the consent agenda, we're going to need
to understand if that's been accomplished because it was a prior
stipulation that BCC approved. So subject to the following text -- it's
on page 2, Richard.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Of the staffreport?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I would say -- here's what we've
done and I think we've done it. We have provided a combined traffic
analysis with all the properties I discussed, including properties that
have said they're not going to be part of the funding. So we do have --
we've done a combined traffic analysis.
We've met with Nick and his staff regarding who's going to pay
for it. And what we haven't gotten down is to what's the county's
Page 35
August 29, 2008
share of the funding, because some of it is background traffic not
related to these projects.
So we have submitted a funding -- a plan. We've identified on the
-- at this level the proposed fix, and now we're now going to the next
level of actually designing the fix.
So I think we've done all of those things that are required in
meeting with your staff, and we will have the final documents done
prior to the development order stage.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, all I want to see by the consent
agenda is acknowledgment from Nick that the following has been
accomplished, that prior to the adoption hearings, prepare and submit
to staff a unified analysis, design, funding, and construction plan for
Orange Blossom Drivel Airport Road intersection improvements.
When Nick comes to us on the consent agenda, ifhe says that's
been accomplished, then I'm happy.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: What else do you need?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All this stuff took place on March 17,
2008. We've had multiple months in which this all could have been
worked out. I don't know why it hasn't.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I thought it had, to be quite honest
with you, because we've worked with Michael Green as -- in detail
about doing the trips and we've identified what the potential fix should
be, and now we've got to get into the final design. So I thought it had
been done.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't need a final design. What was
said -- and I remember being at the board hearing -- we'd have a
concept plan and a cost so we'd be able to say to anybody that was
reviewing this petition, this is what the fix is going to look like and
this is a rough estimate of what it would cost so we'd have an idea of
the funding plans to say, either the developers will fund it or the
county will, but they wouldn't get to go based on those two
stipulations we talked about. I don't have that yet, and they're working
Page 36
August 29,2008
on it. So once I get that -- and I'm not sure it's not a lot of work. They
can probably get it by --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Rob just told me by next week.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Nick, I would suggest, and
Richard, don't schedule the consent agenda review until number two is
accomplished to the satisfaction of transportation department because
that's what it was put here for.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. I understand. I'm sorry I
misunderstood.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm looking for any more questions for
Nick. Nick, on this road, this interconnection, and I'm talking about
page 11, item C, the interconnection with the property immediately to
the south is required. It says, does not impede or interfere with access
from the adjacent property to the south to minimize the impacts to
surrounding street systems.
What was your belief that this paragraph would have led to?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would have led to unified or
coordinated access points and shared driveways would be designed so
that when you say minimize impacts, this strongly states that it be
functional like we talked about. It wouldn't be circuitous. And that
would, you know, allow these people to approach the intersection and
leave the intersection, not that it be one of those driveways they you
can't get out of, formed an S curve, went through a parking lot, and
came around.
So how you deal with it now in compo planning is difficult. I
think the language is not so bad that when you get to PUD, you start to
refine it. Our concern is that the developer to the south isn't ready to
go. I think you bring him into the talks when the PUD is here and get
him to agree to or work with us to get a concept plan done. But at this
point in time it's hard to define what that's going to look like without
getting the two parties together.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you don't have -- the
Page 37
August 29, 2008
language -- you feel you can get what you need out of this PUD when
it comes forward based on this language in the GMP?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe so.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the part I'm concerned
about. Thank you. Those are the only questions I have of the
applicant and of Nick.
Does anybody else have questions of either one? Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I have questions for Nick.
The fix that you're proposing, Orange Blossom and Airport, what is
that fix actually going to do?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It will reduce the travel time through
that intersection hopefully, and it will --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. But will it prevent Orange
Blossom from failure?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, intersections kind of gate your
roads. I mean, a two-lane road, Orange Blossom, with very little
friction is going to be held up by that intersection. So will it fix
Orange Blossom? The level of service that's set in our AUIR for
Orange Blossom is a threshold amount. The trips that would come on
are probably going to exceed that.
But my idea would be to maximum that intersection
improvement so that you'd be able to approach that intersection and
can clear that intersection as quickly as possible. So it's kind of a
vague answer.
Will it meet the level of service standard for Orange Blossom?
No, probably not, but it will greatly improvement the capacity of that
intersection, hopefully, when we're done.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Because right now it looks like
you're looking at, in the p.m. peak, our LOS of E.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: On a two-lane facility, I mean, it's a
low -- it's a number. The problem is the intersection and how do I
maximize that intersection with right-of-way constraints? The
Page 38
August 29, 2008
concern I had when we met with the folks was, if the developers do
what they can't condemn or purchase right away, it would have to be
done by the county. I don't know if I can fund it all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But this is with the fix.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct, yeah. But again, you're
looking at an LOS-E of the two-lane facility, and that's deceiving a
little bit. That intersection is going to be a problem. You're going to
notice -- if you drive down Orange Blossom, you're not having a
problem going out on Orange Blossom. You're not bumper to
bumper. When you get to that intersection, that's the chokepoint.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Not right now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No one else has anything of the
applicant or Nick? We'll have -- transfer to staff, if they have any
comments. I'm not sure who the staff person was on this. But Corby
or Tom. Looks like Corby.
MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you, Commissioners.
Just a few things of note because we've discussed this already
this morning, and you certainly have been through the transmittal
steps, and here we find ourselves at adoption.
Keep in mind that you're finding your information in a separate
staff report. You've already been through that. But the transmittal
recommendation was very different mainly because we did not have
or we did not see the data and analysis to support that initial request,
and we've been through iterations of this request or these requests
since that time.
And when you originally saw the application for some 26,000
square feet of retail businesses and services and offices, that was very
much different than what finally came to you at transmittal as, I
believe, the 12,000 square feet -- I'm sorry -- a reduced amount of uses
along with a square footage in this case.
What the DCA saw is what was transmitted to them. It was the
Page 39
August 29, 2008
low number or that 12,000 square feet of offices and services along
with the somewhat confusing original data and analysis for the full
50,000 square feet of retail businesses, offices and services, the full
mixture of the original proposal. That's some of the reasoning behind
why the objection and their recommendation for the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, you're a little hard to pick up.
MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you. And that's some of what's behind
their objection and recommendation for the new data and analysis, and
that was provided to staff and that is part of what is part of your
packets.
The new data and analysis was based on the same information
that you are looking at now, the full square footage of the uses that
you're considering at this time.
So -- and the ORC response, although there may be some
portions you suggested to change that had to do with traffic, the data
and analysis is sufficient to cover what is now being proposed, and
that should address DCA's concerns, and that's always something the
staff thinks about.
One of the other items I wanted to mention is we've noted those
minor changes to the language that occurred since transmittal when
you saw this last and before it was prepared or as it was being
prepared for these hearings. Those are minor and only if you have
questions about them will I address them individually.
Other than that, I'm available for your questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just have one general question before
we get into specifics. When there are stipulations made in a prior
meeting endorsed by the BCC and sent forward, whose job is it to
follow up to make sure that they're implemented?
I'm concerned that this design of the intersection and this whole
effort that we went through to make sure that was addressed; it didn't
get addressed. I know you don't do that. But where would you have
expected that to come from to your department before it came to us so
Page 40
August 29, 2008
that it could have been approved, reviewed, and adequately given to
us in the package?
MR. SCHMIDT: Well, it would have been by us as well, but
those individual staffs responsible for those reviews would have
verified or will verify for you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just want to make sure that it
gets routed to the right departments, that it gets looked at. I don't
know why it wasn't picked up. I don't know where that lies, but
regardless, I want to make sure it gets addressed properly now.
Anybody have questions of staff at this point?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, 'Corby.
Is there any members of the public that wish to speak on this
petition?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's start with Mr. Kant, we'll
move to the gentleman in the blue-striped shirt, then the fellow on my
right will be last.
Ed, come on up and introduce yourself.
MR. KANT: Mr. Chairman, I'll wait and hold my comments
until after the other petition is heard as well because -- and I don't care
--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you're going to have to use the
mike if you're going to go too far with your request, but yes, you can.
MR. KANT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, do you want to make sure
comments now or wait? You're welcome to come up if you want to
make them now.
MR. GARBO: Thank you, Commissioner. John Garbo. I'm the
president of the Orange Blossom/Pine Ridge Community Alliance.
And my comment will really go towards both because I need to go
work for a living, so I'm going to take off here shortly.
Page 41
August 29, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Don't blame you.
MR. GARBO: The biggest issue that I think we see -- and our
organization is made up of all the neighborhoods, all the communities
on Orange Blossom Drive west of Airport Road, and our goal really
is, is to make sure that that corridor stays the way it is as a beautiful
two-lane facility.
The real issue that I think I'd look at here is, is that there's a
stipulation that right turnouts are made going into and out of the --
both of these projects. There's a driveway on the south -- sorry, on the
west end of the property that I think right now would allow somebody
to cut across Orange Blossom as if they were going to the library or
west on Airport. And for those that have been around since there was
one traffic light in Naples and we could cross 41 at any intersection,
we know we can't do that today.
And I know it kind of hurts all of us because we have to go down
the street and turn around and come back, and I realize it could
actually hurt these projects as well for people in my neighborhood or
myself that want to go in, they'll have to turn around and go all the
way around to get back home.
Well, that's what we have to do when we have a community like
Naples that is, you know, still growing and has a lot of beautiful, you
know, aspects to it. So I would ask that that stipulation be made in
both of these.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that stipulation, just to be clear,
Nick, I would probably like to ask you to come up and comment on it.
I want to get everything as detailed as possible. This is the last chance
we're going to have to hear this.
So if I'm understanding this correctly, there's a driveway entrance
on the west end of the property as it abuts Orange Blossom Drive right
now, and it allows people to make a left out of there onto Orange
Blossom.
MR. GARBO: Correct, yes. That's it.
Page 42
August 29, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is that intersec -- is that
driveway going to be -- or that median going to be cutting off that
driveway from having that done in the future, Nick?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It may. The issue is going to be that
intersection approach and what that final design looks like. If there's
two turn lanes there or the lanes open up to allow for more than one or
two lanes to approach that intersection, you may want to put a median
separator in there. And I don't know that yet until we get a design.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's a design that hasn't gotten to
you yet that now it will get to you before consent?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, but it still will be a conceptual
design. We're going to -- speaking to Mr. Kant, what the good idea is,
is to take this through the public process as well, too. I think maybe
one of the other ideas would be we'd treat this as a project that goes
through a 30, 60, 90 review process with the public meeting so
everybody's aware of what goes on.
In your urban area, you're going to find more and more of these
improvements are going to take place in intersections.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yep.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And instead of them being kind of
arbitrarily done without too much public involvement, we should take
them through a regular process so people are aware what goes on, and
we would take in comments like that with the design.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In the design that you're going to
get, let me ask the applicant then if they have any objection to closing
off that western entry so that no left turn can be made onto Orange
Blossom Drive out of that western entry. It's a right-in, right-out only.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is that something that needs to be
decided at the Compo Plan level? I mean, don't -- I think it would be
more appropriate to do as Nick is suggesting that we actually have a
design meeting with the neighborhood, because perhaps maybe --
maybe there's other ways of dealing it.' Yes, it may be appropriate to
Page 43
August 29, 2008
still allow some lefts out but not to go all the way across to the library,
you know. You can--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Yovanovich, this should have been
addressed when it was brought up at the March meeting. You were
supposed to bring to Nick a design for that intersection that we would
have seen. This would have shown up today. We would have been
able to discuss it.
I agree with you. A lot of times it wouldn't have normally been
done, but since it was stipulated and asked for, there's no reason it
can't be done now. You're going to do it anyway in the next two -- or
whatever time it takes to get back here for consent.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We were supposed to come up with a
conceptual plan, not the final design, which we are in the process.
And I thought -- Mr. Strain, I didn't see anywhere where we were
supposed to do a written report. We've been working with your staff
and we will finalize a written report that will address that issue as far
as what is the fix, and I don't think one of the fixes was closing that
off.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I would definitely not want to get into
access management and driveway conditions at a Compo Plan stage
because we want to go through a public meeting and we want to go
through a design review.
What they're supposed to bring back to me is a concept plan of
that intersection of the laneage, lane calls, you know, where their
water management might go erupt (sic), amount of cost of that would
be, and then we'll get into the intricate design details of access
management and, you know, how it -- a protected left or, you know, a
directional left or what would be required there.
And, again, the good idea would be to have a public meeting so
you could, you know, comment and point and say, I'm concerned
about this. Those comments are taken down and they're reviewed by
the design engineers, and we come up with the best solution for
Page 44
August 29, 2008
everybody.
But to try and get into a -- what a driveway will be today without
taking an overall look at that would probably not be a good idea.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, were you here during the
transmittal hearing?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I believe I was.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The language of the transmittal
hearing that we transmitted, that was approved -- and I'm assuming
you were at the BCC, too -- it said, prior to adoption hearings, prepare
and submit to staff. Prepare and submit. Doesn't sound like a verbal
to me. A unified analysis, design, funding, and construction plan for
Orange Blossom Drive/Airport Road intersection improvements. That
was agreed to by all parties, it was stipulated, it was sent forward.
Does that mean to you that we don't get into these details at this
level?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: To me it does because it's a concept
plan. This is what would be required to fix that intersection. And if I
was to take -- and can take a plan and say, well, I reviewed it, Bob
Tipton's reviewed it, we agree that this is fine, we would leave out the
public from review in that process as well, too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This got transmitted because of the
stipulations that were accepted. If you had disagreement with those
then, I don't know -- I don't remember hearing your strong
disagreement to those stipulations.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, I don't think it's a
disagreement. I think it's a misunderstanding. When they talked
about providing construction plans, it's a concept plan. This is what it
would take to fix the intersection.
I'm going to have to do underground utility locates, I'm going to
have to do signal design, I've got to figure out pedestrian accessways.
I have to figure out water management. That can't be done without
going through a complete design process.
Page 45
August 29, 2008
Now, what I'd to see is a concept plan and a rough cost so I can
look down and say, yeah, this is the fix. Now let's go to design.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will your concept plan take the vision
of that intersection further west than the western property line that's
shown on that plan for the subject parcel?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It may. It may mean a median
separator there that would, you know, close that off if the lane calls
require that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's all I'm asking --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- is that we see that by adoption. And
then if there's an issue with it at adoption hearing -- and where is Mr.
Klatzkow? He's gone.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Margie, are we getting into subjects that
are too much for the consent agenda and should this be deferred until
that plan actually gets to us so we can review it before we actually
vote on it, or is it something we can handle as we're suggesting -- or as
I've suggested then at the --
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, I think what you may want
to do is set it right now for the consent agenda, and once you have it --
I'm just trying to think of the process where you could -- you know, if
you had additional questions, you know --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We could open the meeting up for
discussion.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: -- then you could open it up during
the meeting for discussion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: So in that case, if it's all part of
this, you -- instead of, I don't know, acting today, you might want to,
you know, continue your vote on this till that meeting in case you
want to, you know, discuss that plan and open it up.
Page 46
August 29, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then we could waive the
consent if we had all the detail at that meeting and we felt it was
inadequate.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Well, you'd have to motion to have
it taken off consent and --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: -- put in a continued part of the
meeting, and then you could just defer, you know, your vote until that
time. That may be the safest thing to do, because I could see where
you may have questions once you look at it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Can we vote on it today and
then open it up at consent or --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, she's saying we can, but it might
be more efficient just to do everything today, stipulate everything, and
just review it all at the consent. It's typical to do the --
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: And I--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- voting at the consent. Continue it --
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And don't bring it back at the
consent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we'll put it first up on the agenda so
it would be early in the morning if we can get it over with so people
can go to work, but that may resolve part of the questions and
concerns we have here.
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: My only issue is if you vote on it
today and you haven't seen that and it's on consent and you want to
talk about it, is how do you get it out of there when you've already
voted on it? That's my concern.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, understand. Thank you.
Mr. Weeks?
Thank you, Margie.
MR. WEEKS: So my understanding is the possible action that
Page 47
August 29, 2008
the commission would take would be to further discuss this and then
ultimately continue this until your next hearing, I believe, September
4th.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever date that is, yeah.
MR. WEEKS: Okay. And that would be assuming that the
applicant would have the necessary information to staff by then. But I
would ask the commission -- you've already had some discussion
about changes to the text for whatever changes in a straw vote that the
Planning Commission would wish to take, staff could then try and get
that consent.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I was going to go there. But I
want to finish with the public speakers and any further comments that
this gentleman has, and then we'll get to that issue.
Anything else you wanted to bring up?
MR. GARBO: No. So as I understand it then, there's going to be
another meeting, public meeting to discuss really the intersection and
how that's going to get designed; is that what I'm hearing?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when this came through
transmittal in March, we had asked that some of the design be
originated now, prior to this hearing. It didn't happen. It needs to
happen.
We're going to basically come to a conclusion on most of the
items today, but we're going to have another meeting in which we
normally do. It's called a consent meeting; however, this particular
meeting won't be just consent. It will be -- we'll continue the final
vote to that normal meeting. At that meeting they'll do a final vote
and a consent at the same time, but that would most likely be
September 4th, and it would be one of the first things up in the
morning. That part of the agenda would -- and in those meetings, it
goes very fast, so you wouldn't have to sit here and wait for very long
periods of time.
MR. GARBO: Okay.
Page 48
August 29, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any other issues you had or your
neighborhood had with this?
MR. GARBO: No. I think that was one of the bigger ones, and I
think Mr. Kant and the other gentleman might address some other
issues on the second round.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great.
MR. GARBO: Thank you --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The gentleman in the blue shirt, if you
want to speak on this one, please come up to the podium; otherwise,
you can speak on the second one as well.
MR. DAY: Good morning. My name is Tyler Day. I'm the
former president of the master association at the Villages of Monterey,
also am a vice-president of the Orange Blossom Community Alliance.
One of the concerns that John has spoken of is -- of the rest of the
group as well. We had a neighborhood information meeting last night
that was put on by the presentation group here which raised some
concerns, one of which John has talked about.
It was noted that there could be a north/south road that would go
behind the Italian American Club that would exit out onto Orange
Blossom. Orange Blossom, as you know, services roughly 6,000
residents along that area, and we are greatly concerned with regards to
safety there.
And I would like to reinforce what John said, that the importance
of the right-in, right-out, rather than crossing Orange Blossom to
create a safety problem, is what the community wants.
And I have not much more to say than John has. But it is very,
very important that the safety factor on Orange Blossom, with all the
traffic that's there, not be enhanced through some incorrect road
. .
reVISIons.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for your comments, sir.
We will be going -- before -- I guess before we summarize,
David, since this should probably be looked at as a combined effort,
Page 49
August 29, 2008
we'll give you all our comments after we hear the second one, which is
CP-2006-8.
I think we've heard all the public comments, the commission's
and staffs and applicant's on this issue. Let us take till 10:05. We'll
come back and go into 2006-8 at that time.
(A brief recess was had.)
Item #4C
PETITION: CP-2006-8
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If everybody will please resume
their seats, we will continue with the next item on the agenda, and it's
actually a companion item to the one we're talking about now, 2006-7.
This is CP 2006-8.
Mr. Vigliotti isn't here. Mr. Vigliotti, where are you? Speak of
the devil. 0 kay.
Mr. Nadeau, you may start. You probably know some of the
questions we're all going to hit you with, so hopefully you'll resolve
those in your presentation.
MR. NADEAU: I will try to, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, again, Dwight Nadeau, for the
record. I'm planning manager for R W A. I'm representing the Karate
Airport Inc.'s petition, CP-06-08 for the Airport/Orange Blossom
commercial sub-district.
As you were aware, there were several changes in the proposed
sub-district wherein we had previously had a senior housing developer
that was under contract to purchase approximately four acres of the
property. Unfortunately that contract negotiation did not go so well,
and so we have made a request that that be changed to 40,000 square
feet of professional office with the opportunity for the senior living.
The transportation analysis prepared by TR Transportation
Page 50
August 29, 2008
identified similarly to the Italian American Club's petition where
there's a limitation on the p.m. peak hour net new trips associated with
the project. And for this project, it's 203 trips. This would equate to
30,000 square feet of medical office, 6,000 square feet of general
office, and the potential for a 4000-square- foot drive-through banle
Now, we did have our original neighborhood information
meeting on February 6 of2008, and with the changes, it was
appropriate that we have another hearing, another neighborhood
information meeting. It was scheduled for August 8th.
I was pleasantly in Mexico. My client was in Michigan and there
was a big storm up there. He was not able to tly out of Michigan to
attend that neighborhood information meeting. On behalf of my client
and to the public, we apologize for that.
We did advertise and conduct another neighborhood information
meeting last night, which was referenced by one of the speakers. Mr.
-- Planner Schmitt has provided you with a synopsis of that meeting.
And the focus of the discussions as you've heard this morning related
to the access to the Orange Blossom Drive intersection, lands to the
west and the intersection improvements.
Weare in no objection to the restrictions that had been applied to
both the unified sub-district and ours as considered as parcel number
two. We embrace the changes recommended by Mr. Yovanovich and
those comments made by the commission.
With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might
have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions of the applicant at this
time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going through your neighborhood
informational meeting synopsis right now, so before we're done with
staff, I may have some questions. I don't know about the rest.
MR. NADEAU: Yes, sir.
Page 51
August 29, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, at this point -- oh, Mrs.
Caron. I'm sorry. Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER CARON: On page 25, triple "I" says, all
principal buildings shall be set back a minimum of 15 feet. Was that
-- was that based on the assisted living?
MR. NADEAU: Well, actually -- from my perspective when I
write a Growth Management Plan amendment, I'm also looking at
compatibility issues, and given that there is the potential for taller
structures on the subject property, and in consideration of the Carlisle
to our west, we were -- we offered up the one foot for every one foot
of building height setback. The minimum setback is 15 feet. So it
was a compatibility issue. It was identified in several other sub-
district languages.
I did not find that it was inappropriate. It's very uncommon that
we do have development standards in Growth Management Plan text;
however, compatibility issues were embraced by staff, and so we have
no objection to that setback standard.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, did you have anything else?
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, not right now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No? Okay.
Dwight, I've found some more notes. In the package that is
specific to your application, there was additional information. And I
don't know how to described it. And one of them is, it says, basis for
approval, Airport/Orange Blossom commercial sub-district GMP
amendment.
Page 1 -- and actually I'm going to have my question on page 3.
And I'm not sure if you're familiar with that document or not or you
have it.
MR. NADEAU: Yes, Mr. Chairman, please proceed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, who did the document?
MR. NADEAU: It was prepared by RW A.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was it supposed to be a market study?
Page 52
August 29, 2008
MR. NADEAU: We did have a -- both a market study and a
commercial demand study. I think there's been three studies done
through the history of the petition.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the first paragraph on page
3 it says, second to the last line, currently the office allocations below
the minimum desired level of 2.0. Now, when I see things like that I
always wonder who sets the market level of2.0. How was that
established?
MR. NADEAU: Okay. The information related to this
paragraph was derived from a report prepared by Fishkind &
Associates. I do have Mr. Russ Weyer in attendance. May I bring
him up to try and address that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, yeah. We go -- we've been round
and round on this before.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I get tired of asking.
MR. WEYER: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, for the
record, I'm Russ Weyer, senior associate with Fishkind & Associates.
Generally when we're looking at long-term planning, and
understanding when we do these market studies, we have to take into
account not only lands that, A, are in existence, also, B, lands that
have been approved for that particular use, and, C, lands that have the
potential for that use.
So generally when we -- when we do that analysis -- and this has
happened with reports we've sent to the DCA in the past -- they look
for a market application of roughly two to one, and they look that out
for a planning period of2030, and what that allows is that -- it allows
for flexibility in the planning as they go forward to allow those lands
to change. As you get closer to 2030 and you get closer to build-out,
that allocation ratio comes down.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, your statement that -- and you say
it twice -- any ratio below the minimum desired level of2.0 warrants
the addition of new office land to the market.
Page 53
August 29, 2008
MR. WEYER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That 2.0--
MR. WEYER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- do you have a text document that
that's stated in showing how that number came to be? Because if you
go to Atlanta, Miami, Los Angeles, New York, and you want to set a
ratio for a market demand there, it would be a heck of a lot different
than what we demand here.
I'd like to know how that ratio is tailored to our local area, and I
haven't seen that, so I'm asking you for it.
MR. WEYER: Mr. Strain, I will provide that for you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Remember the Silver Strand out
in Immokalee?
MR. WEYER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You said the same thing there.
I've never seen anything from you.
MR. WEYER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That one's coming up, too.
MR. WEYER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you might want to go back and look
at your transcript and give me the stuff I asked for because I'll ask for
it again, and if you haven't got it again, we've got a problem.
MR. WEYER: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this one's going to come back to
because we're going to, apparently, have this heard with the other one
on a continued meeting. Please, before that meeting, would you get
me that information? And I don't want 300 pages. I want the portion
that tells me how the 2.0 was derived.
MR. WEYER: Right. I will do that.
COMMISSIONER MORRAY: Mr. Chairman, I assume you're
speaking for all of us in that regard?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If all of you want it, then I think that's a
Page 54
August 29, 2008
great idea.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I think whenever you ask for
something, we ought to be able to have the opportunity to see it as
well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not stopping you from seeing
it, Mr. Murray. If you want it, you can have it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're acting as a chair here,
and I'm asking you to make sure we all have the same opportunity.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, Mr. Murray. I'm asking the
question. And the applicant sends it to staff, staff can do what they
want with it. I want to make sure I get it, that's all.
Some of the questions have been answered so I'm trying to get
past those.
That's it. That's the only one I have.
Anybody else have any questions of the applicant at this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll ask for staff
presentation.
MR. SCHMIDT: Again, Corby Schmidt from the
Comprehensive Planning Department.
This is the second two of somewhat similar petitions, so I'm not
going to give additional detail at this time. Certainly I can answer
your questions; however, I would like to mention and expand on some
earlier comments I did make, just to point out and remind you that this
is -- or this petition is the subject of an ORC, objection and
recommendation, and part of your staff report includes the staffs
response to that ORC objection.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions of staff, any
member of staff at this point?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Corby.
MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you.
Page 55
August 29, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And David, I have a list of six items that
we've discussed, and I'll read them off. If the Planning Commission
members have any concerns, objections, or clarifications, now's the
time to do it. And then we'll have this come back, I would assume
then, on the -- whenever we can get it scheduled for consent.
Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Kant, good point. Thank you. Is there's
anybody else besides Mr. Kant that would like to speak to us on this
matter?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ed, see what happens when time
goes by? I forget already.
MR. KANT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, my
name is Edward Kant. I reside at 1910 Mission Drive in the Villages
of Monterey, which is immediately off of Orange Blossom near the
Goodlette- Frank end.
I am secretary of the Villages of Monterey Master Association;
however, r want the record to reflect that my comments this morning
are my own. I represent myself and no one else.
And I want to also make clear that I'm not up here to speak in
objection to this CP, Comprehensive Plan amendment, either of them.
I recognize that that land can't lie fallow. I also recognize that the
Italian American Club has a zoning problem that they have to resolve,
and this is the first step toward doing that.
I want to make sure that in the ultimate resolution of how this
property develops, that the impacts on our surrounding neighborhoods
are fully explored. Toward that end, I have several items. One is the
addition of 74,000 square feet of office including medical office,
including the possibility of banks, and I think somebody said
retirement or elderly type housing.
My concerns with that are only to the extent that we've lived
through this already, the intersection of Vanderbilt and Airport Road,
with the offices that are near what's now, I think, called the Collection,
Page 56
August 29, 2008
but it's up behind the CVS there, where they came in as general
offices, they wound up with a plethora of medical offices and had a
real serious parking problem. And so I think that you need to be
aware of that. And I know that there is some potential for medical
offices in this site.
Also, the idea of the banks. I was able to catch a glance at the
traffic study. And I take no issue at this point because I haven't really
read it in detail. And for the record, some of you know me but some
of you who don't need to know that I have, I believe, the credentials to
stand behind my remarks with respect to anything I mention on traffic
or transportation.
And one of the things that caught my eye was the fact that it
mentioned that the county allows for up to 50 percent reduction in
bank traffic for pass-by traffic, and that that 50 percent reduction was
taken, I believe, in that traffic study.
My only concern is that that's probably not a good practice to
make a general rule to simply apply the full 50 percent. If that's going
to be a Bank of America, Wachovia, yeah, that's probably not
unreasonable. If it's going to be a Partner's Bank or a Hutchinson
local bank, or even a Northern Trust private bank, then maybe that's a
little bit generous, coupled with the fact that while we really need
another bank in Naples, both of these properties allow for future
banks.
So I think that that needs to be considered. And I realize that this
is probably something that should have been brought up early at the
very beginning in the very first meeting. Unfortunately, I missed that
first meeting.
I want to also make a comment. There was some discussion
about the intersection of Orange Blossom and Airport and the concept
plan or the unified plan as it's stated in the documents. My experience
over the last 20 years here in Collier County has been that we've
called -- when I was with the county staff, we called many times for --
Page 57
August 29, 2008
let's take a look at what's going to happen out there. We want to see
this before we approve it, and there was never any intent that that be a
definitive set of construction plans. I think it's important that you have
the concept plans, but I also think that at the Comprehensive Plan
level, it's gilding the lily to look at a set of detailed construction plans
because you have no clue as to what the site plan's going to look like.
So I just want to lay that on the table as well. Probably you might
take that in defense of staff.
Another concern that was brought up this morning which I hadn't
heard before was the issue of intersection level of service on Orange
Blossom Drive, on Orange Blossom! Airport intersection, and I would
agree, there are times of the day when that intersection almost totally
breaks down, and part of that's due to the geometry, let alone the
traffic volume.
But I think it's important, gentlemen, that you also -- and ladies,
that you also keep in mind that there is a distinctive difference
between intersection level of service and roadway segment level of
service. They're measured differently, they're described differently,
and they mean different things.
And so it is -- it's very -- I want to ask you to exercise caution in
looking at this transportation issue and not let the issues at the
intersection of Orange Blossom and Airport contaminate what might
happen on Orange Blossom Drive itself.
We are prepared to defend vigorously that Orange Blossom
remains as a two-lane road. As was pointed out, the side friction on
that road is relatively minimal. That road, except for one parcel to the
west of the Kay Lagoon, which is now -- it used to be the Smallwood,
that road's built out. The county, in its infinite wisdom, decided to
close off Carica. That, unfortunately, happened under my watch even
though I argued against it, but that's the way it is. And I don't think
that that's going to significantly ever change the character of Orange
Blossom Road (sic), and I think that -- Orange Blossom Drive, and I
Page 58
August 29, 2008
think that it's very important that we don't let the issues at Airport and
Orange Blossom spill over into the rest of Orange Blossom.
Also, I think that it's -- it's important to recognize that Naples has
a very -- I shouldn't say -- Collier County has a very limited roadway
backbone network. We have six north/south roads and six east/west
roads, and we've allowed that to happen over time. We've looked for
interconnects wherever possible.
And I think that when the -- this is laudable that these two
properties are being looked at as one Comprehensive Plan
amendment. To do otherwise, I think, would be a dereliction of your
duty and the board's duty. So I commend you on that.
I also think it's important to recognize that when we talk about an
interconnect between the two properties that we don't necessarily look
for that interconnect to be at the property line. I can name a number
of different developments. For example, go down to Naples
Boulevard, go into Home Depot, and you could find yourself out by
Bed, Bath, and Beyond, you know. It's very simple to interconnect
properties and not necessarily have the interconnections to the
property line.
So I think it's important that that be looked at. Also, we have in
the past put stipulations in Comprehensive Plan Amendments. And I
direct your attention to the Golden Gate overlay and the Immokalee
overlay, and the Santa Barbara/Golden Gate overlay where we have,
in fact, gone to the level saying, we want to control movement and we
want to control the traffic based on these future developments.
So I would, again, recommend to you the idea of not only having
right-in, right-out on Airport Road, but limiting Orange Blossom
access to right-in, right-out with a potential for a left-in but not
necessary a left-out, and certainly not a crossing maneuver to the
library.
I would also like to commend Nick and the staff for suggesting
that, in fact, the idea of the Orange Blossom/Airport intersection be
Page 59
August 29, 2008
brought as a project. I know that in my tenure with the county, we
brought a number of intersection improvement projects to the public to
get feedback. I realize that that's beyond the scope of this hearing, but
I also want to get it on the record as indicating that there is a need, I
believe, and a desire on the part of the public to know what's going to
happen out there, and not just for the 6,000 of us that live on that
street, but for the roughly 34,000 of us that go through that
intersection every day. So that's very important.
Thank you very much. I'll answer any questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, thank you, Ed.
MR. KANT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: So let's get Nick up here and have
him answer the 50 percent pass-by issue.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm sorry. I caught part of the
discussion, but from what I heard his concern was that we use the
exceptionally high pass-by. And correct me if I'm wrong, you had
said if it's a certain type of bank, you didn't feel uncomfortable about
that, but if it was another type of bank, you -- you know, it might be a
different issue.
What was probably provided in the original analysis -- and I don't
know long how long this has been in the queue. It's probably still
going through the old system. We use a pretty conservative pass-by. I
can guarantee you -- the other safety factor, I think, that's going on, is
that we're providing a growth rate to Whippoorwill and Orange
Blossom and then counting these trips as well, too, so we're almost
double counting them in the analysis as well, to a certain extent.
MR. KANT: Based on what I saw -- Edward Kant, again. Based
on what I saw, again, an admittedly briefreview of the TIS, it looks
Page 60
August 29, 2008
like there's about 374, 375, whatever it is, trips, peak hour, from these
two developments.
I know that the proposed split is something like 80 percent, 20
percent Airport to Orange Blossom. I've had a chance to look at that.
And I'm not arguing with Mr. Price's work. I mean, I know he does
quality work, but my concern is that when you look at another
300-plus trips -- and perhaps this is something I should have brought
up. I know that I'm not going to make any friends with the county staff
when I say this, but I also understand that this -- use Mr. Y ovanovich's
word, this consortium, reluctant use of the word -- this consortium
that's going to be looking at the improvements, I was told, does not
include the county. The county basically was in there, the county is
saying, well, we don't have any money.
And my position on that would have been as it was about close to
10 years ago when the library and county office was first proposed,
that the county does have a fiduciary duty to look at what's going to
happen to the future of that intersection and should be, in fact, a part
of that consortium. As was brought up -- well, my understanding is the
county is not; am I incorrect?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Before we get into conversions
(sic) between --look it, Ms. Caron asked a question of Nick. Mr.
Kant, if we need your further input, we'll call you up.
MR. KANT: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Nick, do the best you can to
answer Ms. Caron's question. Other issues that involve DCAs and
how they're legally involved in the county or not, that is not part of
this hearing today.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll get into that later. If your pass-by
capture rate and other things like that are dependent upon site plans
when you know what the uses are, you simply need to tell us that.
So go forward.
Page 61
August 29, 2008
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're conservative with our analysis
based on the fact that we've asked them to look at project trips and a
growth factor for the area. So we are a little conservative in our
analysis, and we're going to scrutinize this project, and we're also
going to go with that recommendation to have a public meeting so
plenty of people will have a chance to pick this apart and make sure
we're doing a good job on this intersection.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Are there any other questions of anybody at this point from the
Planning Commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With the commission's -- as long
as there's no objections, I'll read the items that I have. If anybody has
a concern over them, just speak out and we'll do a straw vote until -- at
least a consensus until the next time this comes forward.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Is this for the joint?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think everything is -- does the
Planning Commission agree this should be looked at as a joint
application?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's six items I've made notes
of. One is that the road intersection work will be under construction
before a building permit is issue and that it will be substantially
complete at the time of CO.
Any problems with the Planning Commission on that?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Could you please -- Chairman,
could you reference the page or --
Page 62
August 29, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's no page. It's just written notes.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well-- okay, go ahead.
MR. SCHMIDT: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
MR. SCHMIDT: That change would likely fit in stipulations or
entry B of page 23.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But there's multiple places, too, if I'm
not mistaken.
MR. SCHMIDT: Understood.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'm assuming that if you hear our
recommendations, you'll enter them into the proper location within the
document.
MR. SCHMIDT: Understood.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Everywhere.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Anywhere that it's needed. So I
don't want to limit you to just one paragraph if there's other paragraphs
that apply.
On number two, the design, permit, and construction for that
intersection, should one party want to move forward they'd be able to
based on that acceptance of that -- of the DCA.
I think there was a discussion by Nick on that issue that we
wanted to make sure there was tlexibility in the language that if the
county wasn't going to do it because of budget purposes, that is
anybody could pay for it and move forward with it, and that's the
purpose of the second comment.
The third comment is, they would address the FDOT question. I
know it's not part of the ORC report, but it is a question that ought to
be answered.
The fourth question -- fourth item is the acceptance of the
applicant's changes. They went through and talked about a few
grammatical things and a couple words additions.
The fifth item was -- and this -- I want to ask all of you if you can
Page 63
August 29, 2008
-- if it bothers you or not, and that's the removal of the setback
standard and let that come out of the PUD process.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: It can stay in.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I think it can stay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't think -- it's not a big deal
either way. I think it can stay in there.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: But they'll have more
tlexibility if we leave it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm not -- I'm just trying to un-
clutter documents, but it's up to the commission if there's a concern
with it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't have concern.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I don't either.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever, David, then your department
feels is best, why don't you proceed with that one then. I think it's a--
it's a neutral point with the commission.
MR. WEEKS: One point. You mentioned setback standards.
Did you also want to raise the height? There's a height standard as
well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, honestly, we take out one
standard, we should look at -- where's the height standard, David? I
must have--
COMMISSIONER CARON: It is on page 25 in triple "I". It has
both --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, it's just on the --
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- a setback and a height.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's -- I made a note but I didn't
ask the question. Why here and not in previous? Why not hold for
PUD? What do you all feel about it?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I don't think we need it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It gets into -- we may decide that there
Page 64
August 29, 2008
are reasons that we want to change that for some reason. I don't know
what they would be, but I know that we've discovered in the past if we
have it in the GMP, it's very hard to correct it. Even if it's for the
better, it's very hard to correct it. So my only concern was that.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I would say take it out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, I'd leave that up to the discretion
of your staff then. If this board isn't uniform on it, we'll just kind of
let it -- see what you guys think is best to do and we'll take your
recommendation, I would assume, unless someone objects to it.
Then the last item is that the stipulation that the Planning
Commission previously provided about addressing the intersection
conceptual plans or design plans, however they were worded, that's to
be done so that Nick can at least tell us he's satisfied with what he's
seeing prior to this final vote and -- go ahead.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Satisfied--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Satisfied with the conceptual
plans?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With -- that the stipulation that we had
provided to the BCC, that they accepted, that they've met the intent of
that to the extent Nick needs it done for his understanding of things.
And with -- those are six items. Richard, is there something that
we've missed?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, Mr. Strain, if I can, during the
public comment, a statement was raised regarding the methodology
for the traffic study, and it was -- it was -- the methodology that we
used resulted in the numbers that you see in front of your -- in the
Compo Plan. And I've always objected to the numbers being in here,
but I've understood. Staff was saying, well, it was based on that study.
If you reduce the pass-by, peak hour trips actually go up, which
would make sense because there's less internal capture. What I'd like
to see is, if the peak hour trips go up, that we are somehow allowed, as
Page 65
August 29, 2008
long as the improvements are there to support that increase in the peak
hour trips, to have that number also go up because there's a further
refinement to the study later on in the process.
You know, this was -- you know, at the Compo Plan you're
supposed to be much more general, you get much more specific at the
PUD, and you get even more specific at the SDP, and that's why I
originally said, why are we putting these numbers in here in the first
place, and they said, well, that's the study you did, and they accepted
that study.
If they change the acceptance of that study by saying you can no
longer use that 50 percent number, we're only going to let you use that
25 percent number, I've agreed to a number that I really -- you know, I
was okay when we accepted the methodology of the study, if you,
understand what I'm saying. If you start changing the study, now I've
got a number in here that -- if I'm making the improvements to support
the traffic, I shouldn't be limited by the change in the study, and that
came up through the public comment, and I wanted to address that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron has a comment.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. I just think that leaves the
entire thing wide open, and I'm not sure that that -- I don't think that
was the intent at all --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I'm not sure --
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- to give us some sort of--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm not trying to leave it wide open, but
there were certain assumptions in arriving at that number.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I think that Mr. Casalanguida
wants to make a comment.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: He raises a good point, Commissioner.
We get into this Compo Plan review and we -- we're talking about
access management and exact trips, and then if we reduce the pass-by
and those trips go up and that conflicts with what we have, it puts us in
a tough spot even going forward.
Page 66
August 29, 2008
To say -- and, you know, again, trying to craft language on the
fly that's acceptable to you and the applicant's not ever an easy thing.
But to say that the project would accommodate its project traffic
through the intersection design and any additional background failures
is part of that design -- but trying to say, okay, we're going to go with
X trips but we want you to reduce the pass-by and then not allow
those trips to go up, that -- you get into a whole --locking everybody
up into something that's -- it's hard to do at Compo Plan stage.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But Nick, we know that whatever
happens at that corner is a fix. It's not a solution. So to leave it open
ended, we're already going from what is allowed today on these two
sites, which is essentially three units an acre or 39 trips in the peak
hour to 395 trips in the p.m. peak hour. I mean, not limiting it in some
way to help the rest of Orange Blossom, I think, is -- I think that's
crazy .
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's not that you're not limiting it. I
mean, we're going to review that comparison of trip analysis no matter
what they do to an overall. I mean, this is what they said, it's 40,000
square feet, or whatever the number is, and they can make adjustments
within a certain amount of number. But if you start saying, I want you
to cut back the pass-by, what I'm hearing, and then lock them to that
original number, that does throw that off.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I didn't say I wanted you to cut
back the pass -- I'm just asking you how you got there.
MR. YOVANOVICH: But--
COMMISSIONER CARON: And if you normally do that, why
did you let them submit it with 50 percent to begin with?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Remember our old guidelines, we
went through a TIS review. As these things go through, they -- we
cap them unless it can be shown -- and as Mr. Kant pointed out, a
certain bank will get a lot of pass-by and a certain bank won't. And
you're not going to even know of that even past SDP. They just say
Page 67
August 29, 2008
bank.
So we try to be conservative, but then the opposite of that is, you
know, we're going to get a traffic analysis, a Bank of America which
has a higher pass-by also has a higher draw.
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's right.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: So you get into that kind of review. I
would leave it the way it is. If they can live with it, I can live with it.
That way we'll have a number that we've already kind of looked at and
we're going to scrutinize that intersection based on that without
making that reduction.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would it be reasonable to anticipate a
change in capture or pass-by rate based on what is actually built there?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: How do I go back? I mean, what do
you --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. We got a cap on the number of
trips.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How you get there could be affected by
what's built on the property.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which may affect then the capture of
pass-by rate.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But the cap came from a study.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Normally you don't -- this is the only
Compo Plan amendment that I've seen that actually has the cap in the
Compo Plan. We usually deal with that at the PUD, and frequently
we've had, okay, Mr. Y ovanovich, here's your study. Your study says
you're going to have X peak hour trips. We're going to make you live
with that through the PUD process, but at the PUD process we're
Page 68
August 29, 2008
usually much more further along in the process, more detailed.
Now we're putting it in the Compo Plan. At the PUD stage, we
will have worked out the methodology and they would have said, you
can have X pass-by is okay, and that will tell you what your trips are
and we know what our impacts are going to be at the zoning level.
We're being asked to do that now at the Compo Plan level, and we
have certain assumptions, and that's where those numbers come from.
If you change those assumptions, that number changes, and we could
-- we might be able to deal with that through -- through the developer
contribution agreement that will come at the zoning.
I don't -- if we're going to leave these numbers in here, okay, but
we've got to -- we've got to say we're okay with that methodology and
that methodology will be utilized throughout the process. We can't
then change the methodology because that requires a Compo Plan
change if it leads to one more peak hour trip.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: But it's my understanding that this
is -- the way we got here was based on your square footage, that it's an
equivalency situation here.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's uses within that square footage.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, but you have multiple uses,
so you can shift uses. So if you have a bank that's going to have fewer
__ less pass-by, then you can shift some of your other uses to
compensate for that.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I will be reducing. Our study was based
upon --
COMMISSIONER CARON: As long as you don't exceed--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Hang on; I understand. On so many
square feet of office --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Or your--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- 4,000 square feet --
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- or total trips.
Page 69
August 29, 2008
MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- of banks, and that's -- with an
assumption that the bank had a pass-by capture of 50, and that was the
number, and we're comfortable with that. But if you change that
pass-by number on the bank so it goes down to 25 -- I don't know if
it's a -- if it's a 50 percent reduction, but let's just say, that would now
mean I only get 2,000 square feet of a bank, or if I want to do the
2,000 square feet -- same, do the same 4,000 square feet, I've got to
reduce the office.
But that was -- that was not the basis for these numbers in the
first place. What I'm suggesting is, why do we need the numbers in
here at all? Let's just deal with it at zoning like we've historically
done it? This really shouldn't be a Compo Plan level decision if we're
going to change the methodology later on. That's all I'm suggesting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Nick, do you have a problem
with this? Because we're going to -- it's going to come back before us,
we're going to get at least one more bite at the apple, and we could
resolve it then. Are you okay with this for now?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You know, I am in agreement with
Mr. Y ovanovich to the extent that, we get into this type of analysis at
Compo Planning until it's refined a little more. It's so hard to deal with
this later that -- you know, we reviewed the traffic study, we're
comfortable that we can come up with an improvement that will
satisfy their trips and -- adjacent, background traffic, at least to the
extent that we're going to get a better condition in the after condition,
that to try and put a number on it at Compo Planning and specifically
tie it down is hard for us to deal with later if you change it by a little
bit.
You're going to get -- we will get another shot as staff to review
it at PUD. We'll have a design that's planned. And you know what--
what kind of safety factor is, is once we do that unified plan with the
traffic analysis, we're going to sign a trip count from that project
Page 70
August 29, 2008
before it even gets to PUD, so you'll be able to look at that and say,
this project, based on the analysis we've done, generates X amount of
trips.
And at that point in time, you're going to have a -- maybe you
will have refined it even further because we're going to have an
analysis that really takes in everything to account.
But I'm putting -- I'm getting a little ahead of myself at Compo
Plan review if I'm not just doing more ofa general review of the
project and a general review of traffic analysis.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Regardless, this project has a cap on its
transportation impacts on the road. We're not changing that cap. I
understand you got a problem how to get there. That detail will be
worked out when we get into the PUD --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and SDP's and concurrency issues at
that time, and the intersection improvements will dictate how far you
can go. I'm not sure why we're having this argument.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm not either.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Weeks?
MR. WEEKS: Well, Commissioners -- ultimately I think I have
a question for Nick. One of the requirements, specifically policy 5.1
of the transportation element, states as follows: The county
commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation
applications, conditional use petitions and proposed amendments to
the Future Land Use Element affecting the overall countywide density
or intensity of permissible development with consideration of their
impact on the overall countywide transportation system and not
approve any petition or application that would directly access a
deficient roadway, and it goes on.
Rich is right, this will be the first time that we would adopt this
level of detail, and specifically the traffic equivalency, into the
Comprehensive Plan. And our department would not support that if
Page 71
August 29,2008
it's not necessary.
So I'm building up to that question to Nick, is it necessary to have
this equivalency established in order to find this petition consistent
with transportation element, policy 5.1 and 5.2?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I don't need a number to find it
consistent. What I need -- what I need is them to agree that they're
going to do an analysis that shows that they'll fund, design -- and
design an improvement that will satisfy their traffic impacts. It goes
up 10 percent, down 10 percent, they'll have to do a better
improvement, that as long as they agree to do that before -- we talked
about it -- before building permit, it's designed, permitted, and under
construction and before they get a CO, it's substantially complete.
If you get those two safety factors in there, I will review the
improvement as compared to their traffic as we get farther down the
line. Because right now they're going to provide a conceptual design
of a project improvement based on these number of trips, and we're
going to look at it and comment on that. And then we'll make those
adjustments as we go through that process.
And by the time they get to zoning, we're going to say, okay,
based on what they purported in their traffic analysis based on public
involvement and the design that's been approved by the county, we're
going to have an improvement that will satisfy their project, and you'll
know what that is and I'll be able to answer you and say, this is the
analysis we've done.
But I'm looking at a general look at 5.1. It's a five-year
look-forward. I define a deficiency, and I think in that policy it says,
unless other mitigating circumstances are approved by the Board of
County Commissioners.
MR. WEEKS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Ms. Caron?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's like I'm doing so much detail work
at this level of the stage, I don't have all the answers for you other than
Page 72
August 29, 2008
to say, we have a problem, they agree to fix it, fund it, and not go
forward until it's done.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But Nick, there's only so many
improvements that you can even make at this. You already know what
has to be done. This shouldn't be a big secret or surprise.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, it's not a secret or a surprise, but
when they provide that analysis to me in that conceptual plan, we'll
look at it and say, yeah, that's a good fix based on -- because they're
going to have to show their product trips when they provide that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if they don't fix it--
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- they can't get approved, though,
right?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: They can't get approved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if they come in with an
analysis on the intersection that doesn't give them 171 trips or 302
trips, regardless of how they get there, they're not going to get
approved?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: But it comes in --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That may fix -- that may help
understand this because it -- therefore, section 5 of parcel 1 and 2, and
that is D5, shouldn't be in the GMP because it doesn't matter. You're
not going to get anything unless your fix warrants it, and if your fix
doesn't warrant it, it doesn't matter what it is, you're not going to get it.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So why should we give you something
that you may still not attain by the fix that you may not be able to get
to? So we'd be better off probably for the benefit of everybody, just
not to even have paragraph 5 in there and deal with that at the PUD
SDP level as we always have for concurrency.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
Page 73
August 29, 2008
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that might be the solution that
would work.
Ms. Caron, did you have any further comments?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, you know, I, quite frankly,
still question whether they actually do meet 5.1, the intent of 5.1.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, again, 5.1 says, if you define a
deficiency, they shouldn't go forward, and then they put that, unless
they provide a specific mitigation that's approved by the board.
Obviously the Planning Commission would want to make a
recommendation on that as well, too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, when they come in with their
PUD, wouldn't they have to then define whether or not there's a
deficiency and the solution, and if they didn't have a solution, they
wouldn't get approved?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think they're protected at that level
is what I'm trying to show.
Okay. Well, then to wrap up with staff, there were two things we
hadn't finished -- well, one just got added. There was one thing I
hadn't finished with, and that is, this board, and I mean all members,
including those that are absent today, will be provided that
justification for the 2.0 requirement of commercial that's in that --I've
asked of Russ Weyer.
And that last one would now be, delete item D. V on parcels one
and two, and -- as it will be subject to regular concurrency
requirements and PUD review.
Is staff clear on all this, or is there some areas that you're not
clear?
MR. SCHMIDT: I'm a little unclear about your last comments.
If we were to remove those intensity measurements where we're
Page 74
August 29, 2008
referring to a total traffic count, and in one case the 171 number, the
other the 203, that's doing two things for us inside the sub-district
language. It's identified a maximum to bracket where they're going to
be working for the specifics later when they do the PUD, and it's
talking about the mixture of uses on the property. And if you remove
those paragraphs entirely, now I lose the control over the mixture of
uses on the property.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you -- well, Mr. Weeks is the
one that just said we don't normally put this in here. If you two are in
contlict on this issue, I'd like to know who's going to dominate the day
because I don't have a problem with leaving it in or taking it out. I'm
just trying to do the right thing.
MR. SCHMIDT: I would say this, that there's no contlict. I
don't disagree that we don't normally do this. As unusual as this may
seem, it's appropriate here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you leave it in, then the debate
about the way it's enumerated in the TRI, and the transportation
consultant's traffic impact statement comes into play, and that now
brings in policies and procedure that aren't normally done at this level
and may not be known thoroughly at this level.
So if that's true, why did Compo Plan put it in here in the first
place if it's so problematic now?
MR. WEEKS: I'd like to defer this -- let the Planning
Commission make whatever recommendation you will, or if it's
neutral, as well as with the development standard, let staff, myself,
Corby, Nick, whoever else needs to be involved, discuss this further
and come back with a consensus recommendation to you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the Planning Commission wants
to do what's right in regards to the planning -- the Comprehensive Plan
and something that's equitable to a point where we're protected.
We look to you guys for that. One of you is telling us to leave it
in, the other's telling us to leave it out. Nick's trying to get the best
Page 75
August 29, 2008
thing he can for his road system, so somebody's got to come back to us
with a plan.
Mr. Yovanovich?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Just brietly in response. The Compo Plan
language specifically says what my uses can be on the property, so
there's no -- there's no loss of regulatory ability on the uses. The -- the
wild card that was thrown into this is when someone was saying they
disagreed with the methodology to arrive at that number, and when
that got thrown in there, we said, let's just deal-- I'm saying, let's deal
with that when we customarily do that, which is at the PUD.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But the problem we have is, to
take out or leave in that paragraph. If we leave it in, then you don't
deal with it at the PUD because your methodology's already
acknowledged by the fact that it's left in.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I hope so.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If the uses are defined, I do not
recommend having a trip count in a Compo Plan amendment. What
we do is tell you up front, we've got a problem, folks, when we do a
Compo Plan review.
We recommend a fix, that they don't get to go forward until a fix
is done and you get to move through the process to the next stage.
Having the numbers in there -- and if we start doing that through all
Compo Plan amendments, we're going to get ourselves in a situation.
It's not appropriate to have a trip count in a Compo Plan approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Nick, would any fix to the
intersection be associated with the type of bank that might be there?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. That's--
MR. CASALANGUIDA: And Michael Green in our office said,
Page 76
August 29, 2008
you guys, I'm getting a secondary analysis coming in because things
were changing as it was coming through. He goes, you're telling me
it's a different use. He goes, I don't -- we've looked at it this way. We
don't want you to go above that number. And I said to Michael, that's
fair because we were trying to go through the whole process of
reviewing this project.
But the idea is, you get a bunch of uses and you try and do
worst-case scenario. And what our job is, when you do this kind of
review in 5.1 is to say, if you get varying type of uses, we look at what
would be considered worst case. If you try and put in worst case,
you've got a problem.
So then you say to us, well, how can they fix it? Well, they fix
the intersection. They do a design permitting of that project. And
then you -- I would expect you to say that before you get to move
forward, you come up with a fix for the intersection, we get to review
that fix or what it's going to be, staff does, and makes the
recommendation that it's satisfactory, because they're not going to get
to the next stage until we've done that more detailed analysis.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. I want to talk general rather than this
specific item. ,On a general-- as a general statement, when you're
going through these Compo Plan amendments, if you don't think that
the road system's going to be able to handle this, the time to deal with
this is at the Compo Plan, not at the PUD level, because once you
change the Compo Plan, you've given them vested rights, and sooner
or later they're going to develop there whether or not the road
capacity's there.
All right. So before we start mucking around with the long-term
growth management we have here, you know, be comfortable in
yourself, okay, that the road system can handle it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think the suggestion by
David Weeks was to let the staff members and transportation get
Page 77
August 29, 2008
together and come back with something? David, now what's your --
MR. WEEKS: Staff consensus is remove it. I'll just make one
comment additionally. This petition was subject to an objection
regarding transportation, and that's been responded to.
I think we're covered. I think we're adequately addressing the
objection, and the staff consensus of this department and Nick's is to
remove the language regarding the trip generation equivalency.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm now concerned about the
county attorney's concern over the vesting issue on the road system
without a fix. Now I always saw this Compo Plan amendment as part
and parcel to a fix because of the other paragraphs we have that
reference a DCA having to be put together, improvements having to
be done for the intersection, and stipulations that building permits and
COs can't move forward until those things are accomplished.
And I don't know -- if those aren't enough to protect the public,
then I need to know what is. And if what is is simply we now address
transportation issues and design details of intersections and road
systems at compo level, I just want to know that.
Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: What I'm saying is that we only have so
many roads we're going to put into this county, all right, and there's
only so many intersection improvements you can do, so that there's
going to come a point in time at a particular project -- and I'm not
saying that this is the one, okay -- where they're not going to be able to
do anything that's going to achieve concurrency.
So that before you even amend the Compo Plan, you need to
decide whether or not at that point in time our road system can handle
it. There may be nothing that can be done, in which case, to simply
say, well, we'll worry about it later; no, you've given them vested
rights now. And sooner or later, they will develop.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think part of the stipulation that
went forward on transmittal that was not responded to was the analysis
Page 78
August 29,2008
of that intersection to the satisfaction of transportation.
If we could get that accomplished as we've -- as stipulated by the
next meeting -- and Nick has -- can review those documents and agree
that the fixes will generate the level of capacity needed to improve
that intersection so this project could move forward under the
worst-case scenario, then we're in good shape, and I think that meets
the intent of what you're trying to say.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: And that's why we are not voting
on it today. Weare waiting until the next time around.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So I don't know, Nick, how
intense you think this concept plan's going to get, but you better get it
clear enough so that we don't have this discussion again. So I really
hope that you and the applicant work together to get something as
concise as you possibly can.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And just one other comment. I believe
that all the conditions that are in the Compo Plan language themselves
regarding, we've got to fix our problem or we don't get to go forward,
I would think would provide adequate coverage for the county to say,
you know what, Mr. Y ovanovich, you didn't do it. So you had the
condition before you got to go forward that you fix your problem.
And let's not forget we were not asking for any exceptions from
the other provisions within the Comprehensive Plan that address all
these issues.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I think--
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. So I think you're adequately
covered by those stipulations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we're going to see this
come back, and -- so this matter, you've gotten the consensus from the
board, staff has direction on where to go, and we'll expect this one to
come back whenever those answers are ready to be rereviewed by this
panel.
Page 79
August 29, 2008
And is that sufficient at this time for this hearing.?
MR. WEEKS: We're going to need a specific date of
continuance, and I wanted to ask Nick and the applicant both if -- if
we could continue this to September the 18th, that would definitely be
our department's recommendation to allow us to stay on schedule for
the county commission hearing on the 25th. And understanding you --
this body needs to get the information, the consent agenda materials
and whatnot about a week -- no less than a week before your 18th
hearing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, don't rein us in because of a
schedule with the BCC. If this doesn't get done, it doesn't get done.
We can't -- these things aren't going to be rushed for schedules that are
-- don't have to be met.
So at this point I want to make sure that, unlike we apparently
have had here, everything is read thoroughly, analyzed, and all the
requirements are in place, that Mr. Casalanguida's office has reviewed
it, everybody else that needs to review it has, and they've not come to
us at the eleventh hour and said, gee, we just got this yesterday.
So if you think the 18th works for that scenario, then that's -- I
mean, that's fine. But I want to make sure it is, David.
MR. WEEKS: That's also the latest we can continue without re-
advertising. So our request would be, continue it to the 18th and we'll
do everything we can to make sure that we're ready for that hearing.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that acceptable to the panel?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, it is to me.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, as soon as Mr. Vigliotti--
ah, there he is.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It is acceptable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we need to get a motion to
continue petition CP-2006-7 --
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: So moved.
Page 80
August 29, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and CP-2006-8 to the September 18th
meeting, and it will be first up on the agenda, and that will be -- that
was motioned by Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by--
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: (Raises hand.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Mr. Woltley.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
Okay. Terri, are we doing okay with you? We're probably going
to take a break in about 45 minutes. Are you going to be okay with
that or do you want one now?
THE COURT REPORTER: I'm okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In 45 minutes we'll take a one-hour
lunch break. Between now and then, we have two items to try to get
done before we go into the school system. I'm not sure how long
they'll take, so we'll just kind of go through it.
Item #4D
PETITION: CPSP-2006-12
The next one on the agenda is CP-200 -- CPSP-2006-12. It's a
staff petition for the Future Land Use Element, and Mr. Green --
concerning the Margood Park in Goodland. Mr. Greenwood?
Page 81
August 29, 2008
Whoever's handling it. Oh, Murdo, hi.
MR. SMITH: Hi, how are you?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good.
MR. SMITH: Hope you all made it through the storm okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No.
MR. SMITH: Uh-oh. Had a little flooding?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's say, eight days of standing
water and billions of mosquitoes. I was up half the night swatting
mosquitoes, so it's just not fun out in Golden Gate Estates right now.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So be prepared; he's crabby.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. I'm just bit up.
MS. SMITH: Good morning. For the record my name's Murdo
Smith. I'm with the Collier County Parks and Recreation Department.
I also have Barry Williams, the director, with me here, and Vicky
Ahmad, who's the project manager, in case I have some questions that
I can't answer.
We're here this morning to discuss the Growth Management Plan
amendment for the Margood park site. This site is approximately 2.5
acres of land and it abuts Pear Tree and Papaya Street in Goodland.
I've put an aerial up there for you to see it again.
The county acquired this land in 2005 with funding assistance
from the Department of Community Affairs and the Florida Trust Act.
The parks and recreation department is requesting a change of the
Future Land Use Map designation of the property from urban
designation, urban mixed-use district, urban coastal fringe sub-district,
to conservation designation, and to update the Future Land Use Map
series. This is a specific condition to the grant that we received from
the state to pursue this designation.
The development of the site will include improvements including
playgrounds, interpretive centers, picnic areas, fishing and viewing
pier and docks, building improvements, and parking. There's no need
to do a Growth Management Plan amendment. This amendment is
Page 82
August 29, 2008
initiated by the state grant petitions.
At the last meeting the commission asked us to answer several
questions. Staff has forwarded that -- those questions and answers on
to the planning staff and they distributed them as necessary. I'll put
those on the monitor for you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to use the speaker, sir. When
you walk away from it, grab that walk-around one, if you could.
MR. SMITH: All right. Those are the questions that were asked
of us. I can go through them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They were in our packet--
MR. SMITH: Oh, okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so we've all read them.
MR. SMITH: All right. Is there any questions regarding those
questions from the board?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want to thank you for responding to
them all.
MR. SMITH: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, those were from the transmittal
and they were important questions, so thank you for your response.
MR. SMITH: Okay. That's all I have unless you have any other
further questions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions left on this
particular petition?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any -- is there comments
-- any comments from staff? I mean -- I guess you're staff, too, aren't
you?
MR. SMITH: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, does comprehensive staff have a
presentation?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Murdo, that's fine. Thank you. This is
Page 83
August 29, 2008
going be real simple, it looks like.
MR. GREEN: For the record, Tom Greenwood, comprehensive
planning. Unlike the last two petitions -- in fact, almost all of them
that you get, the result of the approval of this Future Land Use Map
amendment and Future Land Use Element amendment will simply
reduce the amount of permissible uses on the property as opposed to
expanding the uses, and there's been no really opposition to this
change whatsoever. There's been two NIM meetings out at Goodland,
and that's the extent of my comments.
Thank you very much.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions of county staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any public speakers on this issue?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Okay. Is there a motion to
recommend approval as provided by staff --
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- in CPSP-2006-12? Motion made by
Mr. Murray --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: (Raises hand.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- seconded by Mr. Wolfley.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. We're moving fast.
Page 84
August 29, 2008
Item #4 E
PETITION: CPSP-2006-13
CPSP-2006-13 is a comprehensive planning department petition,
future land use map changes --
MR. SMITH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir -- Golden Gate Area
Master Plan, and the land use recreation open space element,
economic element as well.
David, I guess that's staffs for presentation?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. Just a few things to point out about this
petition since transmittal. As you'll note on page 5 of your first staff
report, the one that does pertain to this petition in part, on page 5
you'll note that the county commission's action at transmittal hearing
was a little bit different than this body's on a few of the items. The
first has to do with the extension of the early entry TDR, transfer of
development rights, bonus that's provided for in the rural fringe
mixed-use district.
This body had recommended a period of two years, and the
county commission had some discussion about five years and two
years, and they did a split-the-difference and went with
three-and-a-half years.
Secondly, on the issue of how to treat model homes in Golden
Gate Estates. County commission chose to completely remove the
limitations for the model homes in Golden Gate Estates. The result is
those model homes will be treated the same as anywhere else in the
unincorporated part of the county, and that is, the Land Development
Code will allow a model home by temporary use for a maximum
period of, I believe it's two years, and then -- it's either two or three, I
forget. But after that time period, it's subject to conditional use
Page 85
August 29, 2008
approval. And, of course, the board has the discretion, when they hear
such a conditional use petition, of course, to deny it or to approve it
with any time restrictions they might deem appropriate.
The third change is not -- is in addition to this amendment. There
is a provision in the Golden Gate Master Plan for Golden Gate Estates
along Golden Gate Parkway, which runs from Santa Barbara
Boulevard over to Livingston Boulevard. And the provisions in the
Golden Gate Master Plan prohibit any more conditional uses in that
area with one exception. There's an existing church site that's
identified and there's an acreage figure in there of8.21 acres.
Staff has become aware through a proposal to expand that
conditional use that that acreage figure is incorrect, and the genesis of
that incorrect acreage figure is staff.
Way back when an amendment occurred, a few years ago, I think
around 2003 or '4, staff gave an incorrect figure to both hearing
bodies, and ultimately the board adopted that.
So the recommendation is to revise that acreage figure to
accurately retlect the church's ownership, which is the same now as it
was back at the time of the amendment. So we're not granting them
any additional right beyond what they previously should have had had
staff given them the correct acreage.
Some related amendments to that section -- and this is all
depicted on page 6 of your staff report -- is some cleanup language.
We have not changed the intent or the effect of the language, but we
have restructured it for clarity and for proper reference.
So from a staff perspective, this is a housecleaning change, but it
may not appear to be so minor.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't -- I have a question on -- if you
don't mind me leading. Go ahead --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, go ahead.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to get it out before I forget it.
It took me a while to find it in this massive book.
Page 86
August 29, 2008
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If I leave now--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's so much paper thrown at
us at different times here, and we've changed it around.
David, the model home one.
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm concerned about that because you
said basically they're going to remove any restrictions in the Estates
for model homes, and it falls back on whatever the LDC is for the
whole county.
Okay. The problem is, what did you -- what do you think that
means? Now, the reason I'm asking you this is, you know we have a
section in the code, 5.04.04, that pertains to model homes and model
sales centers. It has sections A, B, and C in it.
In section A it reads -- and it has language that basically says, a
temporary nature may be allowed in the following zoning districts,
and it says in the PUDs, Estates zoning and ago zoning.
Then B says, model homes and model sales centers located
within residential zoning districts or within a residential component of
a PUD shall be restricted to the promotion of a product or products
permitted within the residential zoning district or PUD, and it goes on
with three pages of restrictions.
Now, in every case that I've seen in the code, the Estates is not
listed as a residential district. It's always, you list all your residentials
then you say the Estates because it's considered part ago
The way I would read the code is, there's no restrictions in
Golden Gate Estates because it's not referenced in 5.04 B or C,
whereas the rest of the county would come under that criteria.
Can you explain that to me?
MR. WEEKS: I would agree with your reading that the Estates
is considered an agricultural zoning district, and though this really is
the purview of zoning staff, from my experience, I would agree with
what you're saying, that being a -- the Estates being an agricultural
Page 87
August 29, 2008
zoning district, not classified as residential, then those provisions that
you refer to that speaks to residential would not be applicable.
But I would also say that the board does have the discretion in
approving a conditional use to impose reasonable limitations based
upon valid concerns that they might have, for example, for
compatibility, for infrastructure impacts, things of that nature.
So that if they -- if they thought it appropriate to limit the
conditional use for model home to some specified time period as
opposed to open ended, that they have the authority to do so.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you eliminate the model home
conditions for the Estates --
MR. KLATZKOW: It's just along Collier Boulevard, the
corridor, I believe.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I -- didn't they open it up to the whole
Estates?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm looking at the package, and my
recollection from the board meeting, we're just talking about the
Collier Boulevard corridor.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Page number?
COMMISSIONER CARON: That we were.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought that's what we stipulated. I
thought they opened it up -- they're just going to take the whole thing
out.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's my recollection of what we're doing
here.
MR. WEEKS: That's correct. The board's action was to
completely remove any limitation on model homes in Golden Gate
Estates.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, okay. And what that means is,
it's going to be allowed everywhere, but the only provisions in the
LDC that would apply are A, which says, they may be allowed in the
following zoning districts by issuance of a temporary use permit and
Page 88
August 29, 2008
they may not be located within a dwelling unit or a temporary
structure such as a trailer. And they -- if it's -- so they shall not require
a temporary use permit.
David, how do we get to the conditional use? How do we get to
anything else? There's nothing else here that would trigger--
basically everybody can put a model home up anywhere with no
restrictions based on the LDC. You're saying it requires a conditional
use.
MR. WEEKS: I think I've missed something then. Is it
subsection B -- I'm sorry. I don't have the LDC -- that that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to give it to you.
MR. WEEKS: Okay. I'll put it on the visualizer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Four pages to put on the visualizer. The
only part of that whole thing that I can find that applies to this
provision, if written as the BCC suggested, would be A, because the
rest don't refer to the Estates.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Gaping loopholes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it would have been.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It might still be. Hopefully not.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's blacked out. Didn't like
that.
Chair?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Yes, sir, Mr. Wolfley.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: On page 17, while he's -- while
David's going through this, I noted some --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I got about six page 17s.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, I know, I know. It would
be --
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Good one.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, obviously the staffreport.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, of what tab, David? It's got to be
behind a tab.
Page 89
August 29, 2008
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, they kind of messed my
booklet up. But it is, you know, 13. I only have one tab here for this
.
Issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then there's -- the issue's
discussed in the beginning of the three-ring binder where we talk
about the ORC and the ORC responses and staffs responses.
COMMISSIONER CARON: The end?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then the end is another tab, and that
has a page 17 in it.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. The latter is what I'm
referring to.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARON: It's at the end.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The very last 17 in the whole book.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The very last 17 in the whole
book.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And obviously it's E1 on page
17. And it says, oh, I don't know. It's about eight lines down, starting
-- the sentence starting, no subsequent issuance of the conditional use
permit shall be for a duration exceeding two years, and then my issue
is, except that no time limit applies to property abutting Collier
Boulevard. That is what you're talking about.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're talking about--
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Mr.
Klatzkow is talking about.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, here -- yes, but that is the old--
that's the language that was originally transmitted to the BCC.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. I was under the
assumption --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They rejected that--
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Good, good, okay.
Page 90
August 29, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and said, why don't we just open up
the Estates to the -- whatever the code says in regards to allowing
model homes.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think they understood that the
way the code's written, it doesn't apply to the Estates. So if they open
it up to what the code says but the code, for the most part, out of four
pages, only two sentences apply to the Estates, we may not be
protected, and that's the issue that I'm trying to get clarified.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. Well, then you're
dealing with one of my issues.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David?
MR. WEEKS: Trying to look through this quickly, and I'm not
finding what I was hoping to find because what I -- I looked in this
LDC language, what I'm not finding is anything that says, after the
three years you need a conditional use. Now, perhaps that's found at
another location of the code.
My recollection is that in the discussion before the board at
transmittal hearings, that I help represented to them that -- as I just did
to you a moment ago, and perhaps incorrectly, that after the temporary
use permit time period has expired -- and it is three years -- that a
conditional use would be required.
So the board was under the understanding that a conditional use
would be required after three years for these model homes in the
Estates.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, David, I think since this is all one
package, I would hate to see us vote on this one package based on that
issue because I'm very dissatisfied with that. I'd rather that you came
back with a more definitive understanding and response to us.
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you're right, that sure makes it a
lot nicer, but I would also want to see specifically how the Estates is
Page 91
August 29, 2008
tied in since those sections I gave you only are applicable to
residential areas, and that would really hurt the Estates if it were to be
done as blanket as it seems to be indicated, so.
MR. WEEKS: I'll take this as direction to do two things; one is
to -- specifically, is to get to the bottom of this as to whether or not a
conditional use is required or not. What -- how would model homes
be treated in the Estates under the zoning code. They have a
temporary use permit up to three years, then what?
Secondly, not as a direction but as a comment to you, it may be
necessary as a result of what we ultimately do with this plan
amendment, that we might want to amend that section of the Land
Development Code --
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Oh, yeah.
MR. WEEKS: -- so that some of those standards that you've
made reference to do apply to the Estates model home.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I would hope that one
doesn't go into effect till the other is satisfied. So -- and I think -- I
don't have any other questions in any other parts. Ms. Caron or
anybody else have any questions?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just had one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we need to continue this one
until you can come back on the 18th with it, with the other one.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Agreed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Woltley, did you have anything
else you wanted to ask about?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Not if it's going to come back.
It was just regarding the TDRs and all. I'll wait. No big deal.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, sir.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, just one more thing I just
specifically wanted to get onto the record, and it's in your staff report,
but that there was an objection from DCA on this petition, also to
another one, petition 10 that is not going forward, regarding the timing
Page 92
August 29, 2008
of various components of the Growth Management Plan. We have a
CIE that is a 10-year time period, we have the Future Land Use Map
with a 10-year time period, we have transportation maps that presently
go out to 2025, and we were proposing at transmittal to expand --
extend those maps out to 2030, and there are other different time
periods within GMP.
DCA raised an objection and said, those time periods all need to
line up. They need to be consistent, and staffs response, as I'm sure
you noted, is that we don't have time to do that right now. That's too
much for us to try to bite off.
So our way of responding to that objection is not to adopt those
portions of this amendment that --
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And I agree.
MR. WEEKS: -- run afoul of that objection.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I think at this point, if we can
get a motion to continue CPSP-2006-13 until September 18th second
up on the agenda, that would help.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Woltley, you're making that
motion?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Second.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms. Caron. All those--
discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
Page 93
August 29, 2008
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries.
Now, we're at a crossroads. We have a long discussion on the
school process to go through, just because of the explanation and time
it's going to take to get through the detail. We can take a lunch break
early, come back at 12:15--
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- all refreshed.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd rather do that.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, I'd rather do that than sit
here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then get into it, rather than break in
the middle of it.
Tom, is that -- do you think that's okay with your people?
MR. EASTMAN: That sounds great.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So why don't we come back -- is
everybody in agreement that 12:15 --
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- is a good round time?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yep.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll take a break ti1112:15 for
lunch and come back and finish up.
(A luncheon recess was had.)
MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mike.
Item #4G
PETITION: CPSP-2007-7
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Welcome back, everyone,
Page 94
August 29, 2008
from lunch, early lunch at least. When we left off we had gone
through all the agenda items except the very last one, CPSP-2007 -7,
which is the public schools facility element for concurrency.
Before we start on the element, I found out that the school
personnel had not had the opportunity to review the packet that the
Planning Commission had received until just recently, well lacking in
amount of time that we've had.
So I want to make sure -- I want to offer them at this time the
possible request for a continuance if they feel they need more time to
review it or they'd like to go forward today. Could just someone come
to the mike and acknowledge the process.
MR. HARDY: Alva Hardy for the school district. We're ready
to proceed.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great. Thank you.
Okay. Michelle, I guess opening statements are yours.
MS. MOSCA: Yes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. For the record, my name is Michelle Mosca with the
comprehensive planning department.
As previously mentioned in the introductory comments for 2006
Growth Management Plan amendment cycle, the Department of
Community Affairs has issued its Objections, Recommendations and
Comments Report for the school concurrency amendments and the
interlocal agreement.
There are seven objections and six comments in the report that
staff will discuss with this board as we go through the changes to the
document since the transmittal hearings; however, before we proceed
with addressing those changes, I would like to provide the board and
the public with a general overview of the statutory requirements for
the establishment and implementation of the state-mandated school
concurrency program.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michelle?
MS. MOSCA: Yes.
Page 95
August 29, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know what order you're going to
follow the book in or if you are, but at what point do want us to --
would you rather wait and ask questions when you're finished with
your presentation?
MS. MOSCA: What I'd like to do is just generally again, give
the requirements so that the general public is aware, and I know Mr.
Wolfley was not here during transmittal hearing. So we'll do that first
and then we'll go through the school concurrency documents, the
double strikethrough and underline --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. MOSCA: -- element by element, if that's what you prefer to
do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In your presentation--
MS. MOSCA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- please remember we all sat through
two days of this in transmittal except Mr. Woltley. We can't go back
in time, but I don't want to sit through two days of anything right now,
and Mr. Woltley had plenty of time to read this, so --
MS. MOSCA: I understand.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
MS. MOSCA: Just generally, the program requires coordinated
planning among the county, cities, and the school district. It requires
adequate school capacity be available at time of residential impact and
that the program be adopted by December 1,2008.
The establishment and implementation of the program requires
the adoption of a consistent public school facilities element by the
local governments, amendments to the local governments, interlocal
agreements, to ensure coordination, and the establishment of a
uniform school concurrency system throughout the district.
Amendments to the Capital Improvement Element are required to
adopt by reference the school district's financially feasible capital
improvement plan.
Page 96
August 29, 2008
And finally, amendments to the Intergovernmental Coordination
Element to include provisions for continued coordination with the
school district.
Today staffwill be requesting that the Planning Commission
provide recommendations on the following documents: The Public
School Interlocal Agreement, the Public School Facilities Element and
support document, amendments to the capital improvement plan,
Intergovernmental Coordination Element, and amendments to the
Future Land Use Element, Golden Gate Area Master Plan, and
Immokalee Area Master Plan.
The ordinance exhibits included in the binder for this petition
contain the Board of County Commissioners' transmitted text to the
DCA as modified by staff to address the objections and comments in
the ORC Report or to otherwise provide for the establishment and
implementation of the school concurrency program.
And that's just my general introduction. And, again, if we could
go ahead and go through the elements one by one. The school district
staff and their consultants are here to answer any questions.
Mr. Chairman, if you would prefer to approach it in a different
fashion, that's fine as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'd like to try to keep this as
organized as possible. You gave us all a book, three-ring binder,
rather thin, only about four inches this time.
So I'd like to start with the very first tab, that's called staff report
adoption, and just work through every page that we have questions on
from the beginning to the end. And I know that three-fourths of the
book were nothing but the repetitive backup we received last time.
Killed a lot of trees to give it to us, but I'm sure we may not have as
many questions with that portion of the book as the front part.
MS. MOSCA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with that, the first item is the staff
report adoption. It's just a few pages; pages -- actually seven pages,
Page 97
August 29, 2008
one through seven. So I'd like to take any questions from the Planning
Commission at this time on those pages.
Okay. If there's no questions, we'll move right into the text of the
document. The first one is the CCP (sic) recommendation transmittal.
That is the document we previously sent, which really doesn't have
any part of changing here today. So the second -- the third tab is the
ORC response document. That is probably one of the more significant
documents. It was the one in which DCA responded to the transmittal,
and there's a bunch of changes and requests of language and
strikethroughs in there.
So if the commission would like to focus on that document, we
can move forward with that. And it's multi pages, so let's just take a
couple pages at a time. And I guess the pages 1 and 2, if anybody has
any questions on that.
Michelle --
MS. MOSCA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the -- policy 4.2, there's a couple
different dates within the text of the document that talk about when
this will be adopted. And it looks like December 1 st of each year the
county shall adopt by reference its capital improvement plan. And I
know the school board finishes their adoption, I believe, on October
1st.
Is that enough time for the county staff to handle the paperwork
going through the boards with the adoption?
MS. MOSCA: I'm going to defer to Randy.
MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Randy Cohen,
comprehensive planning department.
The answer to that question is no. We recently had a discussion
with the Department of Community Affairs with respect to that.
December 1 st deadline date. They recognized that they've got a
problem with that date statewide. I know they have some ongoing
discussions with Sarasota County where they're looking at either a
Page 98
August 29, 2008
January or February date for inclusion for that same reason.
I would anticipate that DCA probably will have to come out with
some type of schedule to lengthen that time because of the problem
with transmittal and adoption. So everybody recognizes a problem
with the date, but it's statutory.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So whatever change they come
up with will be retroactive and all the plans will then reflect that new
date?
MR. COHEN: What would happen is when and if it changes -- I
think it's going to be when -- what we would do is incorporate it into
the CIE and the Future Land Use Element at that time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Will that require a public process
to change it, or is it just a --
MR. COHEN: We would do it with our update of our -- annual
update of our CIE.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, just to that, don't we
sometimes put in, no later than December 1st and/or a date established
by the state? You know, that would -- then we wouldn't have to be
changing this again.
MS. MOSCA: Currently this is a statutory requirement for that
December 1 date, so it would be up to the discretion of the state to
change that date for the various counties.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But any other--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But yeah, what you're trying to say is, if
we could automatically do it self-adjusting to a date required by
statute?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Exactly.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No later than -- yeah.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And we do -- we do self-adjusting
language like that all the time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think we could adjust it to reflect
Page 99
August 29, 2008
change in statutes, then we wouldn't have to go through full change to
the GMP, would we?
Margie, are you coming up to comment on this?
MS. STUDENT -STIRLING: Yes. For the record, I think we
could put some language in it there to the effect, or as may be later
amended by DCA or whatever and to put in there so you wouldn't
have to bring it back.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. This may be amended by Florida
Statute or -- does that work? Does the school board have any
objection to clarifying that language? Everybody's shaking their head
no, Court Reporter.
MR. DEYOUNG: David DeYoung with Kimley-Horn &
Associates representing the school district. I don't think we have any
problem with that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. You're on pages 3
and 4. Any questions?
Page 5?
MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am.
MS. MOSCA: If staff has changes to some of these items as a
result of recent discussions with the school district, at what point do
you want me to discuss those items?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'd like you to point them -- you
need to point them out to us as we go along, but I'd probably -- have
you given this same paperwork to the school personnel?
MS. MOSCA: Yes, they have that. But since -- as late as last
night, we have additional changes that were provided to you folks this
morning. I know that's difficult for you folks to digest, but it's
language that both the district and county agree on.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we do need to know from you
when the -- I can't -- I have not been able to read this. You just gave it
to us. So as we come into issues that are changed in any of the
Page 100
August 29, 2008
documentation we have, you need to point them out, and then I'll have
to -- if the school board personnel object to anything, please let us
know, and at the end of the meeting I'll ask you if you have accepted
all statements and corrections made here at the meeting. Unless.
you've objected, I would then think that you would answer in the
affirmative and we could be done with it.
So okay, Michelle, is there anything that we've got to go through
from page -- up through page 5?
MS. MOSCA: On page 4, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. MOSCA: And I'll put the new language -- it's handwritten.
And it is section 13.A -- 13.8, rather, paren A. And that same
language should also be included in the packet that I provided to you,
and the change is at the bottom.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This response to the question that we
have concerning the repetitive removal of the language that we have to
maintain financial feasibility, the strikethroughs; is this right?
MR. COHEN: The intent behind it is to ensure that our CIE is
consistent with the scheduled improvements that the school board will
be making in its capital improvements program, and it ties in with the
interlocal agreement which calls for early -- early coordination
between the parties every year.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In the fifth line, the county and
city shall adopt by reference the school district's annually updated
financially feasible capital improvement plan.
We also had language in here that provided -- that said, provided
such adoption does not affect the local government's ability to
maintain a financially feasible CIE for the current five-year planning
period.
The language you've submitted, is that in response to the
strikethrough language that I just read? And the reason I'm asking is,
if we have to adopt it, if we have to adopt it and it impacts the
Page 101
August 29, 2008
taxpayers of the county to require improvements to meet their plan
that we are forced to adopt by the word shall, I simply want the
language and that issue highlighted to the BCC so they're well aware
of it, and it's just not accepted as a recommendation by this board
through a strikethrough. And I know it's a decision they already
addressed, but I think it needs to be highlighted.
MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, that language that was stricken
through was recommended by the BCC, okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, it was. Well, how come it's struck
through?
MS. MOSCA: By statute we are required to adopt the district's
CIP. We had communications with the Department of Community
Affairs, and they cited specific statutes that require the county to adopt
that.
If the BCC makes a policy decision and submits that to the state,
we certainly can highlight that issue has been, I guess, not resolved to
the Planning Commission satisfaction.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're saying they're required to
adopt it unconditionally? That's what the state statute says?
MS. MOSCA: The statute requires that we coordinate our plans,
we work closely with one another, again, to coordinate public
facilities. The statute does require that the county adopt the CIP, yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the statute's somewhat
lopsided then. In one regard it's, we shall adopt, but in the other side,
there's no requirement to be consistent with either side's plan. They
just produce a plan, hopefully we all do it in good faith, but we have to
adopt it no matter what?
MS. MOSCA: That's correct. That's my understanding of the
statute in discussions with Department of Community Affairs.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm as troubled by this as I was
originally. I understand why the politics would require things to have
to happen, but I certainly think that it ought to be, again, pointed out
Page 102
August 29, 2008
that this is like this, and then the BCC can then explain to the public
why it has to be this way, and it's not their meaning, and it goes
forward the way the statutes require it to, I guess.
But I certainly think we ought to have some caveat in there that
doesn't force us to accept something that the taxpayers of this county
would have to pay a lot of money for to bring in this -- facilities that
weren't planned for that area at the time the school was going in. Is
that the consensus of this board? Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I don't know what the purpose of
the exercise is otherwise.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I agree. This seems kind of silly
to go through all this concurrency program if we don't have a way of
making sure we have concurrency.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Right.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the only way this happens now is it
happens at the expense of the taxpayers if there's some lack of
coordination that's voluntary. So that's my thought on it.
Anybody else have anything else?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: There's no way around this, no
other way to go?
MS. MOSCA: We certainly -- again, we can emphasize to the
board your concern about the potential impacts as a result of not
including what was originally proposed and let the board make a
policy decision on that item.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I think we ought to do that.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: If that's our only option, then I
guess that's what we'll do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I know that the school's position
probably is not in favor of this kind of language. You're more than
welcome to speak on the matter if you wish. You'll need to use the
mike, Amy.
Page 103
August 29, 2008
MS. TAYLOR: I'm just asking that you repeat it, the changes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what we would recommend is that
the strikethrough that provides the condition that says, provided such
adoption does not affect the local government's ability to maintain a
financially feasible CIE for the current five-year planning period, we
would ask that that be reinserted.
MR. COHEN: And Mr. Chairman, for the record, you know,
staff is very uncomfortable with striking that language as well, too.
We've had numerous discussions with the Department of Community
Affairs, obviously, trying to maintain the integrity of our capital
improvements elements to make sure that we don't have any adverse
impacts on any of the public infrastructure and services, as well as to
ensure that we properly plan and that we do have a financially feasible
CIE.
The last thing we want is to get caught behind the eightball, one,
with no money in hand; two, with something potentially that is going
to take a longer period of time to get into place. It's very problematic
unless we do have absolute coordination if both the school board and
the Board of County Commissioners are on the same thing.
And hopefully -- you know, this is an area where we've had
disagreement, and hopefully this is an area where we agree to disagree
and maybe the boards can resolve the issue with respect to those items
being intertwined and giving us some certainty.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And you want--
MS. TREV ARTHEN: Susan Trevarthen, Weiss, Serota
Helfman, for the school board. Thank you for the opportunity to
comment.
We agree with what's been said about what the law requires here,
and that was our basis for saying that the provided clause needed to
come out of the agreement. We understand the policy concerns that
are being raised by the board.
And the one thing I would point out is that the whole purpose of
Page 104
August 29, 2008
this effort is to bring about much more detailed and continuous
coordination between the parties. And that being the case, it is less
and less likely that there will be sudden surprises that cannot be
planned four years in advance and budgeted and dealt with to the
mutual satisfaction of the parties.
So, you know, this is a certain amount of -- the legislature has put
us in the shotgun wedding and we're going forward, and we have to
work together in good faith to avoid ending up in a situation where the
conflict you all speak of arises.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Then you wouldn't mind
voluntarily allowing this to be added to the conditions of adoption,
would you?
MS. TREV ARTHEN: Added to the what?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You wouldn't mind then agreeing that
this can be added as -- under --
MS. TREV ARTHEN: No, no. We don't agree to the language,
no.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I knew you were going to say that, but I
thought I'd try.
MS. TREV AR THEN: You're just teasing me, I know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does the staff understand the
Planning Commission's concern, and will they be able to relay it
adequately to the board?
MR. COHEN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Let me ask a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aren't levels of service at risk
here? Don't we have contradiction potential for the future?
MR. COHEN: Potentially two things could happen. We could
have adverse impact on our levels of service where we have existing
capital infrastructure and services; two, the other thing that could
happen is you could have a school that's located in an area that does
Page 105
August 29, 2008
not have capital infrastructure and services, which could lend itself to
be problematic because we may not have something planned or
programmed or it might be in an area that, you know, there's not even
-- there's right-of-way but the right-of-way's not even improved.
That's an example of something that could occur.
So the only way that this will work is if there is a coordinated
effort both from the standpoint of planning but also from the
standpoint of financing as well.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: All right. Then I would have
this gentleman, relative to that, close coordination is an effort in the
positive by all parties. What have you initiated -- and not relying, as
you seem to be in your statement, ma'am, on the legislature or on the
legislation, rather. What do you have as policy in place that will help
work assured -- or work to assure coordination so that we don't have,
you know, plans for a school within a five-year period and we're in a
nine-year period for it. What do we do?
MR. DEYOUNG: This whole document, this section 13.8's from
the interlocal agreement. That whole document is established to
establish school concurrency and coordinated school planning. So just
as Randy stated for the county and the fear about not being able to
have infrastructure in place, the same thing happens for the school
district in terms of level of service; they're required to achieve and
maintain the level of service that's being established here today as part
of these documents, and part of that requirement is assuring that
there's adequate school capacity to accommodate the students that
come into Collier County.
So they have the same issue where they're required to provide the
facilities for the students that come in to meet -- to achieve and
maintain the adopted level of service for schools. It is a fully
coordinated process and it will require coordination on behalf of the
county, the school district, and the cities of Collier County.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And this is a living, breathing
Page 106
August 29, 2008
thing, if we take into consideration that four years ago proj ections
were way high and now we're looking at losses. Once a commitment
is made in this county to a five-year program, we have to fund it. We
have to be on top of it. And are you in the same --
MR. DEYOUNG: Understood. The school district is in the
same position.
MS. TREV ARTHEN: And if I might, the school district is
actually in a harder position because we have the constitutional
provision that they cannot say no. Every student who shows up they
have to accept at any given day. So they are under the gun to provide
these facilities in an appropriate manner.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess though that -- if you
think about that, should we have a sudden influx, sudden being a
relative term here, you may very well be compelled to do something
that we were not prepared to do, and I think that's where the
coordination issue arises of great significance there.
MS. TREV ARTHEN: But there are usually multiple ways to
deal with that type of influx, and that's why we have the planning and
coordination processes that are detailed in the interlocal agreement.
So when the need for change arises, the parties sit down and say,
what's the best way to respond to these changed conditions.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you certainly are very
positive about it, and that gives us good hope. Thank you.
MR. DEYOUNG: With regard to section 13.8, we would also
suggest that the, no later than December 1 st of each year mimic the
language that we just talked about in the CIE, which is no later than
December 1 st of each year or as amended by statute.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would agree.
COMMISSIONER CARON: All the way through, I think.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anyplace that occurs in this
document, let's just assume that would be changed.
MS. TREV ARTHEN: Thanks.
Page 107
August 29, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We're on page 4 and 5.
Anything else?
The top of page 5 finishes off a sentence that begins on 4.
Corrections or modifications to the school district's five-year capital
improvement plan concerning cost, revenue sources, or acceptance of
facilities pursuant to dedications may be accomplished by ordinance
and shall not be deemed an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
Could we insert language that says, so long as any such changes
do not affect the level of service requirements?
MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. Which page are you--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bottom of page 4 to the top of page 5.
MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman, so if I understand you, you want
to include the same language that's located within 13.8(A)?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, yes. I mean, it could be that
language or simpler, but I would want to make sure that if we pass it
by ordinance and it's not deemed an amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan, it doesn't negatively affect the level of service that the
Comprehensive Plan is relying upon, that's all. Is that a reasonable --
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: That seems reasonable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- language?
MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman, would you read that one more
time, just the language you want inserted and the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, at the end of the sentence I would
suggest that we add, so long as any such changes do not impact the
level of service requirements. At such point if they do, then we
obviously need to have a change to our GMP; otherwise, it's
inconsistent with the GMP. Would that be a true statement?
MS. TREV ARTHEN: Mr. Chair, if I may address that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes.
MS. TREV ARTHEN: My concern with it is that the way that
level of service is required to be maintained under the school
concurrency statute -- and transportation is the same way -- you have
Page 108
August 29, 2008
to achieve and maintain the level of service by the end of the five-year
period.
And if we're not careful how we word this change, you would
inadvertently end up with a different standard for maintenance of level
of service, that it would have to be any moment in time. It would
always have to be perfectly at level of service.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if the GMP's set up on a five-year
standard, and this would only kick in if the changes are -- impact the
level of service requirements, which are then the five-year standard, I
don't know if that hurts us. It just emphasizes that any changes that
were to be accomplished by ordinance couldn't be if they deemed we
have to change the Comprehensive Plan.
MS. TREV ARTHEN: I see that creating an ambiguity where
someone could read that language to say, any impact on the level of
service. And what I would want, if you want to go down this road, is
to say, you know, an impact on the level of service that is legally
significant, because the way the standard is clearly written into the
statute, there could be these momentary blips where there are
moments where level of service is exceeded, but as long as you
achieve and maintain by the end of fifth year, you're fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any problem with that from the County
Attorney's Office or -- how about comprehensive planning staff?
MR. COHEN: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, let me comment on that,
because with respect to our level of service, our Board of County
Commissioners -- and you're well aware of this from the AUIR
process and the CIE. When it comes to our placing any type of capital
infrastructure within the CIE, the board has asked for surety. And
what we've done is that when we put something into a year, like year
one, year two, year three, that's the year it's going to be completed,
and there's a surety associated with that.
We don't even put anything into years four or five unless we're
sure that we have the funding for it. Where a lot of governments are
Page 109
August 29, 2008
relying on the concurrency management systems to end it like -- well,
we can do it, you know, within the five-year because the statute allows
us to, our board has actually set really a policy that it's going to be
done within the year that it's slated. And the instruction basically is, is
don't put it in there unless that's going to happen.
So that's where it differs. A lot of people -- a lot of government,
excuse me, realize that they have till the end of that five-year period,
and then they'll do it at the end of that, where we're being more
proactive in the process.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Randy, let me try to get down to
a short-and-sweet response here.
MR. COHEN: I know you like length.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Is there -- I'm suggesting some
language. I'm not an attorney. I'm not -- I don't write code. I'm just
suggesting language on a conceptual basis that might be added here to
make sure that an ordinance can't go outside the level of service and
limitations of our Comprehensive Plan.
Is that something that would help this sentence? If it would, do
you have language that could be crafted? And that's what I'm looking
for, a response to that.
MR. COHEN: I think that goes up, again, back into 13A where
we had the same issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. COHEN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't need to craft the language
now, but if you -- I'm suggesting that if such language will be helpful,
we ought to put it here, okay, and I'll leave it like that, as long as the
rest of the --
COMMISSIONER CARON: I have a note, yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. Ms. Caron, did you have
something?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I've noted it, and they can come up
Page 110
August 29, 2008
with the language. It's not -- you know, we don't have to sit here and
craft it right now.
MR. COHEN: Well, this is -- this is the issue that we wanted in
there, that caveat, and DCA objected to it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, fine, but at least I'd like to know--
I think it's important for the Board of County Commissioners to
realize that this is still an issue, that the DCA objected to it, and they
could air it publicly so that when it all comes out in the wash, the
public knows why the two boards had our hands tied, regardless of the
outcome of it. And I don't see anything wrong with that, and I think it
ought to be redundant, and I think that's a good thing to be redundant
with, because this could be a substantial cost.
MR. COHEN: What we can do is we can note it in the CCP (sic)
recommendations --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. COHEN: -- that that type of language you would like to
have seen in there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That gets us there. And I would
-- I know the school staff would rather not see it there, so we're
covered there.
How about through page 8. Any other -- Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I had a bit of a question on -- it
was DCA's objection 2, realizing I'm coming in at the end of things
here. I wasn't totally comfortable with the school concurrency service
area that -- it discussed developments.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page are you on?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm sorry, 5. Starts on 5, center
of 5 and continues for a few pages.
My issue is, it talks about developments, you know, as a big
Cypress or A ve Maria or something like that, and it doesn't really
address individual -- you know, people that move in the Estates. And
I'm going to use the Estates because that's a wide area -- and people
Page 111
August 29, 2008
. .
are movIng In.
My issue is, are we prepared to deal with the students that just
may be built -- where their parents are building homes up and down
any mile-long street.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have it cite? Can you tell us
where you're -- I can't figure out where you're reading from.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Page 5.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He's in New York, I think.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm in page 5, yeah. We're all in page 5.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Do you see where it says
objection 2?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. It discusses the CSAs.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And if you go over to the
response on the next page, page 6 -- and I'm just doing a general. I'm
not reading anything here. It discusses the ability of the district to
handle students of developments instead of --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you show us that piece of it,
David? Handle students of what development?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, it just uses the word
developments.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He means like Big Cypress or
villages or --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It talks about --
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Townships, townships.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And I just didn't -- I didn't feel
comfortable when going through this that students residing in different
CSAs and adjacent CSAs --
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Density.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I was concerned, if --
Page 112
August 29, 2008
maybe this is not even founded, maybe it's already been addressed.
But I have just heard out there that there has been issues where parents
have to, you know, deal with their kids before they go to work and
because there's only a few houses on a street, that they aren't able to
get bused and handled and be delivered to school and taken back. I
just -- I didn't feel comfortable with it. Again, I didn't hear this thing to
begin with, and --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't think we've got any busing
issues involved here, do we?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I didn't -- I meant for the
school district to financially handle dealing with students that may not
be within a high density area.
MS. MOSCA: I think, Mr. Wolf -- Commissioner Wolfley, what
you're asking about are these -- specific to objection 2, the CSAs that
are listed. Those concurrency service areas are out in the rural lands
area as well as within the preserve areas. So there's a limited number
of students being generated from those.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Exactly.
MS. MOSCA: Okay. So let me see if I follow you.
So those students, if there's any new residential development
because there are no new proposed, at this time, schools, in those
CSAs, yes, they would be bused to adjacent CSAs where they have
the schools. Does that answer your question?
In the case of -- in the case of -- I'm sorry. In the case of the Big
Cypress development, for example, which is located in the rural land
stewardship area overlay, the project would either be required to have
schools or provide sites for schools, mayor may not include a high
school, and those students mayor may not be bused elsewhere, an
adjacent CSA where they would be readily accommodated.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I guess my concern -- I should
have been more -- well, said it better -- but it was the low density
areas.
Page 113
August 29, 2008
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are you concerned that there's --
that there aren't buses that people are having to take --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to use your mike, Mr.
Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, I'm so sorry. Got too
relaxed.
Are you concerned that there are folks who are now feeling that
or they are compelled to take their children to the schools because
they are out of the district area, so to speak; is that what your concern
is?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, in low density areas--
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And has the school system then
therefore provided for that growth which is a lot more difficult to
measure than it would be in a Big Cypress or a town of that sort; that's
what you were relating to?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I think it was a good question,
and I think it probably deserves an answer.
MR. DEYOUNG: Let me see if I can try to answer the question.
David DeYoung with Kimley-Horn.
The rural areas do not have populations great enough to facilitate
an entire school. So when new development occurs with these
preserve areas, as we're calling them, the CSAs that are preserve areas,
those students that reside in those -- there's two different things we're
talking about here. One is the currency service areas which are used
to measure students who are concurrency purposes, and then school
boundaries. Those students that live out in the rural areas are
boundaries to other schools currently.
As new schools come on line, whether it's in Big Cypress or in
other places, boundary changes do occur, and there's a chance that
those students that are out there would go to a different school, a
closer school.
Page 114
----
August 29, 2008
But until school facilities are provided out in those rural
communities, the busing patterns that are currently in existence are in
existence and are not really related to school concurrency.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So we have no issue there?
MR. DEYOUNG: I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any questions on page 9?
Michelle, when -- I think there was some more research done on
this. In C, we talk about the SCADL being issued 20 days after
receipt of a completed application from the county, and then it says,
the school district shall identify the following in the SCADL and it
lists things that can happen, but it doesn't say what happens if there is
sufficient capacity there. Do they issue a SCADL that says that, and
do we need to say that as a third item or a fourth item?
MS. MOSCA: I think it's within -- contained within C-l. Within
that -- within the development -- I mean, I'm sorry. Within the service
area, if there is available capacity, then the school district will issue
the SCADL stating that there is, in fact, available capacity.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the time frame is 20 days?
MS. MOSCA: That will be 20 days for their review of a
sufficient application.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Pages 10, 11, 12, any questions?
Thirteen? Fourteen? Fifteen and 16?
Okay. I have a question on page 17, and it references page CIE
16, and it was changed. There was underlined words. Well, I can't
tell -- well, they were in, then it looks like they were taken out.
Provided by the county, and then in the last line it looks like it was
removed. Is that reading that correctly? This is on page 17, CIE 16.
MS. MOSCA: There actually -- Mr. Chairman, there are two
separate items on page CIE 16. The first item page -- under capital
improvements, one under, yep, page CIE 16, it states, all public
facilities, and the added text is provided by the county, shall be
Page 115
August 29, 2008
consistent with the county's Capital Improvement Element.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MS. MOSCA: That language we had to -- we had agreed to prior
to transmittal --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MS. MOSCA: -- and it was inadvertently left out, so that's just
distinguishing between the county versus school facilities.
The second item, Mr. Chairman, that you were referring to, all
public facilities shall be consistent with the county's Capital
Improvement Element. The county has kept that language within the
CIE on page 16. It's a statutory reference.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why wouldn't they both -- why
wouldn't they both read the same?
MS. MOSCA: It's a different section. They just happen to be on
page 16. If you actually go to the CIE, the actual element, you'll see
the two separate entries.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why wouldn't they both read the same?
I'm going to ask the same question till I get an answer, so -- what
difference does it make if you put that additional language, provided
by the county, under the second one if it's in the first one? Why aren't
they consistent?
MS. MOSCA: Well, let me look at it in context, if you just give
me a second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If there's a reason, that's all I'm seeking,
is to understand if there is a reason.
My copy of the CIE that you gave me in my packet doesn't have
a page -- it has a 16, but nothing's on it, so that's --
MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman, I think it's just -- in context, I
actually think that that's a wrong reference, that page CIE 16. I think
that's found in a different paragraph, because my page CIE 15, we've
inserted that additional text for -- all public facilities shall be
consistent.
Page 116
August 29, 2008
So I think the first sentence is in a different context. I'm just
trying to locate the paragraph in which it's actually located. And I
think it's referring to -- one of the policies is simply referring to county
public facilities, and I think that's the difference, but unfortunately I'm
having a difficult time locating that paragraph.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, would you mind, at your leisure,
to find an answer. We don't need to waste today's time doing it, but it
would be something we'd like to get a response to.
Let's move on to page 18 and 19. Any questions? Twenty and
21? Twenty-two and 23?
On 23 -- Michelle --
MS. MOSCA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- the top policy 2.6 refers to the
interlocal agreement, and -- which is -- incorporates the SBR. What
happens when the SBR expires?
MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman, you're on 12.3, correct? I just
want to make sure we've gone --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm on page 23, policy 2.6.
MS. MOSCA: Okay. As part -- as part of these amendments,
we've mapped several schools, we've legitimatized the sites, and under
that school board review interlocal agreement that is presently in
effect, there are processes established through that identifying
responsibilities for certain off-site infrastructure improvements and so
forth.
If that SBR expires -- it's scheduled to expire in May, 2009 -- we
will, in fact, have those mapped sites remaining on the Future Land
Use Map series as well as Public School Facilities Element map series.
So we'll have the map sites but we won't have the SBR interlocal
agreement in place to assess for off-site infrastructure in accordance
with that interlocal agreement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the SBR also works with
development standards, if I'm not mistaken, right?
Page 11 7
August 29, 2008
MS. MOSCA: There are some development standards in there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if that goes away, they -- it
falls back on the LDC?
MS. MOSCA: I'm not sure, because Chapter 10.13, which
applies to schools -- 10.13.51 -- section 10.13.51 allows for the school
district to provide infrastructure that runs through their property and
that's contiguous to their property.
There's an opportunity with the interlocal agreement for the two
boards, the school board and the Board of County Commissioners, to
agree to an alternative to that approach, and that's what the SBR
interlocal agreement does.
So without that, they mayor may not be subject to certain
provisions of the Land Development Code. We may be able to
impose reasonable development standards, look at compatibility with
adjacent properties, but somewhat subjective.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Marjorie?
MS. STUDENT-STIRLING: Just to clarify -- and we may differ
on this. But it is my position, and it has been for a number of years,
that failing that SBR, the statute gives us authority to apply reasonable
development standards, and in that laundry list they include
environmental as well as compatibility issues. Then there's an
exception in there for -- I think it was 10 -- 10.13.51(1), and that has to
do with provision of infrastructure on site and off site. Giving us the
ability where it's adjacent -- and the term adjacent isn't defined -- or
contiguous maybe. It's either adjacent or contiguous -- or on site to
have -- make sure the school board, you know, pays for that. Then it's
off site, we may require them to pay their proportionate share. But in
no way can we make them pay more than their proportionate share
without some kind of credit.
So it's my contention that without that SBR, we apply that statute
that I just mentioned.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm sure there's probably a counter
Page 118
August 29, 2008
to that.
MS. TREV ARTHEN: Yes, Chair. Susan Trevarthen. What
Michelle and Marjorie both said was both partially correct. Basically
if you don't have an SBR, what you do is you fall back on the statutes,
and the statutes are kind of scattered. There's 10.13.33 that has five
sections that are relevant, there's 10.13.51 that talks about
proportionate share. There's another reference I can't remember that
specifically exempts us from landscaping. It's just sort of scattered.
But the answer, the simple answer is, without the SBR, like
everybody else in the state, you just fall back to whatever the statute
says. So all those different nuances of the statute we would work
together and apply the statute for both review of site plans and
contributions towards infrastructure.
Is that -- I think that was where you were headed, right,
Michelle?
MS. MOSCA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, I notice you jumped up, so I know
you've probably got something to tell us about so -- or Joe or whoever.
MR. SCHMITT: I was going to state the same thing.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida,
transportation. I want to commend Tom and Alva. We've worked
together on several school projects recently and come up with
interlocal agreements where we have discussions on what
infrastructure is involved.
You read 10.13.51, as Marjorie pointed out, it's great. And this is
what leads to the fights that led to the original SBR where you talk
about what -- who pays for what and when and what's proportionate
share.
You build a school off a rural street, my contention is, the
impacts are 100 percent the school is to improve that road because I
don't have any background need to improve that road. So the
argument would be, who pays for that?
Page 119
August 29, 2008
And if you don't have an SBR and you revert back to this -- this
is where some of the other counties are in lawsuits because they're
fighting over these two specific paragraphs of what they actually
mean.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, is there a solution to this
dilemma? I mean, if the SBR expires, is there some language that can
be utilized in this element that would force the issue to be resolved or
fall back on an issue that protects the taxpayers of the county?
MR. SCHMITT: Let me just make this simple as far as my
staffs concerned and the way I look at this. And you've asked kind of
the $64 question, or $64 million question or whatever.
Again, for the record, Joe Schmitt. Without the SBR, as far as
staff review, unless I get guidance from the county attorney,
negotiating attorney to attorney and developing some kind of a review
standard based on state statute, I'm compelled to review in accordance
with the GMP and the LDC.
Now, I'm not going to be that concerned about whether there's a
tree near the entryway, but I am going to be concerned about
compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods, so school siting and
compatibility with surrounding property. And the only thing I have to
review based on that is -- are the criteria in the LDC.
And you're looking for language? The only language would have
to be -- we would have to be moving towards -- it would be, as
counsel stated, be almost on a case-by-case basis. You would have to
-- because it's going to come in to me for a review. I have to issue a
local development order under certain authorities. I will not issue a
local development order until it's reviewed in accordance with some
criteria, and the only criteria I have is the LDC. And I know the
school board disputes that, or we'll defer to state statute.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I was just trying to figure out a
way to resolve it through a recommendation here that could be then
fleshed out at the public meeting, and if the board wanted to take it
Page 120
August 29, 2008
further, they could, or we could just --
MR. SCHMITT: The resolution would be that -- it would be
taken to a dec. action.
MR. KLATZKOW: No, the resolution--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, you've all got to talk one at a
time. Mr. Klatzkow?
MR. KLATZKOW: The resolution is for this board to
recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that they get with
the school board and negotiate a new SBR.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wish it was that simple, but I
understand what you're saying.
MR. KLATZKOW: That's the recommendation. Nothing else
works.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MS. TREV ARTHEN: I'm sorry. There's another question being
raised here, and I didn't answer it before, if you don't mind.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure.
MS. TREVARTHEN: You were asking about policy 2.6, which
is at the top of page 23.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MS. TREV AR THEN: The next point is very interrelated, and
that's the bottom of page 23. And the staffs do have agreed language
to solve the problem. But you were asking the conceptual issue, what
happens if the SBR goes away, which was what we were answering.
So I don't know if you have this where you could put it on the
monitor.
MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman, that's partially correct. The
language that the staffs agree to -- and I'll go ahead and put it up on
the monitor.
This language would apply to any new future site. That's what
our -- that's what our staff is looking at. So if the SBR expires in May,
2009, any additional site coming in would be reviewed under these
Page 121
August 29, 2008
guidelines.
Staffs concern has been that the schools that are mapped now
that were approved under the existing school board review interlocal
agreement, there's no mechanism in place.
Now, we've -- again, the two boards have agreed that we would
map -- the county would map those future sites contingent upon
compliance with the processes that are established in that agreement.
The agreement goes away, so does all of the processes within it.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good gosh.
MS. MOSCA: So now we have properties, school sites, that are
consistent with the locational criteria and we have to review them
based on current statute, not based on the agreement that was
authorized by both the Board of County Commissioners and the
school board.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it looks like at the end of the
paragraph you have here -- the dec. action is the resolution, if there's
agreement -- disagreement on the existing facilities; is that how that
would be read, or is that just a disagreement on the future facilities?
MS. MOSCA: Well, I believe that would be both.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: That's catchall.
MS. MOSCA: Yep.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So someone anticipated this
disagreement in the writing of this document, and that disagreement
was always destined to be solved by a dec. action instead of by
working it out through negotiation?
MS. TREVARTHEN: We negotiated this language back in the
fall and -- through extensive meetings between the two bodies, and I
think we explained, but it's been a long time, and we have a new
member, so I want to make sure he's aware.
Of the whole menu of the litigation options, a declaratory
judgment is pretty straightforward. It's a flavor of litigation that
doesn't involve a lot of witnesses and disputed testimony and lengthy
Page 122
August 29, 2008
deposition or anything.
It's basically, the parties go to the judge and say, we don't know
what the law is and we're fighting over it. You tell us what the law is
because you're a judge. And you just jump right to the point and you
brief the issues of law, and the judge, depending on how backed up his
docket is, or hers, they eventually give you a ruling. But it's pretty to
the point as far as litigation goes, and it was the best thing that we all
could mutually come up with as a defined way out if we truly got into
a logger -- at loggerheads with each other.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But in lieu of2, this panel could
recommend that we strongly suggest that the SBR be negotiated and
reinstated at the effective date of the current one's expiration.
Mr. Schmitt?
MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. And I just want to make sure you
understand. We're working towards an SBR.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got the draft.
MR. SCHMITT: Now, that doesn't mean we'll get there, but we
have an SBR that's in place now until 2009. I have language that was
sent to me by the school board, and I believe we forwarded some
copies to members of the Planning Commission of that.
But we're in a give and take on that right now. I owe them an
answer back. So there is an effort to try and create an SBR because
it's certainly, I believe, advantageous to both parties to have such an
agreement just to preclude what would happen here with the last
sentence.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and I know there are problems
with the current SBR. I've heard from both sides privately and I know
that there are some very justifiable concerns on the part of the school
system.
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I know that we have some
frustrations on the county side.
Page 123
August 29, 2008
MR. SCHMITT: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think from this panel's perspective,
I think if we highlight that and strongly encourage the Board of
County Commissioners to insist that that SBR get worked out and
implemented in time for the other one to expire, that would be helpful
to all parties in lieu of number 2 on the item you have in front of us,
which is a dec. action, which only costs the taxpayers legal fees and
extended time periods.
MR. SCHMITT: Right. But with the understanding that some of
the issues to change the SBR will involve Comprehensive Plan
amendments, which are certainly going to take some time as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well--
MR. SCHMITT: And then -- but those can be directed by policy
by the board or through the agreement, and we could follow up later
with comprehensive amendments.
F or instance, one particular certainly is a valid concern of the
school board, and it should be, is the preservation requirements, and --
but that would take a Comprehensive Plan amendment. But both
parties would have to recognize that. Certainly the board could direct
that through, like I said, through directive, and then with a follow-up.
But, of course, then we could be subject to a challenge.
But, again, those are the kind of things that we need to work out
and we need to work out between now and hopefully before the --
before the current SBR expires.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michelle?
MS. MOSCA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If this board were to request -- suggest
to the BCC as part of a recommendation that a new SBR be
implemented at the time of expiration of the current one, be negotiated
and implemented, is that a fair recommendation to go forward, a
helpful one?
MS. MOSCA: Randy's telling me it is. I still have -- honestly, I
Page 124
August 29, 2008
still have concern about those map sites, because if you -- if you
review the existing SBR -- and I understand where you're coming
from, Mr. Chairman. But if you review the SBR that was agreed to by
both boards, it is very specific; turn lanes, everything, for those sites
that were approved.
So if we work in good faith and we have no agreement or the
school district, for example, stands firm on their position about 10 --
chapter 10.13, section, I think it's 51, where off-site infrastructure
would -- they would only pay for off-site infrastructure for that that
runs through their property and is contiguous through, much different
from what is already outlined existed in the SBR agreement.
Certainly we'll continue to work with them, but my concern is
still, you have those sites that we mapped in good faith that we --
would be contingent upon that agreement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But wouldn't part of the
negotiation of a new agreement address the items that were already
fixed in the previous agreement? Couldn't that be part of your
negotiations? And I think maybe part of the recommendation ought to
be that the -- until a new SBR is accepted and -- both parties accept
the new SBR, the current one should stay in place.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Qualification of what you mean
by those that are already in the agreement. Are you offering them up;
is that what you mean?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. She has -- there are certain school
sites that fall under the current SBR.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those sites have criteria in the SBR that
give benefit in how they're to be developed. What Michelle, I think, is
saying, is she doesn't want to lose that benefit in negotiating a new
SBR and not have that benefit apply to the existing facilities if they
can't get it on the future facilities as well.
Page 125
August 29, 2008
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I got that part of it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think that's what I would -- that's
where I was coming from.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I just want to be sure that we
were not -- we weren't offering up to change anything. It's already in
place.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: That's not what we want to do.
MR. DEYOUNG: All I was going to come up and say was that
the school district is currently negotiating a new SBR agreement with
the county. The county has a draft of the agreement already, so this
process is already started a year in advance of the expiration of the
other SBR, or the existing SBR, and that should continue in good
faith.
As Mr. Schmitt said, it's in the county's hands right now for
review and needs to be transmitted back with whatever modifications
and recommendations the county has. And the language that's been
placed in the ILA protects both parties in the event that the SBR does
not get completed by the expiration date of the current SBR.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the language in the ILA is the dec.
action?
MS. MOSCA: Yes.
MS. TREV ARTHEN: Well, that's one part of it.
MR. DEYOUNG: One part.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As far as the negotiations you
currently have going on with the SBR, is it your intentions by these
negotiations so far that the level of development standards that have
currently applied to the locational sites that have been accepted stay
intact in the new SBR, or are you renegotiating all the past sites as
well?
MR. DEYOUNG: I am not involved in the negotiation of the
SBR. I'm only involved in the school concurrency process.
Page 126
August 29, 2008
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. DEYOUNG: So -- we've been hired by the school district
to help facilitate the school concurrency documents and the interlocal
agreement for our coordinated school planning and school
concurrency. The SBR is being handled separately by the school
district and the county at this time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who in the school district is handling
the SBR?
MR. DEYOUNG: I think Alva Hardy can answer that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Alva Hardy. The question that's being
asked is we understand that there's negotiations going on currently for
a renewed SBR. In the process of those negotiations, is it the school
board's intent to leave the development standards in place for the
locational sites that have already been accepted by the county based
on the SBR process, or are you negotiating how all sites will be
handled in the future through that SBR process?
MR. HARDY: I think there are two components to that question,
and I shall try to answer them that way and restate them so that I make
sure I understand them, because these are the planners.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They just passed the buck to you.
MR. HARDY: I know they did.
There was a long list of sites because this school district's very
fortunate to own property in preparation for future school needs.
In the original agreement, those sites were to have been added to
the -- to have been deemed consistent for locational criteria only,
which to us and to me means land use and zoning so that they are
appropriately -- it's in a residential RF -1, or whatever it is, so it's
appropriate land use and appropriate zoning for locational criteria.
That's what locational criteria means to me. And if I don't understand
that, that's because I'm not a planner.
The development standards implications of the SBR are entirely
separate and deal with the pragmatic application of putting the school
Page 127
August 29, 2008
on the ground as opposed to the more esoteric concept of planning and
land use.
So it would be my idea or my conception from the original SBR
that the 18 sites or whatever that were listed in that original SBR have
been deemed consistent with the locational criteria and the Growth
Management Plan.
Now, we've built over two-thirds of those anyway. So as an
existing site, they're automatically deemed consistent. But there are a
few left that --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the question is really, is on
the few that are left, the development standards that apply to those,
even in the new negotiated SBR, would they be pursuant -- do you
intend to use the same development standards that we've used in the
current SBR?
MR. SCHMITT: They'd be subject to the new SBR.
MR. HARDY: They'd be subject to the new SBR when we
apply.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we would potentially lose some of
the development benefits that we have in the current SBR if the
negotiations went that direction?
MR. HARDY: Benefits?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, turn lanes, traffic lights,
sidewalks, setbacks, buffering.
MR. HARDY: Those are negotiated individually at this point
under the existing SBR and, frankly, without those negotiations, the
school district, by the current SBR, cannot move forward. And so
many of the transportation improvements that the district had built
have been exclusively at the need to get their permits to get started.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michelle?
MR. HARDY: So yes, we would be in a different phase of
negotiation, and that's something -- and why we expect to spend a lot
of time with Nick in the new SBR to figure out what that
Page 128
August 29, 2008
arrangement's going to be.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michelle?
MS. MOSCA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're concerned about the loss of some
kind of development standard, I thought. What is it you're concerned
about then if the SBR is open to full negotiation as he's saying?
Where's your concerns?
MS. MOSCA: Well, it is open to full negotiation; however,
again, you have to look at the sites that were mapped. And I'll give
you some examples.
We have school sites going out to 2019, 2023. It's a long way out,
but the SBR itself establishes certain development criteria, like you
said, setbacks and so forth. Can it be renegotiated? Yes, but to the
same terms, maybe or maybe not.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, now wait a minute. I just heard
Mr. Hardy say that those development standards were on a
case-by-case basis. They weren't basically set in the SBR.
So now you're telling me something different. I'm trying to get to
the bottom of this so we can move forward, but it's getting more
confusing the deeper we dig.
And Nick, you're going to help, I hope?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'm going to hope so.
If after 2009 the SBR expires, any school site that comes in
would either fall under that -- you know, let's go to a dec. action or
argue about who's going to pay for what, or we'll have a new SBR.
The existing sites that have been located will not go back to that
old SBR. It will be a whole new ballgame. And if he's -- the folks
don't permit a school till 2009, it expires, we've got some work ahead
of us.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That sounds different than what
Michelle is trying to get at.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're talking about location versus
Page 129
August 29, 2008
site plan review. Two different--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know the location has already been
acknowledged based on the mapping that we have --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- is that correct?
MS. MOSCA: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'm not talking about location.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. So when site--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm more concerned about development
site specific standards.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Those standards will change upon the
expiration of the SBR and it will be applicable at the time they submit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For all schools?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For all schools.
MS. MOSCA: For all those schools that have been mapped
under the existing SBR interlocal agreement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I hope you're a good negotiator
and maybe that won't happen. You got any suggestions, Michelle,
how we could protect the taxpayers of the county that works for both
parties or at least attempts to?
MS. MOSCA: I don't know ifit works for both parties -- I'm
sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Chairman. We had suggested -- we
originally came up with a map note, and you folks probably saw the
map note on the future sites map as well as the collocation map, and it
refers to the SBR. And if, in fact, it expires, then we would revert to
the LDC at the time of site plan submittal.
But it's almost kind of circular because then if you look at the
statutes, there's protections under the statutes that wouldn't require, for
example, that off-site infrastructure will use a turn lane or a signal
down the road that's required or necessitated out of the need for that
school. Now they would be limited. And I'm not sure what the
negotiations will be in the future, but under the statute, it would be
Page 130
August 29, 2008 .
contiguous to their site.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You know, I'm almost sorry I
brought this up only because I can't seem to get anybody to tell me
what is the best way to go. And to be honest with you, I like
documents that spell things out, and that's what we should always
have. I hate to see us rely on courts. They're only costly, and the only
people that make money are the attorneys.
MS. MOSCA: Well, we had talked about subjecting those sites
to the same standards with the existing SBR interlocal agreement,
expires or is in effect and amended. I don't think that the school
district will -- I don't want to speak for them -- but will agree to that. I
think that's why the language is in there for a declaratory action.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Alva?
MR. HARDY: Let me try again. We have a master collocation
agreement with the county for use of our facilities. It's used in the
event there are no site specific agreements. We have multiple site
specific agreements like at Avalon in the park and for Osceola for the
Little League fields. Those are separate agreements more specific
than the general agreement, and they control those sites.
The SBR agreement is an agreement entered into by the school
board and the Board of County Commissioners, executed by both
parties, full of terms and conditions, and is an independent document
. .
In our VIew.
How it's been used in this general agreement is written into the
growth management stuff that started in 2003 when we had to start
doing this. But without SBR -- and there are plenty of jurisdictions in
this state that do new schools without an alternative review process --
that's what the statute calls this -- here is what you do or you can
develop your own alternative review process. We did that. There are
terms and conditions to it, and they are -- it was a six-year agreement,
and it's going to expire in May of next year.
We have submitted a revised document. They're reviewing it.
Page 131
August 29, 2008
Both of our bosses have said, get it done, and both of our bosses
agreed that in the event something transpires, this is how we're going
to fix it by the dec. statement.
So that's where, as a staff person, as far as I can go. I mean, that's
--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that relies on a dec. action
which then gets into litigation. I would much rather suggest for
number two we recommend that the current SBR stays in place until a
new SBR is approved by both parties, and that keeps it there and they
can negotiate for 10 years, but we've got something in the meantime.
Is that --
MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman, would that just be for those map
sites? We're concerned about the map sites. Any future site we can
live with establishing new -- the language that we've proposed
establishing new--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything that the current SBR applies
to --
MS. MOSCA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- is where I would be thinking. Is that
something this board feels at least is a recommendation that we could
go forward with?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. We've got to get something
highlighted to the BCC that this SBR is important. The mere fact that
we're suggesting that it stay active until a new one is negotiated
certainly annotates that importance. And we -- do it like that.
Ms. Caron?
MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, so for clarity sake, you would
want us to remove the declaratory judgment language and replace it
with that language?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was where I was thinking, but I've
got -- the whole board's got to tell me that's okay with the rest of them.
Page 132
August 29, 2008
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yeah, I would agree with that. I
didn't understand you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. No, I'm fine with that. I
was just going to say, if this is any indication of how the cooperation's
going to be, I think we already have issues.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Two government agencies
spending money against each other just doesn't make any sense.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we have that now.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, we do.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've got that going on with the Clerk
of Courts, and we don't need it again, so.
Okay. Well, let's move past that. And by the way, Randy and
Michelle, the generalities that we've talked about, like this one and the
other one, wherever that phraseology needs to reappear in this
document, the assumption is that I don't have to repeat that and
research it. It's going to reappear there.
MS. MOSCA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On page 25, is there any questions?
Michelle, I have one question. On the top of the page where it
references BEBR, it says, the official BEBR population estimates and
projections, we do modify those. Do we need to make a clarification,
as modified by the Collier County Comprehensive Planning
Department for seasonal --
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Adjustments.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- any adjustments that we make, or do
we not make them under the context of this issue?
MS. MOSCA: I don't believe we make them under the context of
this issue. We use the BEBR numbers, and for seasonal population we
add the, what is it, 20 percent.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: But it does relate to level of
service?
Page 133
August 29, 2008
MS. MOSCA: The school district, they're using our BEBR
numbers, and they're using the October numbers. They're not __
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So it's automatic?
MS. MOSCA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Twenty-six? Twenty-seven?
Twenty-eight? Twenty -nine.
MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman, I have -- and this will be
something that we'll need to change. This is both with the Future
Land Use Element, and it continues all the way through to page 30,
the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, the Future Land Use Element, and
the Immokalee Area Master Plan.
Staff had provided, in addition, that if those -- if the SBR expires,
then those sites that were mapped under -- or were approved under the
SBR would be either subject to the SBR or they would be subject to
the LDC at time of site submittal. But since we now have the
language change, that we just previously went through that discussion,
we'll need to make changes to this language as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would agree, but, see, our language
change is a recommendation to the board. I don't know how you have
to present that, but I surely want -- don't want to let them think we're
trying to usurp any of their authority in making these changes. We're
recommending a change.
MS. MOSCA: I should clarify, yes, the recommendations. We'll
have to make similar recommendations to those three elements to
address the LDC issue.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. Page 30? Thirty-one? And the
last page on this section is page 32.
Okay. We have the adoption documents, the first of which is the
ICE, Intergovernmental Coordination Element. It says adopt -- it's the
first one behind the adoption documents tab. Very little has changed
in that. Is there any -- any issues with the changes that have been
Page 134
August 29, 2008
made? It's five pages.
The second document behind that adoption tab is the Capital
Improvement Element, which is about 20 pages. Are there any
questions on the Capital Improvement Element?
On CIE 7, the top of the page, about the sixth line down, the
word existing was capitalized, now there's a small letter. Is there a
need to suggest that it's existing public facility deficiencies that we're
talking about so we don't mix it up with the -- except with the public
school facilities, or is that not necessary?
MS. MOSCA: We can add it for clarification.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Small item. Anything else anybody
have on that element? It goes on to the third tab.
Michelle, when we had met, on page CIE 29 and CIE 30, there
seemed to be a duplication between what was added to paragraph five
and what was G on page 30. Did you --
MS. MOSCA: Mr. Chairman, have we jumped from 9 all the
way to 29? Did you want to go -- I have some additions to CIE 10.
Do you want to --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. No, let's take your
additions. We'll go right to them now, that's fine. Yeah, I'm moving
-- these are -- go ahead and -- they seemed rather -- not -- there's not
that much in these so I was moving faster through them, but go ahead. .
MS. MOSCA: I just want to make sure -- I guess what we could
do is the paperwork that I passed out this morning, the petition
CPSP-2007, the proposed changes, if we could just approve all of
those at the end with modifications, then we could continue to move
forward. It's just trying to keep up with, like you folks are, two and
three documents in your hands.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the documents you passed out,
you've got to tell us specifically. There's one, two -- there's four pages,
some are two sided. Which one of the documents are you referring to
in the discussion you just had?
Page 135
August 29, 2008
MS. MOSCA: Actually I -- the changes that I have, just so
you're aware -- and I guess we don't have to go through them again --
changes to policy 4.2 were in response to objection one and objection
five, so we don't need to go through each page and discuss the
objection to the ORC. I didn't know if it would be helpful or not. But
since we've gone through the ORC objection responses--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MS. MOSCA: -- that's fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I was moving so fast. We
went through it there already.
MS. MOSCA: Okay. I just didn't want to -- I just didn't want to
miss anything and --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, my point is--
MS. MOSCA: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I think if we've gone through it there,
it applies here.
MS. MOSCA: Yes, it does.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, good. And that was the intention.
MS. MOSCA: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now let's move through the document.
Does anybody have any questions through the end of the document?
And Michelle, I had just asked you one about CIE 29, and then
the language that's there mirrored on item G on page CIE 30. Is that
supposed to be that way or is that just a double reference that isn't
needed?
MS. MOSCA: I believe it's repetitive. But, I mean, for
clarification, if we want to add that in there, I don't -- I don't think it's
an issue. We can delete it, because it is in J as well, unless the school
district --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, under five, updated Capital
Improvement Element, you have a series of underlined text that acts as
introduction to the numeric -- to the letters underneath it, starting with
Page 136
August 29, 2008
A. Well, then A, B, C, D, E, F, and G, G then repeats the same
language that's in the introduction of the underlying text.
MS. MOSCA: I agree.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, which one gets dropped?
MS. MOSCA: Well, why don't we -- we can delete the
introduction language and just --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. MOSCA: -- add it to G, anything that doesn't appear in that
paragraph.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody have any other
questions in that document? Ifnot, we can move on to the Public
School Facilities Element. The updating of this was from the ORC
Report. Is there any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michelle, go ahead?
MS. MOSCA: When we get to policy 1.4.3, we have new
language as provided to you folks this morning, and I'll put that on the
visualizer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MS. MOSCA: And the county is comfortable with the new
language. Both the district and the county worked on that language.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any concerns
with the language?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That takes us to the -- it's not
labeled. It's another -- you all-- Planning Commission goes next. The
next tab is a data and analysis section. It's got a blue cover on it that's
pretty colorful. That's just a grouping of data that we received for the
most part the first time. There are some paragraphs of change in there.
Does anybody on the Planning Commission have any wishes
with that document, with the exception, Michelle, of the figure seven
issue that I spoke to you about?
Page 137
August 29, 2008
MS. MOSCA: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did that get resolved?
MS. MOSCA: That did get resolved, and it's also in the change
sheet for today that's listed in there. So we'll remove the references to
figure seven, because the sites do not appear on those maps. They've
been relocated into a table on the map.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Amy, you look puzzled.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Where is that?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on page 26 of the data and analysis.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yep.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In there it referred twice in the second
underlined paragraph that there's a figure seven locating certain
facilities. There is no figure seven locating certain facilities. It's a
table. So all we're simply dropping is the reference to figure seven
since it doesn't exist for that purpose.
The next tab is a school concurrency tab. It's titled Collier
County Interlocal Agreement for Public School Facility Planning and
School Concurrency. It's got a green cover on it. And this is the
interlocal agreement that's been talked about. There are some minor
changes necessary that I believe Michelle has picked up, and it's items
one through six on the cover sheet she passed out to us.
MS. MOSCA: And in addition to that, Mr. Chairman, also on
appendix D of the ILA, the same change that's listed under section 5.1,
change November to October. That would allow additional time for
the local governments to adopt the district CIP, and the CIP should be
in effect by October 1.
So I don't know if that's an issue. We didn't discuss that with the
school district. I don't know if that would be an issue or not for them
to provide it to us a month earlier. It will be in effect then.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that work for you guys?
MR. HARDY: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, affirmative.
Page 138
August 29, 2008
And I notice in this document we have some of the same
paragraphs involving some of the comprehensive issues that we've
talked about. Shall adopt and how we handle the effect on the local
government's ability to maintain feasibility. That language will-- ones
we already have recommended, that would apply to this document's
references as well.
MS. MOSCA: Yes, uh-huh.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. On page 5, I see you've made a
correction on the boards. On page 10, 5.1.4, that's the one we just
talked about. Instead of November we're going to say October. On 5.1
on page 10.
MS. MOSCA: And Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First sentence. Right?
MS. MOSCA: Ifwe could -- that's correct, but if we could also
go back to page 8, 4.2, and that's listed as item number two, if you
need to discuss that further. Just had to relocate the text. It was
incorrectly located previously.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Section -- the next one will be
section 8.2. Increase or decrease -- you're going to reference -- the
term impact is going to be deleted?
MS. MOSCA: That's correct, and that's listed on that handout
sheet as well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. And 8.5, delete educational
plants and insert educational facilities and/or sites to clarify.
If the school system has any problems with these, yell out, stand
up, come to the mike.
MS. MOSCA: That was actually their proposal, so I'm sure
they're okay with it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. 12.2, educational facility and
delete the word facility -- and let's see. And that is -- that's it, I think,
in the notes.
MS. MOSCA: And general -- Mr. Chairman, and generally
Page 139
August 29, 2008
throughout I'd say the majority of documents, if the commission
would allow us to make the grammatical changes necessary,
capitalizing, definitions, those types of errors that we didn't catch the
first time around, second time around.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, there's a lot of -- there's a lot of
definitions that aren't capitalized --
MS. MOSCA: I agree.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but I didn't want to spend the time on
that.
MS. MOSCA: Just so that, part of your recommendation, if you
would allow us to do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yep, okay.
The last part of the book is more or less redundant and old stuff.
We have the ORC Report, which we've really gone over the meat of
that in the first time, the FUE correspondence, which supports some of
the positions taken, the advertisement, the ordinance and exhibits,
which are the actual text of stuff we're already reviewed, then, of
course, the balance of the document, which is all your data supporting
the document itself.
I want to ask staff if they've understood the direction we've given
on the various -- I think the bigger components. There's only two or
three of significance. The rest is small changes. Are we all good to
go on what you expect to do for the consent agenda?
MS. MOSCA: I believe so, but I do want to mention that the
public school facilities maps, we are in the process of up -- graphics
department is in the process of updating those, some of them
mislabeled. I just want to mention on the record, those will be brought
to you under the consent agenda, the new maps. We inadvertently
omitted some of the schools or mislabeled them, so we're recreating
those maps.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michelle, there's been -- when the ORC
response was provided to us for the underlining, you took those
Page 140
August 29, 2008
responses and incorporated them into at least two or three or four
different documents that were given to us in the packet.
MS. MOSCA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you give us a new packet, could
you highlight the changes that we've asked for, or however you're
going to highlight our recommendations? And I don't know if you're
going to do it by a separate sheet or not.
But what I'm asking is, don't give us four inches of
documentation again. Just -- we're only looking for what we're
dealing with.
MS. MOSCA: And that's what we would do for the consent
agenda. I'd probably itemize everything and include it in the actual
ordinance exhibit.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does that sound fair to
everybody here?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Reasonable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I understand the school staffs
position and that is the -- shall -- talking about the two big items in the
concurrency items. You're not in agreement with two of those, if I'm
not mistaken. If you want to be very clear for the record so we know
where we're all going, I'd appreciate it.
MR. DEYOUNG: That is correct. I think the two items that we
are still not in agreement on are the changes to the language to the
interlocal agreement regarding the SBR.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. DEYOUNG: And the changes to the CIE.
MS. TREV ARTHEN: We couldn't find it in the CIE.
MR. DEYOUNG: Oh, I guess you didn't find the change to the
CIE.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the other big issue -- that
was a grammatical change. That was just -- but the other big issue
was the one in which we shall adopt. And we're suggesting it be
Page 141
August 29, 2008
conditional upon meeting the intent -- our feasibility of our GMP.
MR. DEYOUNG: Correct, that's the other one. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I understand you guys disagree
with that point, so as long as that's clear for the record, then I think a
motion to entertain approval of CPSP-2007-7 with the discussions and
stipulations that we had and direction to staff would be appropriate.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made the motion. Is there
a second?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray made the second.
Is there any discussion? Randy?
MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, just for the sake of clarity -- and I
want to concur with the county attorney on this. I believe you
probably should act on each individual item separately, the Public
Schools Facility Element, the CIE --
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Why?
MR. COHEN: We've done that in the past, that's why, you
know.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: It's a package.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you tell us what items you
believe are incorporating our -- we're looking at this whole book we
just walked through. Our motion incorporates all the changes for all
the documents in this entire book we just talked about.
MS. MOSCA: Okay. That would be for the Public School
Facility Planning and School Concurrency Interlocal Agreement,
Public School Facilities Element and Data and Analysis Report,
amendments to the Capital Improvement Element, Intergovernmental
Coordination Element, Future Land Use Element, Golden Gate Area
Master Plan and Immokalee Area Master Plan.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Was it the intent of the motion
maker to --
Page 142
August 29, 2008
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- have it apply in that manner?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, I'll add that to my motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was the second?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I'll concur.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion, signify
by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 5-0, and we will review
it again on the consent agenda.
This meeting will need to be continued until September 18th
starting at 8:30 in the morning. First up on that agenda will be the two,
seven and eight that we heard and the consent items that we will have
to go through, or whenever the consent items are up.
I would appreciate it if you gave the school board ample notice
about the consent agenda timing. Generally substantial changes aren't
made during the consent process. That's really an acknowledgment
that staff got our comments correct, and then we go from there. But
you're more than welcome to attend that meeting, and hopefully it will
be short and sweet.
And with that, is there a motion to adjourn until-- and we are -- it
is September 18th at approximately 8:30 in the morning.
MS. MOSCA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved.
Page 143
August 29, 2008
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley, seconded by Mr. Vigliotti.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. We are continued.
*******
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 1:41 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARK STRAIN, Chairman
These minutes approved by the Board on ,
as presented or as corrected .
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 144