Loading...
CCPC Minutes 10/19/2009 GMP October 19, 2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE GMP MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida October 19, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: Mark Strain Donna Reed-Caron Karen Homiak Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David J. Wolfle ALSO PRESENT: Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Randy Cohen, Director, Comprehensive Planning David Weeks, Manager, Comprehensive Planning Page 1 SPECIAL AGENDA ---aLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 19,2009 ~ 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 MAYBE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITIEN OR GRAPHIC MA TERlALS INCLUDED IN THE ccpe 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 \\lLL BE A V AILABLE FOR PRESENT A TION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERT AU";ING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBA TIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 4. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CP-2008.1, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Map Series. to create the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict to allow a maximum of 225,000 square feet of commercial uses of the C-4 zoning district, with exceptions, and some uses of the C-5 zoning district, with requirement to construct a grocery store, for property located on the north side of Golden Gate Boulevard extending from Wilson Blvd. west to 3rd Street Northwest, in Section 4, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, consisting of ::l:4O.62 acres. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner] B. CP-2008-2, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and M~ Seri~sl to expand and modify the Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict to allow an additional 390.950 square feet of commercial uses of the C-4 zoning district, with exceptions, for property located on the south side of Randall Boulevard, extending from Slit Street Northeast west to the canal on the west side of the Big Corkscrew Island Fire Station, in Sections 26 and 27. Township 48 South, Range 27 East, consisting of :!56.5 acres. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner) C. CP-2008-3, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Mastel' Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Futme Land Use Map and Map Series, to create the Golden Gate Parkway Mixed-Use Subdistrict to allow 100,000 square feet of commercial uses of the C-l through C-3 zoning districts, and residential multi-family use at 3.55 dwelling units per acre with allowance for higher density for provision of affordable housing and for conversion of un-built commercial square feet, for property located at the southwest comer of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard (the site of Naples Christian Academy (NCA) and a church), in Section 29, TO\VTlship 49 South, Range 26 East, consisting of :!:20.71 acres. [Coordinator: Leslie Persia, Senior Planner] D. CP-2007-1. Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and MaD Series, to create the Wilson Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict, to allow a maximum of 40,000 square feet of commercial uses of the C-l through C-3 zoning districts. for property located on the southeast comer of Immokalee Road (CR 846) and Wilson Boulevard, in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, consisting of :5.17 acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] E. CP.2007-2, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and MaD Series, to create the Immokalee Road/Oil Well Road Commercial Subdistrict to allow a maximum of 70.000 square feet of commercial uses of the C-l through C-3 zoning districts, for property located at the southwest comer of Immokalee Road (CR 846) and 33nl A venue Northeast, in Section 15. Township 48 South, Range 27 East, consisting of :!:1 0.28 acres. {Coordinator: Carolina Valera, Principal Planner] F. CP-2007-3, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Map Series, to create the Mission Subdistrict to allow church and related uses, and 2,500 square feet of health services, with a maximum of 90,000 square feet of total development, for property located on the south side of Oil Well Road (CR 858), 1/4 mile west of Everglades Boulevard, in Section 19, TO'Wllship 48 South, Range 28 East, consisting of :t:21.72 acres. [Coordinator: Beth Yang, AICP, Principal Planner] G. CP-2007-S, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series, to create the Logan/Immokalee Mixed Use Subdistrict to allow a maximum of 260,000 square feet of commercial uses of the C-l through C-4 zoning districts, maximum of 60 dwelling Imits. and agricultural uses, for property located at the southeast comer of lmmokalee Road (CR 846) and Logan Boulevard, in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, consisting of:!: 41 acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] H. CP-2008-4, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series, to re-designate from Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District (RFMUD) Sending Lands to Neutral Lands property located on the east and south sides of Washburn A venue, east of the Naples landfill, in Section 31, Township 49 Soutb, Range 27 East, consisting of :!:28.70 acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] I. CPSP-2008-7. Staff Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element to add a new Policy 4.11 pertaining to aligning planning time frames in the GMP. [Coordinator: David Weeks, AICP, Planning Manager] J. CP-2009-1. Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series (FLUE/PLUM), to create the Dade-Collier Cypress Recreation Area District within the Conservation Designation, for property located along the Miami-Dade/Collier County border, in Sections 13, 14, 15 & 16, Township 53 South, Range 34 East, consisting of 1,608:1: acres. [Coordinator: Thomas Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner] 13. ADJOURN CCPe AGENr"o, TO CONSlDFR 2007.2008 (AND 2(09) TRAJ'IlSMITT AI. CYCLE GMPA'S DW!MK October 19,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the October 19th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission for the Growth Management Plan amendments. This will be a very lengthy and detailed meeting. It starts today and it's going to go on forever. So if you'll all please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Roll call by our secretary, please. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is present. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Planning Commission absences. We usually review the next meeting date. It happens to be tomorrow. So I'm assuming that everybody except Mr. Midney will be here tomorrow. Is that a fair assumption? Okay. We have a whole listing of public hearings. I'm going to start Page 2 October 19, 2009 today, though, by giving you an introduction as to how we've decided to move forward with this agenda and how the process is that evolves after today and after we get done with our portion of it, and then how the speakers can be expected to be heard today. First thing is the agenda process. There are 10 Growth Management Plan amendments in this cycle. And we'll be referring to the Growth Management Plan as the GMP and you'll hear a lot of acronyms. Prior to the start of each acronym, I'll try to tell you what the acronym is before we get into it too much. We have 10 of these items. Five of them happened to be east of 951 in the more or less heart of Golden Gate Estates. They needed to be looked at on a broad brush approach, a broader picture, rather than piecemeal one item at a time. The staff reports all referred to each one affecting the other. In that basis, the Planning Commission discussed it last week as to how to approach today and we decided to limit today to only the five cases east of 951. And for your reference, those are 2008-1, 2008-2,2007-1,2007-2, and 2007-3. There's a couple of those up by Orangetree, there's one at Wilson and Immokalee, Randall and Immokalee and then Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard. That is all we'll be hearing today, so if you're here for any others they won't be heard today, they'll be heard after today, which most likely may be tomorrow, if we get that far. At the end of all the presentations, and at the end of public input, and I encourage every member of the public who is here, if you have any thoughts on these matters, please, talk to us. We're not going to be very formal in the way you have to speak. There are registration slips out front, but I will be asking for speakers if there's anybody that has any comments. And you can at that time stand up and come to the podium, make your comment. At the end of all the presentations and all the public comment I'll give the petitioners for each petition 10 minutes or less to have any Page 3 October 19, 2009 final comments they want to make on their petitions after they've heard one or two days of input. And then we as a Planning Commission will have discussion and vote on the five items individually. The process that you're about to get involved in is called the transmittal process for the Growth Management Plan amendments. It's the first of several cycles of meetings that have to occur in order for something to change the Growth Management Plan. This does not change the zoning. This just allows the zoning to be changed. So what happens after this what's called a transmittal hearing for those amendments that succeed this process and go on for approval, they go up to DCA, Department of Community Affairs in Tallahassee. The Department up there reviews it for consistency with our Growth Management Plan and our comprehensive language in the -- we have a Future Land Use Element and other elements in the plan. And then they issue a report, now, whether they agree with us that it can go forward or not. And it comes back to us for a second review, which is called the adoption hearing. At the adoption hearing everything that supposedly needs to be corrected if they survive the transmittal gets addressed and then that becomes the time when this actually goes into more or less an approval for the ability for the property owner then to rezone his or her property. The adoption meeting results go back to Tallahassee and they again, hopefully with all the issues addressed, they bless it and it becomes more or less the law of the land. Once someone has the ability to change their zoning pursuant to the Growth Management Plan, they can then apply for the rezone. The rezone is another public process. It involves additional neighborhood informational meetings. And then it can be done in the form of a PUD or conventional zoning. Page 4 October 19, 2009 Then after that rezone, that's when the property can actually be used for the zoning at hand. The transmittal process that you're seeing today, we are only an advisory board. We simply recommend to the Board of County Commissioners. The commissioners on transmittal have to have at least three votes to transmit. If you don't get three votes on the Board of County Commissioners it doesn't get transmitted to Tallahassee and the request fails. If it goes forward and comes back with a report from Tallahassee, we call it the ORC report, the O-R-C, Objections, Recommendations and, I think, Conclusions of DCA. The BCC then gets to vote on it again after we provide them with a recommendation. But this time when they vote on it it takes four commissioners to approve it. So the first round is three, the second round is four. Each round will have public hearings, public meetings, and there'll be more or less three bites at the apple for each one of these actions in front of us. One of the other issues that we have you'll hear talked about today is detail. The Growth Management Plan is supposed to be the broad brush approach to Collier County. It's like a giant paintbrush that says this is the color we're going to paint Collier County, this is what can fit in. It's not into the very minutia, the detail, the trim of the issue. It's just general. So there's a lot of things and a lot of details that will be discussed today that some members of the public may feel are necessary, but this isn't the document that those get into. Some will, but not many. The more detailed you do the Growth Management Plan, the more difficult it becomes to deal with it when we get down the road. The speakers, that's another thing I wanted to mention to everybody. Generally we ask speakers to register for the interest that they have, if it's the first, second, third, fourth or fifth case. And there's Page 5 October 19, 2009 speaker slips out in the hall. We ask people to try to limit themselves to five minutes, although we don't hold that as a steadfast rule. Basically we're here to listen to you. Any time we have speakers who know they want to speak on a subject, if you could, leave a slip with the desk over to my left ahead of time. That would be helpful, because then when we call you it's more organized. By the end of each group of speakers on each subject, I'm still going to turn to the audience and say are there any more people that wish to speak on this matter. And for those of you that want to speak, even if you didn't fill out a slip, you simply come up and use one of the mics, identify yourself, and we'll hear further input. And I wanted to ask the County Attorney's Office, is this a formal meeting in which disclosures are required? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which means everybody will be sworn in then? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you are going to speak, it's important that you rise and be sworn in on -- somebody's-- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Did I say the wrong thing? MR. SCHMITT: Let David clarify. It's legislative in nature and CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I asked the question. So what do you want to correct? MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning Department. This is a legislative hearing, not quasi-judicial, so you are not required to disclose ex-parte communications, nor are you required to swear in speakers. It's your option. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then before we even start, I'll Page 6 October 19, 2009 turn to the Planning Commission. On both items individually, does anybody have any problems, feelings on the disclosure? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I think we should disclose and swear in witnesses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that okay with the rest of the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I got no problem with it. Okay, so if you are going to speak, even if you don't know if you're going to speak but you think you might, please, when we ask you to be sworn in, rise and be sworn in, that will just save us time later on. Another issue about detail. If you have concerns about a project and you're worried that the developer or the applicant may not follow through with everything they say they're going to do, it is important at this meeting that we get it on record what they commit to, because that record can be used when they come back in for the rezone. For example, if they say they're not going to have outdoor music, well that's not the kind of thing you normally put in a Growth Management Plan amendment, you put it in a rezone document. But if they say that here and it's on public record, which it will be recorded, we can then use that in -- we can use that to your favor, if that's what your concerns are when they come back in for the rezone. We can make that imposition on them because they stated it on a public record. So that's about all I have as an introduction. It kind of gives everybody the format. I expect we will be here today all day, tomorrow all day. We have a carryover on the 29th and another one on November 5th. So at the rate we -- what's that, David? No, you say the 3rd, it was the first Thursday of November, what is that, the 5th or the 3rd? MR. WEEKS: The 5th is the first Thursday of the month but we Page 7 October 19, 2009 no longer have a meeting place available -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's right too, okay. MR. WEEKS: We do have a meeting place, the Community Development Environmental Services building, conference room 609 and 610, on November the 3rd, which is a Tuesday, if we need to get to that fourth hearing date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So right now it's today, tomorrow, and the 29th of October at this point. We'll make a decision on the 29th. With that, David, I know you have an introductory statement you want to make. And I -- just for the record, I did ask comprehensive staff to address three particular things to this commission, as well as -- this committee, as well as the rest of the audience. That is an explanation of House Bill 697. It's a new twist that was added to the review process. We hadn't seen it before, so I'd certainly like some clarification on that. We have another new tool, it's called the CIGM. It's a planning tool. I don't even know what the acronym stands for, so when David makes his presentation, I'll let him explain that. That was a costly item. It was paid for by the taxpayers. It was voted on by the Board of County Commissioners. And David's staff has used that to review each one of these applications. So I'd like to know how weighty that should be in regards to the application of it. And the last thing I'd like to ask staff to address, and it's similar to what happened about a year ago, none of the applicants seem to have gotten it right. The data and analysis for almost every application was found to be insufficient or inconclusive in regards to the way staff looked at it. The applicants have complained, a few I've talked to, that this happens too often, they can't seem -- they worry that how can they get it right when they're not told till the last minute that this is a problem. Page 8 October 19, 2009 And so rather than have each applicant come up here and tell us how much that's a problem for them, I thought we'd get it nipped in the bud right from the beginning and ask staff to address that issue as well. So with that in mind, David, it's all yours. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, again, for the record, David Weeks, Planning Manager in the Comprehensive Planning Department. Mr. Chairman, I also have a few other remarks that I typically make prior to this type of hearing, so it will be more than just those three items that you mentioned. First of all, to state a little bit further what you already stated, the fact that this is a transmittal hearing, so that the only final action on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a moment, please. Sure, why not, we might as well. Why don't we do a mass swearing in right now, Cherie', why don't you do the whole place. Everybody that thinks they may talk, please rise for -- be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Cherie'. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, as I was saying, for the transmittal hearing -- as you've already stated, Mr. Chairman, you are a recommending body, so you take no final action on these petitions. But the Board of County Commissioners that will hear these, it's presently scheduled for January 19th, 2010, to hear these petitions. F or their transmittal hearing, if they vote not to transmit a petition, that is if the motion is not to transmit or if a motion to transmit does not gather at least three votes, a simple majority, then that petition in effect has been denied. I t is done. But if the board should vote to transmit the petition then, as you've stated, it will come back for adoption hearings before this body and the Board of County Commissioners, where final action would be Page 9 October 19, 2009 taken by the board. The state statutes require that at each of these hearings, both transmittal and adoption, that a form be provided -- and this form is out on the -- in the hallway on a table -- where citizens have the opportunity to sign up to receive a notice from the State Department of Community Affairs once petitions have been adopted and sent to them, to receive a courtesy notice from that state agency when their notice of intent is rendered. And the notice of intent is the final document from that state agency, Department of Community Affairs, indicating whether they are finding the adopted Comprehensive Plan amendments in compliance with state law or not in compliance with state law. That is purely optional, but should citizens wish to sign up to do so -- to receive such a notice, they may do so out in the hallway. I would also note that staff is required, the county is required to add anyone's name to this list, whether you sign up in the hallway or not. If you speak here today, we are required to write down your name and hopefully be able to get your address, because ultimately we must provide this sign-up sheet to the Department of Community Affairs so that they can send their courtesy notice. I would note that in addition to the staff report and the comments made in there, including the staff recommended changes, as we get to each individual petition there may be some minor additional changes needed as a result of the County Attorney's Office review. And I would like to note specifically it is not the fault of the County Attorney's Office that their review comments did not get provided to you, Commissioners, in advance. I'm going to get to in a moment why that didn't occur, as I touch on some other comments. As always, once we conclude the hearings, whether it's today, tomorrow or whenever it may occur, staff would like to collect your binders, if you don't choose to keep them yourself, because we can re-use those for the Board of County Commissioners' hearings and to Page 10 October 19, 2009 send to the various state agencies once the board has concluded their transmittal hearing. As you're well aware, you're dealing with petitions with the numbers 2007 and 2008. The 2007 cycle petitions were submitted in April of 2007, about two and a half years ago, and those submitted in 2008 of April then being a year and a half ago. Why has it taken so long? Why the delay? Well, it goes back to the Evaluation and Appraisal Report-based Growth Management Plan amendments that were adopted in January of2007. The EAR, Evaluation and Appraisal Report, is state mandated. It was adopted in 2004. But the amendments, as I just stated, were not finally adopted until January of 2007. Under state law we were prohibited from adopting any other Comprehensive Plan amendments until the EAR-based amendments were adopted. After they were adopted in January, 2007, the 2005 cycle of Comprehensive Plan amendments were adopted in December of 2007, approximately two and a half years after they had been submitted. And then the 2006 cycle of Comprehensive Plan amendments were adopted in October of 2008, again about two and a half years after they were submitted. This schedule for the 2007 and 2008 petitions are presently scheduled to be adopted in mid to late 2010, which is over three years from the submittal date of the 2007 petitions and then over two years for the 2008 petitions. Why such a long delay in that particular case? Well, there's several factors. Number one, a reduction in staff. We went from 14 staff down to 11, despite an increased work load, due to shortfall in revenues -- or declining revenues to the county. Second, we had a few special, non-cycle Growth Management Plan amendments that had to be processed and ultimately adopted. One of which was the 10-year water supply facilities work plan Page 11 October 19, 2009 mandated by state law, and the adoption of a public schools facility element and interlocal agreement revisions, again mandated by state law. And we also had the 2008 adoption -- annual adoption of the Capital Improvement Element update, and then portions of that were found not in compliance by the state agency, Department of Community Affairs. So we then had to go through the process of preparing -- of entering into a remedial amendment and then finally adopting the remedial amendment. We have had and continue to have an overlapping process in review of this cycle of amendments, along with the Immokalee Area Master Plan rewrite, which itself is a massive petition. And we've also, as unfortunately is all too common, we've had a lengthy and I'll just say challenging sufficiency process. Mr. Chairman, this goes to one of the points that you had raised that you asked staff to cover. From the staff perspective, when we review petitions for sufficiency, which is required by the Board of County Commissioners' approved resolution that establishes the GMP amendment process, we are required to review the petitions to identify any deficiencies and notify the applicant in writing of those deficiencies. Additionally, staff takes on a position of gatekeeper of petitions, which mayor may not have anything to do with sufficiency. If the application is submitted without page numbers; if the exhibits are not labeled at all or properly labeled; if a reference is made to an exhibit that does not exist; if there are other missing documents; if the acreage figures are in discrepancy throughout the application; if a map is submitted that doesn't have the basic information on it, like a north arrow, the source, the date, the scale, the subject property identified, we point out all of those things in our sufficiency review. And those things do occur regularly. The sufficiency process is a back and forth process. Staff advises Page 12 October 19,2009 the applicant of the deficiencies that we've identified. They in turn have a time period in which to respond back to staff and so on, back and forth until one of two things happens: Either, one, the application is deemed sufficient, or two, the applicant says I choose not to submit further information. Which is their prerogative. We cannot make them correct their application or modify their application or revise it or supplement it. It is their application ultimately to submit to the county in whatever means they so choose. What we must have is an application fee, we must have a notarized letter of authorization from the property owner, and we must have the application form filled out sufficiently to be able to tell just what the application is requesting. Beyond that, the data and analysis and the quality of the submittal ultimately is up to the applicant. In this particular case we also had the time constraint of hearing dates. We have to -- as you know, several months in advance, it was several months ago that we came before you to schedule these hearings. That's required because of the lack of availability of the board room. So we have to plan months in advance for when the hearings are going to occur. Sometimes that's either during or even before the beginning of the sufficiency process, which means in essence there's that loaded gun to our head. We must meet these hearing dates but yet we've got the sufficiency process to get through. I respectfully submit that it all starts with the applicant and what they submit. If they submit what staff believes is an acceptable application, then their sufficiency process is painless and it's easy. That does not happen. In my years here, there's only been one application that I know of that was found sufficient upon the first submittal. We're also picky. I've talked about page numbers and other types of things. We'll even point out typos if we see them. So to be fair to the applicants, their perspective may be we're too picky, we're looking Page 13 October 19, 2009 at too much. I'll also note that this time it around, unlike past years, staff went beyond just sufficiency and we actually got into some of the substantive review during the sufficiency process. Two examples. Number one, we made recommended edits to the applicant's language. That is, what they proposed, what text they proposed to be adopted into the Growth Management Plan. We usually wait until the staff report. The purpose of doing so up-front was, let's say staffhas 10 issues with their language and we propose 10 modifications. If the applicant agrees with eight of those, then they make the changes and then there's only two issues come before you regarding that language. We think that's a more efficient process, and we thought the applicants would appreciate that. And I think they do. Secondly is looking at, in particular, market studies. Not just looking to see do you have a market study and are all the components submitted, but going beyond that, checklist type of mentality to review it in detail, review the data for its accuracy, to review the methodology and the approach taken for its professional acceptability. And these are subjective considerations, most particularly the latter point of the professional acceptability. Because there's more than one way to do a market study; there's more than one possible accepted methodology. Staff may prefer one and the applicant may prefer another. Well, again, ultimately it is up to the applicant. The burden is on the applicant to make the case: Here's why my petition should be approved, here's why the Growth Management Plan as it presently designates my property is not appropriate but what I am proposing is. The burden is on the applicant. Staffs job is to review the application for the thoroughness, the completeness, the accuracy, the professional acceptability, et cetera. That's our job. House Bill 697 is new, as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman. It was Page 14 October 19, 2009 passed by the Florida legislature in the year 2008. This is the first cycle of Comprehensive Plan amendments to be subject to that legislation. Ultimately we're all going to find out how the Department of Community Affairs views that legislation in light of individual Comprehensive Plan -- or Growth Management Plan amendments. It clearly requires a consideration of greenhouse gas emissions, of vehicle miles traveled. I would say succinctly it requires a better job by local governments of their land use and transportation planning in an effort to reduce vehicle miles traveled and the emission of greenhouse gases. As you note on the individual application -- excuse me, individual staff reports, it varies, the type of response provided by the applicants. Some provided no response, some provided minimal response, and then some did much better. But I don't believe any of them quantified their reduction in vehicle miles traveled or greenhouse gas emissions, which we believe the state agency is going to require. But again, ultimately we won't know how the Department of Community Affairs is going to view that legislation in light of these petitions until we actually receive that ORC Report from them. I have a few more comments, Commissioners, but at this point I think I want to turn it over to Michael Bosi, he's the other planning manager in the Comprehensive Planning Department, to talk about the Collier Interactive Growth Model. And as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, that is something that we've just used for the first time, first time it's been available for a cycle of Comprehensive Plan amendments. MR. BOSI: Thank you, David. Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning. Commission, good . mornIng. CIGM is the Collier Interactive Growth Model, the acronym that Chairman Strain had referred to. Page 15 October 19, 2009 Just wanted to give you a little bit of context and the history, how we came about to utilize the CIGM as an additional planning tool. The origin of the model was created after Phase I of the Horizon Study. The Board authorized the development of the CIGM to better plan and evaluate the need of infrastructure and services based upon spatial distribution of population. If you remember, Phase I of the Horizon Study was where we looked out to our distant future, looked at our Growth Management Plan in 2004, 2005. And we said what is the extent of the population growth that we can expect; what is the extent of the cost and need for provision of infrastructure and services to support that population? And that's what I'm trying to -- I'm trying to provide the context for what the Horizon Study -- the Horizon Study was looking out into the future trying to figure out what the cost was and what was the extent of the population. When we presented, we went and we talked to the individual infrastructure and service providers, we gave them an end population that was developed in-house, the 2005 build-out study. And we said what would be the need based upon our adopted level of services in our Growth Management Plan to service this population numbers. From that the board said, well, we need to get a better handle, not only on the end number, but not only the end number but where that end number is going to be congregated, so we can maybe be more efficient within the location of our infrastructure and services, where we can maybe find some advantage for collocation, where we can just have a better handle upon where the necessary infrastructure is going to go. The CIGM was developed during the two-year public participation phase, Phase II of the Horizon Study. It was validated through the Horizon Study public participation committee in which the 70,000 so or parcel baseline data which makes up the CIGM was validated from the individual members. Page 16 October 19, 2009 In addition to planning or utilizing the CIGM as a tool to evaluate where the necessary infrastructure and services were going to be required, we also developed a commercial sub-model. Based upon the distribution of population, the commercial sub-model could give reasonable general, just general, non site-specific but general estimations as to when certain types of commercial commodities would be required. The CIGM and the Horizon Study, the Phase II was presented to the Board of County Commissioners September 29th of last year, of 2008. The board directed staff to take the Horizon Study and the CIGM back to the Planning Commission for a recommendation from this body. December 09 of'08 -- or the 9th of December of last year, it was presented -- the CIGM and the Horizon Study was presented to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission provided a recommendation to the BCC to adopt the CIGM as an additional planning tool, specifically as an additional planning tool, and also to enter into negotiations for the updating of that model. On the 1st -- on the 13th of January of this year, of 1/13/09, the BCC adopted the CIGM as a supplemental planning tool. There wasn't a specific stated purpose other than wherever staff or advisory boards would see applicable, the CIGM would be -- could be utilized as an additional planning tool. And as such, the CIGM has been utilized -- currently it's already __ one manifestation was utilized by the Collier MPO. Collier MPO utilized it to further refine the long-range -- the land use planning within the long-range transportation plan, a necessary component. Whenever you're going to have a long-range vision for your transportation plan, you have to try to allocate and provide for the best estimation for the type of land use and the intensity associated with it. Additionally, the CIGM helped produce that map from the RLSA Page 17 October 19, 2009 property owners of the 22 towns and villages that they had expected. Once we ran our first iteration of what we can expect, we were provided a little bit more information from those property owners. So the CIGM has been utilized in a couple different manifestations so far. But let me point out the original design of the CI GM. The CI GM was never and is never intended to be designed to evaluate a single parcel of land, a single proposal or a single GMP site-specific amendment. The utilization of the CI GM within this Growth Management Plan process was simply to test the population and the dwelling units within the market areas supplied by the individual petitions. So if a GMP amendment for a new commercial center submitted a market study that said within three miles we expect "X" population in "X" year, the only utilization of the CIGM was to test that population in that out year. Let me tell you a couple things -- well, a lot of things that you're going to be hearing about today that the CI GM does not try to attempt to do because it does not try to attempt to evaluate a site-specific application. The CI GM doesn't -- it doesn't quantify or it doesn't calculate access. It doesn't calculate road capacity and future transportation improvements. It doesn't calculate transportation costs, income levels, physical barriers, anticipated demographic and socioeconomic changes, base employment within trade areas, disposable income, environmental concerns, land assembly, parcelship; all the things that go into specific market area analysis, specific market studies. Those site-specific individual functions, the CIGM does not do that. The CIGM basically spatially distributes population. And the CIGM was utilized by the staff to estimate or project the number of dwelling units within the stated market area to evaluate whether those projections were reasonable within those market studies. What the CI GM does do is allows you to look not on a single site Page 18 October 19, 2009 specific, but it tries to better estimate the total demand area based upon the population and the dwelling units that we can expect within a general area. And I think one of the things that you will see, the way that you've decided to hold this meeting today and hold off on your recommendations for each individual petition, because the CIGM is going to help allow or assist that more global or macro perspective as to total demand within the area of these five requests and what's reasonable in terms of the population and the dwelling units we can expect. And then the determination of what is the most appropriate, if any, location those site specific avenues, those site specific criteria, that is the job and that's the information that the applicants and the staff are going to provide to you as to why maybe one site is more situated or better able to serve a greater number of the populace within a general area. But I want to reiterate, the utilization of the CIGM for each individual petition was simply just to evaluate the dwelling units and population projections that makes up that ultimate question that goes into the market study and will go into the recommendation of the Planning Commission. But I wanted to provide for that just general overview of the CI GM. And if there was any questions before the meeting and the site-specific questions would come, 1'd be more than welcome to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, Mike, when you use the CI GM, given that it doesn't do all those other things, when you laid it against, so to speak, laid it against your own projections, how much of a variance was there? Because I noted that we used the 2005, then we used the 2007. Page 19 October 19, 2009 We had the benefit of knowledge. So I'm just trying to get a feel for how effective a tool was it in your mind. MR. BOSI: I think it's an effective tool. And the longer that you look out, you have to remember, as the population projections that we had just in 2005 within a short period of time, those estimations proved -- in the short run proved rather inaccurate. We've had a little bit of benefit of seeing the change within the marketplace to recalibrate, you know, some of those end projections or the timing of those end projections. But what the growth model allows you for, it allows you to understand -- and also our 2005 build-out study, it allows you to see where that end number is. Because that end number of what the Growth Management Plan ultimately allows for development, that's a static number. But when that number is going to be arrived I think is what the growth model helps better bring into focus. And as such, I think through this process and through the review process, it did find a benefit within the application for the individual commercial request. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR. COHEN: For the record, Randy Cohen. Mike, could you discuss briefly the differences in what the Bureau of Economic and Business Research Population projections were and also what the model showed. MR. BOSI: The long -- I'm a little taken aback, Randy. I'm not sure what -- MR. COHEN: I'm looking at for you to explain the deviation and the variant that existed between the two. MR. BOSI: The long-term BEBR populations that go out to about 2030 and the growth model, they're -- right now there's about a three, three and a half percent divergence between the two. So in terms of where it's at, in terms of its long-range projections, in terms of adjusting to the currents trends, it's somewhere within -- it's within that five percent acceptable standard of deviation in terms Page 20 October 19, 2009 of where the CIGM is at compared to where the Bureau of Economic and Business Research is at as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on the CIGM? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, I've got one. In reviewing the data, and I have reviewed a lot of it over the last couple weeks, the CIGM is more of a comprehensive countywide picture. The purpose of the neighborhood or commercial centers that are being proposed are applications that are more of a finer community-orientated application. And I tried to compare the requests that were before us today as to what Collier County has built out to date. And in the coastal area, urban area, we have commercial centers within feet of most housing developments, not within miles. The requests today are requesting centers be closer, and some I think the radius is two miles or something like that. In the traffic analysis zones, we are broken down in various portions of the county to analyze the county piece at a time; what is needed for this piece to be, I guess, self-sustaining or by itself, what is needed for another piece. If you were to look at the urban area, they don't need -- and by the standards set apparently by the CIGM for the Golden Gate Estates area, you wouldn't need any more commercial in the urban area within the proximity, because they're already there. I mean, almost every comer's got commercial. So the argument is in the Estates we need -- there's been an argument that more is needed. But yet the CIGM, from the analysis I've seen from staff, says no, it's not. So how does the balance between why it's needed in the urban area and why it isn't needed in the Estates area based on say a more finite package, like a T AZ, which is, by the way, transportation analysis zone. How does that equate? How do you put that together? Because we're not looking at the broad county here, we're Page 21 October 19,2009 looking at a need for a specific community. MR. BOSI: And we didn't -- and when you see some of these maps that will be submitted within your application packages, and you see the standards that have been adopted as averages for the county, for instance, for each neighborhood center the 13,000, the 110 people, that's what on average the built environment, the existing statement, existing 23 existing neighborhood centers, and we found that the population that served that center was 13,110. And remember, that's within the urbanized area. The growth model is a static model from that respect, is when we looked out in the future, we utilized that as our average. The site-specific conditions that go into the Estates haven't been adjusted to reflect -- to reflect the individual differences, the population densities, the disparities. That's why each individual application is going to have to be -- can establish through the evidence that's submitted by their application or by their applicants as to why there is differences within the Estates. The CI GM didn't try to determine the population densities' differences between what has established our averages within the urbanized core and try to correlate it towards what that average should be within the Estates, we just said -- we basically said as of now, the experience for neighborhood center is one center per 13,110. But that's in the urbanized area. The conditions that are faced within the Estates, well, we understand that those could be -- there's a lot of differences. And that site specific information, that site-specific information as to whether that bears favorably in terms of the application or has negative consequence, that's for the individual discussion per the individual site -- or the amendment application. The CIGM didn't try to do that. The CIGM basically said here's where -- the population that we expect within the Estates, here's the market area that's being described between each individual Page 22 October 19, 2009 application. Just evaluates simply that population of dwelling units. That's the only application that the CIGM has been utilized within this amendment process. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Can I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Which brings me to -- there's -- I don't want to get it out but I think you'll know what I'm talking about, there's a map and then there's a chart and it talks about CC and the regional and so forth. And then it speaks to areas, 237, 351, blah, blah. A lot of those have decimals on them and they are some large and some smaller. And how does one relate to that? How does that relate in the chart? If you can tell me. MR. BOSI: Well, the T AZs, why they have decimals is because as we have progressed as a county and as individual T AZs have loaded more people, there's a threshold towards the number of activities that could happen within a T AZ for traffic modeling before another T AZ is required. And therefore, you'll see some T AZs that have decimals. And the way -- the growth model works in a very generic, general term. It basically says -- and this is the only concept that staff really wants to get to the Planning Commission, because this is a limited, it's a strict limited use. It basically says here's our population centers, here's where your population centers are expected to be based upon the allowance for growth within your Future Land Use Map and your future land use regulation. Upon these centers of growth we placed the commercial-- we're going to place the commercial in an area where that would provide the greatest market penetration. But we don't even know -- the CIGM doesn't know about roadway access, it doesn't know about physical barriers. So even though it may say this is the best area, there may be nine or 10 other Page 23 October 19, 2009 specific reasons why that area doesn't work and an area in closer proximity or maybe outside of where the CIGM had projected where growth would be. So when you see within the CI GM report that it estimated that a neighborhood center would be needed in 2015 in this T AZ, it's a generality. That's all that it is. It says there's population within that area that seems would support a neighborhood center. But the site specific of where that's going, the model doesn't try to make that it's an authority upon that, it just says that we recognize that based upon the standards that the county has developed through its built environment that a potential new neighborhood center could be supported. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And I thank you. And I do understand that. That's a good correlation. The problem is from the TAZ to that table, that the decimal goes away. And so when one wants to look at where you're referring, you cannot be sure because sometimes there are four decimal places, which means sometimes fairly large tracts of land. And it's just a suggestion that in trying to relate to it, it becomes very difficult. And I appreciate what you told me, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any there any more questions on the CIGM before we go back to David? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michael, thank you. Dave? MR. WEEKS: Thank you. A few more comments on data and analysis. I want to back up to that. A couple of things we dealt with this time around, I guess I'll say on the negative side before I try to temper some of my comments. We were dealing with additions of property up until late in the process for some petitions and changes to market study boundaries also late in the process, sometimes multiple changes; that is, each re-submittal would have a different boundary, which means staff has Page 24 October 19, 2009 to reevaluate that again and again. And that all plays into why sufficiency has taken so long. In my earlier comments that we had hearing dates set, ultimately what happened was sufficiency was still ongoing but we ran out of time. So we had to get to that point for some applications of saying here's your sufficiency letter saying that you're sufficient, but you're really not, it's just that we have to go to hearing. Make sure you address these "X" number of items when you make your final application submittal. That's not the way it should be. And ultimately I think the solution probably is that we should not schedule hearings until we've completed the sufficiency process, and possibly not until we have the staff reports written or near written to try to build it. Because I know one of the criticisms is, as you've already stated, and it's been going on for years, is we get the staff -- we the applicants get the staff report, that's when we find out what the issues are. Well, again, we tried to address that during sufficiency somewhat this time by looking at the subdistrict text they proposed and recommending edits and digging deeper into the market study. But still there are issues that they mayor may not be fully aware of until they get that staff report. And then understandably their response is well, we want time to respond to that. We need a continuance of the hearing and/or we want to submit more data and analysis or we want to change our language that we've proposed. And in fact that has happened this time for at least one petition. I also want to make it clear that I'm speaking in generalities. Petitions vary. Some were of better quality than others. I've painted with a very broad stroke here. Some are of much better quality than others. I also want to say that the applicants, just like staff, we're human, we make mistakes. So I've I think taken -- I've beaten them up a little Page 25 October 19, 2009 bit, but at the same time I must acknowledge that staff makes mistakes. Staff, from their perspective, perhaps reasonably so, is being too picky in some instances. And whatever else they want to say, I'll let them have their turn. I also want to mention specifically in the defense of the applicants, the two particular issues they had to deal with because of the delay of the cycle. Number one was this House Bill 697. That didn't even get adopted until I think July of2008. So all of these petitions were submitted before that legislative change occurred. So they had to come back then after and some cases more than a year after their petition had been submitted to try to address this. So through no fault of their own they had an additional burden as far as their application submittal goes. Secondly, because of the delay, almost all of these petitions had to either completely redo or at least update their traffic studies and their commercial demand analysis. Because of that time period that went by, well, population estimates, projections changed, the amount of commercial zoning and development on the ground changed, which are important components of that study. So again, through no fault of their own, they were imposed with that burden of additional time and expense to make changes to their application. In that what I was just speaking of comes back to the County Attorney's Office review being late. Because we were in our department still dealing with sufficiency; we did not have the applications in-house to provide to -- all of the applications in-house to provide to the attorney's office to commence their review. And likewise, we were not able to complete staff reports until the very last minute; that is, the very last week of September, for even a case or two on October 1 st, the very day that you received your staff reports. So the review for most of these petitions by the Attorney's Office Page 26 October 19, 2009 did not occur until after staff reports were written and delivered to you. And I would say again that the comments that came from that office are not major, but there are some minor comments that will need to be interjected as we go through each individual petition for some tweaks to the language. And the last couple of items, Commissioners, the Growth Management Plan represents the vision of the community. Collectively it represents the community's desires. The community's desires can change. And under state law we must do and prepare an evaluation and appraisal report every seven years. That is, we must evaluate the Comprehensive Plan or Growth Management Plan every seven years. We've established this vision of what we want to see our community and how we want to see it developed and not develop~d, how we want certain areas protected. Is that vision being fulfilled through our Growth Management Plan or do we need to amend it in some way to fulfill that vision, or has our vision changed? Do we want to go in a different direction? Either of which could result in the need then for subsequent amendments to the Growth Management Plan. I don't think the Growth Management Plan amendment process is easy, and I don't think it should be, because you are changing the vision for the community. It is a burden on the applicant and I think it should be the burden on the applicant to show why this vision should be changed for this particular piece of property. The Golden Gate Master Plan of course is more detailed than the countywide Future Land Use Element. Likewise, the Immokalee Master Plan is more detailed for that geographic area. And the reason is because it is for a smaller geographic area. It is a master plan for a smaller portion of the county. The Golden Gate Master Plan was adopted in 1991 with the Page 27 October 19, 2009 assistance of a county commission-appointed citizen committee that worked with staff. The primary objectives behind that -- or impetus behind the creation of the Golden Gate Master Plan was a concern by the community of wanting to know where nonresidential uses were going to go within the Estates. Until the master plan was adopted, the Golden Gate Estates area was treated just like the urbanized area as far as conditional uses go, your churches, your child care centers, your nursing homes, social-fraternal organizations, et cetera, David Lawrence centers. Those types of uses were allowed anywhere, simply go through the conditional use process. So that meant any property within the Estates was eligible for a conditional use. It was also a concern about where commercial development would occur within the Estates. There's other things, but those were the two main impetuses behind the master plan's creation. And once the master plan was adopted in 1991, boy did the rules change. Conditional uses were subject to very stringent locational criteria, and they still are. Commercial opportunities are also very limited, both in location but also in the type of commercial. You can only have neighborhood commercial within Golden Gate Estates. The subdistricts out there limit intensity to C-1 through C- 3 zoning districts, that's our commercial professional and general office zoning district, our convenience commercial and our intermediate commercial zoning districts. The sizes of the properties for the most part were limited to five acres. Think of the neighborhood centers. Typically, not always, but typically five acres per quadrant. Very stringent development standards that you do not have in the urban area, which further limits the actual square footage you could develop on a piece of property . There is no provision in the Golden Gate Master Plan within the Page 28 October 19, 2009 Estates designated area for community scale commercial. None. Only allowances for neighborhood commercial. And in the cycle there are two petitions that request a square footage and use intensity that staff would say is either community commercial or at the tipping point to transition from neighborhood or community scale commercial. So those two in particular are requesting something that is not contemplated presently in the master plan and I would say therefore not within the vision of the master plan. There are policies in the Golden Gate Master Plan that speak to maintaining the rural character, semi rural character of the Estates. There is even one policy that outright prohibits new conditional uses or new commercial zoning on one segment of the Estates, that being the Golden Gate Parkway corridor. It's a different vision altogether from the urbanized area, and we have these multiple requests to change that vision. And in addition to the individual site-specific analysis that staff has performed, the evaluation of the applications for appropriateness of change of the designation, for infrastructure impacts, for demonstrated need, we've also looked at something you mentioned early on, Mr. Chairman, that global approach. This is the first time we've had five -- excuse me, a total of six amendments to the Golden Gate Master Plan in one cycle. That's unheard of. I think the most we've had before might have been four back during the 2005 amendment cycle. And you might recall, during that 2005 cycle staff took a similar approach of time out, let's don't act on these petitions, but specifically that was for the east of 951 amendment petitions, because that East of 951 Horizon Study was underway, and we, I'll say mistakenly, for the staff that were involved in the plan amendments, mistakenly thought that there was going to be a little more specificity about land use in that study than there actually was. October 19, 2009 Then now we move to these amendments and staff, as you've noticed in your staff reports, saying for all of these petitions in the Estates both east and west of 951, we're suggesting that the appropriate planning approach is not a private sector-initiated piecemeal approach but rather a comprehensive approach to reevaluate the Golden Gate Master Plan. Another restudy, if you will. There was a restudy done back during 2001 to 2003, and during that time period the end result was some changes, but not in the overall vision of the community. That is still limit commercial to neighborhood scale. And the locations were almost all the same. There were some changed within the Estates. And that maintaining of semi rural character was still the expressed vision and policy. My point is from the adoption in '91 through the restudy up to today, the vision of the master plan has not significantly changed. And the staff used the multiple petitions in aggregate as a major shift in that vision, and we think it ought to go back through a restudy process to let the citizenry through that process be able to voice their position. Ultimately it may end up the same as what we're seeing today. We don't know. I mean, through that restudy process there may still be a request for some community scale commercial. There may be a request for more neighborhood centers. That vision may change out into the Estates. There may be a desire for larger commercial centers, higher intensity of commercial zoning, allow C-3, C-4. We think the community at large ought to be able to weigh into that process, not through this piecemeal approach. And that's why globally we -- in addition to any site specific issues, we've globally said we don't recommend approval of any of those six within Golden Gate Estates. And finally, Mr. Chairman, I don't think we want to take action today. I don't see any agent here for Petition CP-2008-3, which is not scheduled to be heard today, that's the petition at the southwest comer Page 30 October 19, 2009 of the Golden Gate Parkway-Santa Barbara Boulevard intersection. We know, and Mr. Chairman, I know you're aware that there's an issue with proper notice. The neighborhood information meeting that is required was not properly noticed, and therefore there must be another NIM meeting held. And for that reason that petition cannot be heard today or tomorrow. And their NIM hearing is actually scheduled for either October 29th or 28th, so I don't think it will be able to be heard on the 29th. So I don't want you to take any official action today, but I want you to know that there will be a request to continue that to a future date. And I believe that's going to be at your regularly scheduled November 19th Planning Commission hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just for the benefit of the applicant on that particular one, it's my understanding from them that the error was no fault of theirs. Is that what you understand? MR. WEEKS: I don't know. I don't know who's to blame. But I just know that the applicant is responsible for providing notice, but at the same time I believe they obtained certain information, address lists from the county, so I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of David before we go into our regular hearings? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, I have one more, I'm sorry again. In your denial of all of these applications, you had some standard basic features of why you didn't feel it was appropriate, the CIGM being one, portions of -- and some of them House Bill 967 or 697, whenever it was we just talked about. And then you relied apparently on the possibility of all of these being approved and how if that were the case certain specific ones then were too much. And you also relied upon Big Cypress future town in some of your arguments.. Page 31 October 19, 2009 In a data and analysis that you do in regards to why something is considered to be maybe overbuilt, if it's built at this time, how do you justify using applications that are not approved and ones that are still in limbo? Like Big Cypress I know has been kind of slowed down in its process to move forward. So if we were to say that you're right, this is too much commercial because Big Cypress is going to have, what, a half a million, a million, whatever amount of square feet they're going to have, yet that one doesn't even come on-line for 10 years because we all know that the commericial in Ave Maria right now is having a hard time. How do you justify that? MR. WEEKS: Admittedly you have to temper any consideration of a project that's not yet approved. But I can tell you that the Orangetree PUD is in for an amendment to increase its square footage by I think it's well over 100,000 square feet. I think it's something like 150 or 60. It's a significant increase of what they're approved now. We know of it and it's something that we have to I'll say put on a balance. If you absolutely assume that's going to get approved, if we assume Big Cypress D RI gets approved and any of these pending applications, that could lead to one very different conclusion that if we take the opposite extreme and assume that none of them get approved because after all, they are what they are, they're pending, they're not approved. From the staff perspective, two points: One, I think we have to assume that some type of approval is going to occur, whether it's one, the other, both at a lesser scale. We think -- I mean, look at the approval history of the county commission. I don't want to get into politics, I'll just say, though, that the commission approves most of the requests that come before them. I would secondly point out to you that most particularly of the biggest one, the Big Cypress, it is submitted in an effort to gain its Page 32 October 19, 2009 approval using the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay provision in the Growth Management Plan. That is, the applicant believes that they comply, they're eligible for that development. I can't speak to specifically whether staff agrees with that or not, but they do certainly qualify for some level of town because the RLSA overlay allows for a town. So whether Big Cypress gets approved or not, some other SRA, Stewardship Receiving Area, will eventually get approved, we think, and actually we hope within the Stewardship Receiving Area -- excuse me, within the RLSA, Rural Land Stewardship Area. Because ultimately that is the goal. I mean, the reason the county adopted that overlay ultimately is we wanted to see habitat protection in that vast area, and the trade-off for that was to allow for these Stewardship Receiving Areas, these towns, villages and hamlets, such as Big Cypress or such as Ave Maria. So again, whether Big Cypress gets approved or not, we anticipate that some town or towns will get approved within the RLSA, and that's reasonable we believe to assume that they will be proximate to some portion of Golden Gate Estates. Therefore, some portion of the Estates would utilize some of that commercial within the RLSA, therefore lessening the need for commercial within the Estates. Another thing, if I may. Another thing about the restudy, I was talking a while ago about whether the community wants to see community-scale commercial allowed, whether they want to see more locations for commercial. The other question will be even if they do want community-scale commercial to serve the Estates, do they want it in the Estates at all, or would they want it on the edge of the Estates, for example, along Immokalee Road or along County Barn -- excuse me, Collier Boulevard. Or might they want it proximate to but outside of the Page 33 October 19, 2009 Estates such as in the RLSA or the rural fringe mixed use district or the urban area of Collier Boulevard, or within the rural settlement area, the Orangetree, Orange Blossom Ranch. We just think there's a lot of decisions; you know, fundamentally what they want to see, where they want to see it, what intensity do they want to see it. And that goes back to why we think that the restudy is the best approach. I hope I answered your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : You did. But I have just one comment. You're basing some of your denial then on future projects such as Big Cypress. Say some parts or all of these five petitions get approved today. On the flip side of that coin, well now you hold it against Big Cypress and tell them they can't have their commercial. I mean, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. And I'm just wondering, are we looking at no lessening of commercial? Regardless of what's done here today, if this were to get approved, does that mean Big Cypress can go forward with all their commercial? Because if that's the case, I'm wondering how you favor one segment over the other. MR. WEEKS: Right. It's certainly conceivable that staff recommendation for Big Cypress or any other development that proposes commercial, whether it be in the RLSA or elsewhere, if it's proximate to these petitions in the Estates, certainly it could affect our recommendation. Certainly. And all of these themselves, as you've pointed out a while ago, the four requesting all commercial east of 951 are proximate to one another. As the maps show in the staff report analysis, you can see overlapping market studies. If you approve one, that most certainly has an impact on the others in that geographic area. And I'm not only speaking of the two big ones, the two large petitions, but even the smaller ones. When you have approved one, it has an impact on the other. Page 34 October 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's with that knowledge that we made the decision to hear all these first before we vote today so that we have that ability to sort them out as we go to vote and not have to decide on one in a specific order that may not be the best one for the Estates, if only one is to be limited. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: David, if all these are approved today, what is the time table going forward and how many more bites of the apple per se do we get to deny them down the road? MR. WEEKS: Well, if they all get approved for transmittal, then they'll come back for the adoption hearings. And if they all get approved at adoption, then their next step will be the rezone stage. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And what is the time period for that, approximately? MR. WEEKS: The adoption hearings are in a state of flux a little bit, but somewhere between July and October of next year. We think it will be July. We're actually going to the Board of County Commissioners to discuss the schedule in a week or so. And the effective date of the amendments is -- I believe it's something like 90 days or so after that we have to send them up to the state agency and they have to review. And I think first must find the amendments in compliance; secondly, get through a challenge or appeal period and no one file a challenge to finally become effective. So we're talking about effectively the end of2010. Then the rezone petition could be submitted after that. But I should also point out that there's been a change in state law that allows for concurrent submittal of rezone petitions with Comprehensive Plan amendments. So rather than waiting until let's say January of 20 11 for a rezone to be submitted, it could actually be submitted sometime during 2010 as a companion to this Comprehensive Plan amendment here that's going through the process. Rezonings, ballpark take six to nine months to go through their Page 35 October 19, 2009 process. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. MR. COHEN: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. COHEN: I wanted to add on something with respect to your question regarding Big Cypress. Because there's a big difference between the properties in the Rural Land Stewardship Area and those that you're considering today. The properties in the Rural Land Stewardship Area, they do have an overlay by board policy direction and affirmation of the establishment of that overlay. Those properties allow a petitioner right now to come in today and to ask for a stewardship receiving area that would allow them to have for consideration a very large town or village with a commercial component that's self-sustaining. The properties that you're considering today, they don't have that over-reaching land use category that exists today. They can't even come in and ask. So there's a big differentiation between the properties that exist out in the RLSA than the properties that you're considering today. They can ask right now and they can go through a process. At this point in time right now they don't have the land use classifications in Golden Gate Estates that you're considering today that would even allow them to ask. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Before we move on, is there any other questions of staff before we get into the actual hearings? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The way our process works and time frame is that at 10:00 we have -- approximately 10:00 we have a IS-minute break for the court reporter and Kady, who is trying to keep these cameras moving. And then we break for lunch somewhere Page 36 October 19, 2009 between 11 :30 and 12:00, we leave and then we come back in an hour after that. Then we have one break in mid-afternoon. Item #4A CP-2008-1~ ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So with that in mind, we'll move forward. And the first item up for today's agenda is Petition CP-2008-1. It's the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, and it's the project on the comer of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevard. All those who -- now, we had a mass swearing in earlier. I have seen people come in since that time. If you were not sworn in earlier and you intend to speak on this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there disclosures on the part of Planning Commission? Why don't we start on the end with Ms. Homiak. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes, I had a conversation with Mr. Y ovanovich and Mr. Arnold. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I had a phone conversation with Mr. Arnold and Mr. Y ovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. Page 37 October 19,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Arnold, and I've received numerous e-mails from a citizen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I had a meeting with Mr. Y ovanovich and Mr. Arnold. I've also received many, many e-mails. I have forwarded all those on to staff. They may have copies of them with them here today. There were far too many for me to even consider printing. Late last night I received two e-mails that have more bearing than some of the rest in the sense that I have to react to them. One is an II-page document from the First and Third committee. I didn't have the facilities at home on a Sunday night to run out to Kinko's or anywhere from the Estates, because there's no Kinko's out there, in which to go ahead and run off all the copies needed for today's meeting. In the e-mail I had received, I was told the applicant had this agreement and this -- and I was hoping that you had enough copies made so this Planning Commission could have it. Because based on the agreement there are a lot of items on there that I find question with, and I would like to be able to use that to ask the questions. That's the first question I have. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I think Mr. Banks has nine copies, and I'm certainly willing to give my copy to -- I don't have the final, I only have a draft version, so I couldn't hand out that. We have nine copies, I believe, which would be enough for everybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we need one for the court report-- well, we only need eight, and one for the court reporter. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, in the meantime, if the commission office will allow, I'm sure Mr. Banks could get some copies made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think it's important that the Page 38 October 19, 2009 Planning Commission and the court reporter have a copy. I know it's public record, it was sent -- the county has a copy of it, but it's on electronically. For the quantity of pages, I printed one and I marked them up, so mine have notes on them in which to discuss from. And another letter form of an e-mail I received, I was asked to distribute today, which I did do is one page. And it was from a resident, Ms. McDonald, who lives right near the project on the end of one of the streets. And I told her I would distribute it for her today. And I have a copy for the court reporter and I have a few extra copies, Richard, in case you or your client may want one at break or now or whenever you'd like. With that in mind, I think -- and I haven't received -- I've been on this Planning Commission for nine years and I have never received so many pieces of e-mail and correspondence as I have received on this . Issue. So the marketing campaign that you have pursued has been paying off, because a lot of people have responded. That's always good. And I certainly want to hear everybody's comment here today when we get into this as far as public comment goes. We'll start with the presentation by the petitioner and of course questions from the Planning Commission following that. Okay, Richard. MR. Y 0 VAN 0 VI CH : Yes, good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. With me today is Wayne Arnold with Q. Grady Minor and Associates. They're both the planning and engineering firm on this particular Compo Plan amendment. Mike Timmerman with Fishkind and Associates will be going through the market analysis we did. Ted Treesch is here to answer transportation questions. And then Jay Bishop is the broker for the project. He doesn't plan on speaking but he's been very involved in this process, and I wanted to make sure I introduced him. Page 39 October 19, 2009 Before you today is a request to establish the Estates Shopping Center subdistrict on approximately 41 acres at the intersection of Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard. It was an accumulation of 16 parcels, so as far as the ability to put together parcels to come up with an Estates -- with a shopping center that you would find in the urban area in the rural area is no easy task. And I will tell you that in order to do this, my client took the risk and he understood it was the risk, that he actually bought the properties, owns them outright and did it prior to going through the Comprehensive Plan amendment process. That was the only way he was going to be able to successfully put together enough property, because this parcel actually started the process in the 2006 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle. And we, if we're fortunate enough to get adoption, it will be 2010 when adoption occurs. So it's not an easy task to put together a parcel of property for this type of use. There was a history to this parcel in 2006. I was not involved in the early formation of the Compo Plan amendment petition, and neither was Wayne Arnold. We came on board late in that review cycle for 2006. We had made some changes to the petition, but there was clearly some bad feelings regarding the petition that was submitted in 2006, and they were exhibited, if you will, at our neighborhood information meeting for the 2006 cycle petition. So recognizing that there were a lot of unanswered questions from not only the community but the more immediate residents, we sought to continue the petition to the 2007 cycle. We were told we could not continue to the 2007 cycle, that we had to actually resubmit as part of the 2008 cycle. So we did that. So we've paid two petition review fees for essentially the same square footage and transportation and other analysis. There have been significant text changes from the 2006 petition to what you have in Page 40 October 19, 2009 front of you today. But essentially other than being updated because of time, there was a lot of similar data and analysis regarding this particular petition. I heard David talk about community involvement in the amendment process and the desire to delay going forward and doing more of a community-wide review process that -- and I would like to point out that I think that the process that we went through was probably more community-oriented than any process most petitioners would go through. And I can't speak to other petitioners, because I don't know what they went through, but I do know what we went through. And certainly more focused on getting community involvement than any county review process that I've been involved with. And I'll briefly go through the process that we went through for the public, as well as the Planning Commission, because we've given you a synopsis of what we've done to try to find out, one, does the community want a center and do they want it at this location, and do they want it this size. So we started obviously with -- after Wayne and I got involved prior to the first NIM back in 2008 for the 2006 cycle we did some focus groups to find out were we on track. We also had informal meetings with nearby property owners. We then had the required county NIM that I told you didn't go so well. So we took a time-out from that. We also mailed out a survey to people within our market area to determine -- there was over 5,000 people we sent a survey out to, and we got about 1,600 surveys back, and it's in your back-up. So we a got a nice return regarding surveys. And we asked the very specific question, do you want a 225,000 square foot 41-acre shopping center on this particular comer? And the response, 83 percent was yes, we do. And then we got into the specific uses as well. But it was a Page 41 October 19, 2009 yes/no question to do you want it, and then whatever, where the specific uses go. So we did a survey in our market area and we reported those results to the community. But again, the craving of detail in the Comprehensive Plan. And as I explained, the Comprehensive Plan was supposed to be more general, but in this particular area, since this is new, they wanted specifics in the Comprehensive Plan amendment. So what we actually submitted as we went through this process was a very detailed Comprehensive Plan amendment, almost to the level of detail that you would find in a PUD. And that was by design because as we were going through this process, staff has always been of the opinion that you cannot concurrently process a PUD with a Comprehensive Plan amendment. So we made sure that our Compo Plan amendment, if you will, was detailed enough so the community would understand that when the PUD came through we couldn't get out of whack with what was in the Compo Plan amendment. Fortunately the legislature recently adopted an amendment to the rules that allows us to process a PUD amendment concurrently with -- I mean a PUD concurrently with a Comprehensive Plan amendment. And we have submitted a PUD rezone document to be processed concurrently. They can't be adopted at the same meetings, but to be processed concurrently with the Comprehensive Plan amendment. And in coming up with the PUD documents, we did that in conjunction with the First and Third group representatives. So the PUD document had neighborhood input as well as the Comprehensive Plan amendment itself had neighborhood input. I got a little sidetracked there for a second going through the involvement of the community. We also did 46 hour-and-a-half, one-on-one interviews with people. It was a fathom study where we did detailed analysis or interviews with people who might use these facilities, as to what Page 42 October 19, 2009 should it look like, what should the uses be, what should it, you know, kind of feel like as a community. And they came back and said it needs to have a lot of open space, lot of green space and it just needs to be a community area where people can come, do more than one thing, not just go to the grocery store but they can go to a restaurant and have other services at this community-type facility. After we collected the fathom study information and had a chance to process all that, we started our own neighborhood information meetings. The informal, not the required one. We started close in with the residents closest to the project. And I will tell you that one was a little bit more heated than the ones as we moved out. Because naturally it affected people who were closest to the center. I think the consensus was from the majority of the people that yes, the center was needed but would you want it in your backyard was the feedback we kept receiving. And we said give us a chance to meet with you in a smaller scale and see if we can address your concerns regarding it being in your backyard. And this was mainly the First and Third group. And I will tell you that that started out as a pretty harsh relationship when the first petition went in, but as time went through and we had a chance to sit down and work through the issues, I think it became a good relationship and a good document before you today as well as the PUD that you will hopefully see some time in the future. We also met with the two civic associations out there to provide more information as to what we're doing. So we all told probably had at least 12 public meetings dealing with this particular petition. And as you've gotten in your backup information, there has been -- I'll do a broader brush picture of letters that you received, roughly 1,900 letters of support. I'm directionally challenged as we all know, so I think I got north Page 43 October 19,2009 up. Did I? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You may have north up, but it's upside down. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Whatever. If you could scan in. This is our market area, that we got roughly a little over 1,900, almost 2,000 letters of support within the market area for the study. That's in addition to the surveys, and I'm sure there's duplication between the surveys and the letters. But in a closer in-look around the center itself, if David got it right the first time -- after I messed it up the first time. This is a closer in of the bigger map. And you could see within close proximity to the center there's a lot support, letters of support for the project. So we believe from a proposal -- we have a lot of community support for this proposal. We also believe, that we've addressed the concerns of a majority of the people in close proximity to the center. There we will be some that are not happy with the center. I didn't get 100 percent approval rating. But we did work hard and we did get the support of the First and Third group for this particular project. So I don't -- certainly no petition that I've been involved in has done this level of community outreach to find out what the community wants regarding type and location of this type of center. So I don't think it would be appropriate to delay again so that we can re-study this issue to see what the community really wants. As we are requesting on this 41 acres, 225,000 square feet of community retail. And let me go back to the first map I put up there, because I think I left out an important fact. Within our 41-acre request, this parcel, which -- this is Wilson and that's First. Five acres of that roughly 10-acre parcel is already a neighborhood center, okay. So it's -- if you look at your staff analysis, they assumed a little over 6,000 square feet per acre on a Page 44 October 19, 2009 neighborhood center. We're at 4.98 acres, I believe, of neighborhood center on that particular piece. So we're already, if you will, authorized under the Compo Plan for 30,000 square feet of retail type uses within our request. So the net difference really is an additional 195,000 square feet. Still a big project, but I just wanted to point out that 30,000 square feet is already in the review your staff did. And what I notice on the numbers, they counted the 30,000 square feet as available under their analysis of square footage to serve the need, yet they didn't give me credit for being allowed to keep my own 30,000 square feet. So they used that 30,000 square feet against me in the analysis. So they said the entire 225,000 square feet is not justified because of the, quote, need that's already satisfied by these other five-acre parcels. So I wanted to kind of point that out. We met with the neighbors, and what did they say? They said they wanted a grocery store. They wanted a grocery store anchor shopping center on this piece of property, and how are you going to guarantee us that you're going to deliver a grocery store? Because they'd heard that before. Those of you who have been around long enough, the center that already exists on the southeast quadrant of the same intersection started as a grocery store neighborhood center. At one time it was going to be a Publix or an Albertson's. Neither one of them were delivered on that five-acre parcel on the southwest quadrant. They wanted to know we were doing a real grocery store. So in our request we have a minimum size grocery store of 27,000 square feet and it has to be the first use to receive a Certificate of Occupancy within our project. So as we've been going through this process, we have bet the entire project on delivering a real grocery store to the community. So we addressed that concern right up-front within the document itself. We also included, you know, bigger setbacks. We've included a Page 45 October 19, 2009 conceptual master plan that Wayne will take you through to show you building separation to further address compatibility issues and the rural community character. We've met with your transportation staff and we have a phasing schedule for this. We have 100,000 square feet in Phase 1. And then the remainder of the project can be constructed when the intersection at Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevard is built to its ultimate configuration. We're also providing additional right-of-way for the intersection at no cost to the county. I think that there's no question that a portion of the project is needed today, and I think the staff numbers, although listening to the earlier presentation, I think staff used general numbers on a specific application in my opinion to reach a conclusion of denial. But if you look at the staff numbers, there's a need today for the center, at least the first phase and then some. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't want to interrupt your intensity, but is there a better time to break than not? MR. YOV ANOVICH: If you can give me three more minutes, I'll be done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. By the way, at the break, if those copies are available, I'd like them passed out at the beginning of the break so the commission can review. Thank you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The fact that we're providing urban level services in the rural area doesn't change the character of the community. Golden Gate Estates still requires a minimum lot size of two-and-a-quarter acres. It's how do we design the specific center to make sure it fits in within the community. And in fact there are two goals that deal with providing commercial to the residents of Golden Gate Estates. And we believe Page 46 October 19, 2009 we're consistent with those goals. And Wayne will take you through that in a little bit greater detail. Because there's no question, the goal says they want urban level amenities and services, but they want it to fit in. And that's what we're -- we believe we do fit in. Our project, if you look at it, is about 5,500 square feet per acre when we develop it as an intensity. As you all know, when we come through in the urban area for projects that are looking at retail, we ask for 10,000 square feet per acre. We're almost half of that. And the county, their data and analysis that the county staff has provided says neighborhood centers will be developed at a little over 6,000 square feet per acre. So we're even asking for less square footage than the average the county is assuming for neighborhood centers in Golden Gate Estates itself. And we've done that, and we'll take you through the site plan, for a very good reason, because we wanted to have additional setbacks, additional green space to get us away from our nearby residential neighbors to be compatible and fit in with the community. Currently there are no internal community shopping centers within Golden Gate Estates. I think we all know that. I think your staff report indicates that they probably didn't think somebody could put together 40 acres in Golden Gate Estates to allow for a community center. Because I don't think it was ever really discussed seriously through the review what was the likelihood of someone being able to put together a parcel of this size to address the community-type shopping center needs. We believe that our process has been a very community-oriented public input process. The result of what you have in front of you is based upon those conversations that we've had. And with that, I'll stop here and when we come back I'll let Wayne jump in and start explaining the master plan that's in front of you and anything else you may have regarding that. And then we'll have Mike Timmerman follow him regarding the market study issues. Page 47 October 19, 2009 Right on three minutes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's odd for you, but okay. Let's have a break, we'll come back at 10:18. (Recess. ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if everybody will please resume their seats. David, I don't know what you did, our mics are working again. Okay, Kady took care of it. Thank you, Kady. Okay, for the people just tuning or who might be watching this, we took our break, we left off on the presentation by the applicant for the commercial center in Golden Gate Estates at the comer of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevard. And I believe, Wayne, you were going to continue where Richard had left off. MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. Good morning. I'm Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor. And I thought I would just follow up from where Rich left off and go through just a couple of the specifics of our application, and then take you through the conceptual plan we've developed, and then walk you through some of the other more details of the project that we have been discussing with our neighbors. One of the things I thought that I would mention more specifically, you all have the text that's proposed to be changed in front of you that reflects a pretty significant change, but it also I think is pretty significantly different than some of the other subdistricts that you've seen in the past. We have a fairly specific list of permitted uses and we also have a very specific list of prohibited land uses there. And that was -- that was sort of the thrust of many of the discussions we had with our neighbors because they wanted more certainty, they didn't want an open-ended just you can have C-l through C-4 type uses. Tell us what you want. Page 48 October 19, 2009 So we have a list of specific uses with SIC Code specificity. Again, we also have a shorter list of prohibited uses. But in that text you also find the reference to our grocery store. And from a land use perspective, we do believe that this is the appropriate location for a community-sized shopping center for Golden Gate Estates, especially one that is grocery anchored. And that, as Rich said, we've got the entire project on delivering a real grocery store for the community at this location. There's some other things that are in the text that you'll find, and there may be questions about that later. I'm not going to touch on every detail of it. But it's in an essence is a phasing schedule that we've offered. We have 100,000 square feet initially approved. Of that a grocery store with a minimum size of27,000 square feet has to be the first C. O. issued. We also have a secondary limitation that limits no other use other than a grocery store to anything over 30,000 square feet. And that was done so that the community could be assured that they weren't getting other large format retail stores. That happens to coincide with what we think some of the other smaller junior department stores are that will locate in a community-size shopping center. So you're not going to get another 100,000 square foot footprint user in a shopping center of this type. It's meant to be scaled appropriately for this community and for what the neighbors told us they would like to see at this location. The other thing that we have in there that's related to phasing talks about road improvement schedules. I can't remember if Rich mentioned it, but we are providing right-of-way for the intersection improvements at Wilson and Golden Gate at no cost to the county. And we are then phased based on that improvement schedule. The other thing that staff didn't really support the notion of including it in your document, but it's one that we felt was important because we had made this commitment to the neighbors was we called Page 49 October 19, 2009 it a diagrammatic plan, but it's in essence a very conceptualized site plan that I'll put up on the visualizer. I think you all have that in your packet. But for the audience's benefit, this is a very conceptualized image of the project. The brown areas are meant to be those areas where development could be. You also see our lake area is identified, you see preserve and buffer areas. And this doesn't give you a lot of detail, but when you look at this in what will be the PUD master plan that has been submitted and that will be reviewed by staff and obviously the neighbors, they've also been provided a copy of that, it starts to speak with you how much of this area really isn't development area. As Rich indicated to you, this project is almost 41 acres in size but almost five acres of that is presently in right-of-way. We also have part of the county's pump station that sits on the property, not a large piece of property, but yet it is. And then when you factor in what we have for preserves, open space, water management, another large number, we have committed to a minimum 25-foot wide buffers, for instance, along our road frontages. Fairly big buffer. And I think what it starts to tell you is that probably about half of the site could be developed. So your overall development area will be largely half the site. Half the site would then be dedicated to open space buffers, an area that we've shown on there as a future package plant for water and wastewater on the site. Couple things that we've done in conjunction with the neighbors, and I'll start with just an example. One of the questions of course early on was how can you make a shopping center compatible with the neighboring community. And what we've prepared here and that we've shown with our neighbors is an example of what you can do on Third Street, for instance, our westernmost street frontage. How you can, through use of a berm and the appropriate landscape materials and heights, you Page 50 October 19, 2009 can achieve a visual that is a soft image. I think it works with your goal for Golden Gate to keep the streets feeling rural, if you will, wooded. And you mentioned those things in your goals. Doesn't really talk to neighborhood centers. I think it was alluded to that there might be some prohibition on something larger than neighborhood centers, but I don't read your goal that way. It really talks about how appropriate commercial and limiting commercial to speak to the other characteristics you have in Golden Gate, which was allowing people to have large lots, keeping fowl and being able to have horses and have wooded lots and things like that. So I think between our open space and buffers, we're achieving that goal. Take the Third Street example a little further. And we've broken out the cross-sections. For instance, you can see -- and again we've shared these with the neighbors to show that -- how your view looks across this. And that's how, as Rich alluded to, we've established large setbacks from our property lines that are in our PUD document, because with our lake placement, our buffers and things of that nature you start to achieve these natural setbacks. And I think that the community obviously with their letter of support was happy with that. We did the same exercise for First. And First Street is the street that essentially separates the two larger development tracts that we have on this project. And again, some of the neighbors told us they didn't want to drive on their current street and feel like they're driving through the middle of a shopping center. So what we presented to them were some images showing how with the appropriate buffer that's going to be 25 feet wide again, with hedge, landscape materials, larger trees, et cetera, you end up with a feel that's not like you're driving in a shopping center, you're going to feel like you're on a nice residential boulevard. We did the same exercise for our northern boundary on the Page 51 October 19, 2009 eastern tract closest to Wilson. There's a residential home on the lot immediately north of us. And what we've depicted there is a minimum 75-foot wide preservation area that leads to our lake area that's shown in the cross-section on the upper right hand of that page. And then we've depicted what those preserves look like. And I think that you start to get the idea that you can still retain the rural character of the community by retaining the vegetation and dealing with our buffers appropriately. Couple of other things that occurred through the last several months of meeting with the neighbors, going to both the formal NIM plus our other community meetings and the outreach we had, it's in your packet. And I think Rich alluded to how many of those meetings there were. But we had a lot of dialogue and a lot of diversity I think in those meetings. And people told us that if you're going to bring a shopping center near us, it needs to feel like it belongs here. We don't want it to look like it belongs in the middle of the urban area. Id doesn't need to be Mediterranean, it needs to be something that speaks more rural, if you will. It's hard to define what that is, but I think something that was more old Florida feeling or just something that's a little softer in terms of what that design element is, not something that's Mediterranean, for instance, is I think that we heard. Out of the focus groups, and Rich also discussed that, there was a group called Fathom that conducted those studies. And it was more of a -- you know, I call it more of a touchy-feely planning exercise because it was trying to talk to people about what images they felt comfortable dealing with. And I think out of that came a lot of green areas, usable friendly spaces, et cetera. So we just came up with some design elements that we were showing people along the way, and I think they received good community support. Page 52 October 19, 2009 That for instance is just sort of an elevation view from Golden Gate Boulevard, for instance, that can show you how you have a low-scale shopping center. That view happens to be what we depict as our primary project entrance on Golden Gate. We took that a little further to start showing some of the building architectural elements as well, just sort of as you start to drive into the main part of this project what it could feel like. And you can see we've depicted on this image something like metal roofs, low buildings, bringing in some architectural elements with walkways and pavers. Because one of the things that we heard loud and clear was people will use the shopping center more as a community space, if you will. And that's why we thought it was important that you have a grocery store but you've also got to have the other elements that are going to make that a successful shopping center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, can you wait till he finishes his presentation? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, I can, I was just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because we all have questions. And I would just as soon we wait and got done with his presentation first, if that's okay. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's fine. MR. ARNOLD: I just need a couple more minutes to walk through this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. MR. ARNOLD: So what they told us they would like to have is a place where it can be almost a community gathering spot, and it needed to feel comfortable for them to do that. So of course these are preliminary images and we're going to continue to develop this. And I think that with the supporting letter and the II-page document you referred to, a lot of that is embodied in the PUD document that you all have not seen yet but has been submitted to the county. Page 53 October 19, 2009 And we're going to try to bring these elements to the greatest extent we can into that, and as much detail as the county will allow us to provide we certainly will. I think one thing that is clear, we haven't tried to hide anything in this project, it's been really transparent. And I think that we've been out there working really hard. And part of this speaks to, I think, one, the demand for a grocery store. And you're going to hear Mike Timmerman from Fishkind and Associates talk more about supply and demand. But the community I think largely told us there's a demand. And I think the question was how do you make it fit in the context of Golden Gate. And I think we have. I think you're starting to see the elements of what makes that fit. We're going to keep working on that. But I think you also have to realize you are at an intersection where you have three sectors of the intersection already developed or developing with commercial development. Obviously not of this size. But again, we're dealing with a 40-acre piece of property that at the end of the day when you start leasing out rights-of-way and other things, you're down to a site that's a lower yield than you would find anywhere in the urban area. And part of that's because we do have our own package plant providing utilities. And we have systems that go along with that that require larger open spaces for us to properly dispose of the waste involved. I think that the shopping center internal to the Estates makes good planning sense from a land planning perspective. You bring the use closer. I think that's -- certainly there's a lifestyle choice for a lot of people living in the Estates who said we don't mind driving eight miles or nine miles to go and get our groceries. There's a lot of other people who don't have the ability to go spend three dollars for a gallon of gas and spend 30 minutes of time on the road to do that. And I think we've certainly delivered something that makes good land Page 54 October 19, 2009 planning sense. The other thing that I think is important, and I'm not trying to misquote any of the transportation staff, but I think that they too understand that well-located commercial internal to the Estates has a positive transportation impact on the larger part of your road network because you're taking trips off those other segments of the road that don't absolutely need to be there. So I think this makes good land planning and transportation planning sense. With that, I think I'll close, Rich, unless you need me to address other things. And with that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you could, whatever, address Mr. Wolfley's question that he was going to ask earlier. David? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That view, the picture before this one, the main entrance, that was First; is that correct? MR. ARNOLD: This one? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. MR. ARNOLD: That's at Golden Gate Boulevard. And that's between First and Third. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, okay, it splits the -- I missed that. Another thing, it's a real small thing, because you were talking about uses and prohibited uses. And this is just -- I don't know why it's a pet peeve of mine, but on other items also, and if this thing should go forward into the next process after this, we talk about for instance on Page 2 of 7, very beginning, we talk about right after correctional institutions, number 12 is Waste Management. Now, that happens to be the name of a company that currently serves us. And in the SIC manual it's called Solid Waste Management Services. And I noticed this in a couple of other things where we happen to use the name the company that performs the services. Page 55 October 19, 2009 I'm just wondering if it does go and it ends up in a Growth Management Plan, if we could just use the correct term. MR. ARNOLD: Certainly. I think the intent is to go -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It's just a picky little thing, it just caught my eye. MR. ARNOLD: I think that to the extent we can modify the title to coincide with exactly what it says under SIC Code 9511, it's not a problem for us. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, did you -- I don't know if you finished your presentation, but I'd like to get through your presentation if you've not. MR. ARNOLD: I'm finished. I was ready to yield the floor to Mr. Timmerman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine -- oh, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Out of curiosity, just strumming through all of the intended permitted uses, railroad leasing? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Does somebody know something about the railroads coming in, is that what it is? MR. ARNOLD: No, but I guess in response to the House Bill question on reducing greenhouse gases, that maybe we should have the ability to bring a rail system. But no, it's not our intent to have rail . serVIces. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Very strange. MR. ARNOLD: Just one of those things that's in the SIC Code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer has questions too. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's just a procedure question, Mark. What are we going to do, we're going to listen to the applicants and then we hold our questions until we run through Exhibit A of each of these or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what I was thinking, Brad, is I Page 56 October 19,2009 was going to let them finish their entire presentation on the hope that some of their presentation would answer some of our questions. And then when the last one of their group finishes, we'll go into our questions of anyone of them and then go back to staff after that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my concern is that the Exhibit A, we're going to walk through that page by page like we typically do? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was intending to, because there's really two Exhibit A's. There's the one presented in our packet. But if you look what staffs recommendations are, they're substantially different. So they will take a walk through. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my question is I'll wait for all those exhibit questions until we talk through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. Okay, we'll do it that way. MR. TIMMERMAN: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Mike Timmerman, I'm with fishkind and Associates. We did the commercial needs analysis and supply and demand analysis. First thing I want to go ahead and say is that this is the first time that we've gone through and done a report with CI GM. We spent a lot of time going through seminars, we spent time with staff just to kind of make sure that we're on the same page as far as how the data is analyzed, how the CI GM is to be utilized as a tool. So we spent a lot of time making sure that we were using the same boundaries and that we were using the same data. And that was very important for us to understand and as well as to work with staff so we have a good understanding. Our main thing we wanted to go through and focus on today is first of all look at the boundaries that we -- the trade area that we looked at. This first map goes through and shows the existing centers. The one over to the west is the center of the corner of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard. The one in the north there is the one on Page 57 October 19, 2009 the corner of Oil Well Road and Immokalee Road. And then the one to the east is the proposed Big Cypress center. So you can see from this map that there's an area that where our subject is, which is kind of in the middle. I'll give you this next map. There is no other center that currently serves this immediate area. The red boundary on that map -- sorry, they kind of overlap. The red boundary is the trade area that we selected, and that's a 10-mile -- 10-minute, excuse me, trade area surrounding the subject site. And then you'll see the areas that are located to the south and east, those areas of Golden Gate Estates that aren't served within the other trade areas. And we felt we could add that other -- those other areas of Golden Gate Estates to the 10-minute trade area around our subject property. The thing that's important to note is the fact that obviously our site is, as we talked about, 41 acres. The ability to go ahead and assemble 41 acres to do a community center is -- provides for us a much more functional site and provides for better goods and services as it works throughout the Golden Gate Estates area. Once we've gone through and determined our trade area, we went through and sent this trade area boundary to the staff so that we were making sure we were utilizing the same trade area. The data that we utilized to determine demand comes from a source that collects data from the census, as well as from BEBR. It also utilizes information on household electrical drops, maildrops, as well as electrical information. So that's how we determined our demand in our study. From the CIGM, they utilized the same boundary, and it intersects with the T AZ zones, which is the data that they have in order to determine the demand. In the staff s report there was a difference, a small difference in the demand calculation that staff came up with versus the demand calculation that we came up with. Statistically it's not a significant Page 58 October 19, 2009 difference. So we found that there was sufficient demand in the marketplace. Because there's nothing in this immediate area, we know that there is immediate demand and that we know that as the area continues to grow that demand will also grow. The other thing that was important to note were the locations of the existing sites and the supply that's there. In the analysis we have to go through and identify the existing centers, as well as look at properties that are currently zoned and fall within the FLUE area for the trade area. Within the study area, we found that there were approximately 170,000 square feet of potential lands. A majority of those sites are on parcels that are five acres or less. So they don't offer the same type of functional utility. They don't offer the same size of a center to be able to provide the same kind of goods and services that our subject property will allow to provide. The fact that our center provides for goods and services within the area allowing for grocery provides for that support of Golden Gate Estates and their demand as a whole. In our report we also identified that some of these smaller parcels of land we felt didn't compete and couldn't compete over the time horizon of the site. We eliminated some of the smaller parcels that are located on the corner of Everglades Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard to account for the development that would occur over a 30-year time horizon. In conclusion, we found that the demand for our subject parcel over the next 30 years, there will be sufficient demand for that site because of its larger size and because of the goods and services that are allowed in that area. Any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions on the marketing at this time? Page 59 October 19, 2009 (No response.) MR. TIMMERMAN: The other thing I wanted to talk about was the other Compo Plan amendment that is the larger 56-acre parcel that's located significantly north of this. The fact that those two parcels are large and provide the same types of uses would also -- they would complement each other because of their distance from one another, they wouldn't directly compete with each other. And as those areas continue to grow, which we know that the area of Golden Gate Estates is going to continue to grow, those areas will complement each other as far as their demand in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Until you said that I didn't have a question, but now you've raised one. That circle in the middle, the focus is on the dot in the middle that is only a convenience store with a gas station. MR. TIMMERMAN: Um-hum, correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a parcel around it, but that parcel's been difficult to develop, I believe, because of some of the, say, terms in which it would have to be developed. Nothing to do with the county. So you would -- theoretically the dominant commercial in that circle then would be moving it down to Randall, if Randall were to be approved. That means the circle moves down and it touches the proposal that you now have in front of you. MR. TIMMERMAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So how does the fact that you have a competitor moving into your area complement you and make you better, when in essence it kind of hurts the argument that you've just tried to make with your circles? MR. TIMMERMAN: Well, we've also got the Golden Gate Estates area to the south, that area along Everglades Boulevard that runs south. So there's more of the demand's going to be coming from that area. Page 60 October 19,2009 Also, as you look at the trade areas, it's not going to be, obviously, within a concentric circle. There are going to be other areas to the north of that that are going to go ahead and go to that center at Orangetree. So as the market is fluid back and forth, they can complement each other yet not to -- there's going to be some overlap but not a major amount of overlap because of the fact that our area has got this southern portion of Golden Gate Estates, that property on Randall is going to have areas to the north up where Immokalee Road bends. So there's going to be other interaction between those other parts of the market. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I didn't put the circles there, you did so-- , MR. TIMMERMAN: No, I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you were to apply a circle to the proposal that you have, and yet you argue you need the additional area out by Everglades Boulevard south to be part of that area, what happens if that area is eliminated? What happens if you stay within a -- is that a two-mile circle? MR. TIMMERMAN: It's a 10-minute drive time, which is roughly a three-mile -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What if you stay within the radius of that circle from your facility and you wipe out all that stuff to the east that you're relying upon, what does that do to your market area as far as viability goes? MR. TIMMERMAN: As far as the demand? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, as far as viability for the facilities you're trying to offer. MR. TIMMERMAN: It's not going to affect it. There's still going to be enough sufficient demand to go ahead and support both sites. The area where Orange Blossom is, that's a little bit higher Page 61 October 19, 2009 density also. So there's going to be a little bit more demand in that area that's going to go to that northern center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have any questions? Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On your area, if approved, wouldn't it get closer to being a regional center -- MR. TIMMERMAN: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- because of the density, the intensity, rather? MR. TIMMERMAN: No. A regional center would be something like you find on the corner of Pine Ridge Road and Immokalee where you've got much larger anchor tenants. And it focuses more on a regional area. This really is designed to be focused for the community and the neighborhood and really demand from a standpoint of the goods and services in an area. The fact that there's nothing else there really provides for its community character and its community uses. A regional center would be like a mall would be considered a regional type of center. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I appreciate that. But looking at the intended possible uses as the PUD permitted uses that they're being sought, bring down the structures to 2,000 squares or less, you could create effectively a fairly large mall. I'm thinking of Sanibel, there's a nice mall out there just before you go over the bridge, and it's not unlike visually what was portrayed here. I recognize that we have distinct, how should we say -- the word eludes me at the moment -- descriptions. But I'm looking at the impact of all of these types of stores. If they were there they would effectively draw from areas outside of your circle. That's my interpretation. Page 62 October 19, 2009 How am I wrong? MR. TIMMERMAN: Well, I think a regional center is one that was going to draw -- typically a regional center is half a million square feet or larger. And it's going to run from 30 to 40-minute drive time. There are other alternatives for people to go to from a regional center. People are still going to go to the Coastland Mall if they're looking for something at that facility, or they're going to go to Immokalee -- or excuse me, Airport and Pine Ridge. This really is a designed as a community center because of its size and because of the uses that we're planning on the site. Again, a regional center is something that's going to be very large and it's going to draw from, you know, like I said, 30 minutes, which is going to take all the way in close to U.S. 41. So it's really not designed to be utilized as region -- it's really there to support the community needs on an ongoing basis. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: You've chosen to exclude three out of the four quadrants at Everglades and Golden Gate Boulevard. MR. TIMMERMAN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: Which is part of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan's vision as it currently stands today. Why? MR. TIMMERMAN: The reason we excluded them is because we felt that they were not going to be developed within the time horizon, the planning horizon of the study. They're further from support facilities, they're further from where the growth is occurring at this point in time. And we felt that within that time horizon it wasn't feasible that those properties were going to be built, considering our subject site is developed on the property. That's the reason why we excluded those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) Page 63 October 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staffhas been critical on a couple of issues regarding the time frames. They're basically saying that the time frame for your needed square footage will be some time after the year 2030. Why does your documentation show differently? MR. TIMMERMAN : Well, because first of all there is a demand for space today. And if you take into consideration all those smaller neighborhood centers which we looked at are not going to typically -- we don't expect to be developed within this time horizon. We feel that this (sic) fact that this center is going to absorb a tremendous amount of that demand. And with that demand being at this center there's not going to be a market need to build neighborhood centers until there's sufficient demand to develop these neighborhood centers. Typically when you build a facility, look Immokalee Road for example, when the schools were developed along Immokalee Road, a tremendous amount of development occurred along Immokalee Road because of the fact schools were there. So there was a tremendous amount of development that occurred around that infrastructure. Once this center's put in, we would anticipate there being more development occurring not significantly right around it but within Golden Gate Estates because this facility is there, which would go ahead and lengthen the time for there to be market demand for some of the smaller neighborhood centers, which is the reason why we went through and discounted three of the comers on Everglades Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would imagine if your facility got built, the other neighborhood center that's further out, I think it's at Everglades and Golden Gate Boulevard, I can't imagine anybody thinking they're going to build that because they'd be wiped out competition-wise from yours. But to your first statement in regards to the need for more commercial, everywhere I drive in this county there are empty commercial buildings. And how do you say we need more in a -- Page 64 October 19, 2009 basically we're coming out of a recession, this area's market will take years to get back to where we are, if we do get back to that stage, and we overbuilt commercial in '05 and '06 to accommodate a future we never may see for an awful long time. I can understand staffs position where 2030 may be the year that it comes back or close to that. Why do you feel it's so different? MR. TIMMERMAN: Because we're looking at an area east of Collier Boulevard where there is no other facility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's also an area in Collier County, one of the highest foreclosure rates, too, which means people have left. MR. TIMMERMAN: It's true. But it's also the most affordable land in Collier County. And as the market improves, that will be an area where people will go ahead and continue to move to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, if you want affordability you might want to look at Ave Maria or other places like that, because you can buy a house on a lot in Ave Maria for half the price you can buy five acres in Golden Gate Estates. MR. TIMMERMAN: This is true, but not all the properties are five acres, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure that's the only -- affordability is going to be the key to Golden Gate Estates, so -- MR. TIMMERMAN: No, but I think the lifestyle out there is also something that people desire. And I think that between the affordability and the lifestyle people are going to go ahead and move to that area. We've seen it. And the fact that there's -- that's where the majority of the vacant land is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't feel that turning a neighborhood centers into community centers is changing the lifestyle? MR. TIMMERMAN: I meant the life -- your personal lifestyle Page 65 October 19, 2009 from the standpoint of living out in Golden Gate Estates. I mean, that's a lifestyle that people want. The fact that we're putting a center here is helping to go ahead and reduce trips on the roads; there's other planning things that are . occurrIng. The fact that we've overbuilt and not -- and overbuilt is not because we overplanned, it's because the market went through and decided hey, there's an opportunity here. In the urban area it's much different than we have in Golden Gate Estates. There's nothing in Golden Gate Estates. And I think that the fact that we're putting a facility here to support and provide goods and services for those people makes sense. We've also got to look at a time, a planning horizon, we can't look at what's happening today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't disagree with you with the looking ahead. Do you live in the Estates? MR. TIMMERMAN: No, I do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The trip length and trip distance and all that, there's not a lot of employment in the Estates. How many jobs do you think this facility will create? MR. TIMMERMAN: I don't think we went through and did that kind of analysis. We looked basically at what the demand of the user would be. Obviously we're going to have 225,000 square feet so there is going to be jobs generated from this facility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the trip length -- trip count or the roadway work that is going -- the roadway let's say lessening that's going to occur for the people that work in this facility will certainly be realized. But if you live in Golden Gate Estates and don't work at that comer, you're still going to drive out of the Estates to get to the place you work at, generally. And in doing so you're going to go by the Page 66 October 19, 2009 same commercial establishments that I use every day. I do live in the Estates. I've been there 30 years. So that's just from my own personal experience. Does anybody else have any questions on the marketing analysis? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Mike. MR. TIMMERMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, I guess the applicant, you've finished with at least this portion of your presentation? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I'll turn to the Planning Commission. We have three tabs. I'd like to hold off on Exhibit A to the last segment of our questions, because that's the actual language of the GMP amendment that's being proposed. We'll get into just general questions first and then we'll go into that second. For the portion that may be applicable to the applicant, there may not be a lot involving the applicant, we may have to wait till staff presentation's finished to understand Exhibit A. But we'll entertain them both as we go forward. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mark, is staff going to make a presentation on this issue? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely, yes, sir. We're just now-- you can hold your questions till after staff makes their presentation, but we normally entertain questions at this stage from the applicant. So does anybody on the Planning Commission have questions based on the presentations so far? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me ask -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And it really relies oni Page 67 October 19, 2009 the rezone, you would guarantee that you'd be comfortable that essentially the whole site plan is conceptual and the whole thing is up for discussion. MR. YOV ANOVICH: At the PUD stage, absolutely. Really what this document was intended to do is to really establish how we've separated our development areas from our residential by putting the preserves on here and the buffers on here and the lakes on here to show that we've separated ourselves from our residential neighbors. MR. SCHIFFER: And I know the edge that that sword has. It's the other edge I'm worried about, so -- it is a double-edged sword. But if we're comfortable with that, I'm fine with it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's certainly something we ought to verify when we get to staffs presentation, to make sure the language is as clearly as you're indicating or as Richard's indicating. I have questions, but I think I'm going to wait until staff gets done because I'm not sure who they pertain to most. So let me go through staffs -- anybody else have any questions of the applicant at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll hear the staff report then. And Michele, you probably are getting a lot of e-mails from Corby. MS. MOSCA: I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, I'm sorry. That was my fault. I kept sending stuff to him thinking he was the one in charge of this one. It turned out it was you, so -- MS. MOSCA: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Michele Mosca with the county's Comprehensive Planning staff. Commissioners, staff generally reviewed the proposed amendment to determine, one, if there is a need for additional commercial acreage within the defined market area, whether the Page 69 October 19, 2009 proposed project furthers the goals of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, and if the requested change is appropriate. Staff determined that the existing zoned and designated neighborhood commercial supply of approximately 387,283 square feet exceeds the market area demand beyond year 2030. And this was done with the use of the Collier Interactive Growth Model. However, the existing neighborhood commercial acreage within the market area cannot accommodate the requested grocery -anchored center due to the size of the neighborhood centers and restrictive development standards, both designed to protect the semi-rural character of the Estates. It should be noted that the proposed request for the grocery-anchored center commits to an allocation of only 12 percent of its total square feet for the grocery use. Staff also noted in the report that there is no community commercial acreage in the market area. However, the request to develop up to 225,000 square feet of community shopping center uses will not likely be supported in the market area until sometime after the year 2030. Again, based on the CIGM population of approximately 30,687. In regard to the furtherance of the goals of the master plan and the appropriateness of the request, staff has determined that the request is not consistent with certain goals. Specifically, Goal 3 and GoalS and the vision of the master plan. The development intensity and scale of the project is consistent with urban commercial centers, not neighborhood centers as designed by the area residents for the master plan. And the increased noise, traffic, lighting, et cetera expected at the site and surrounding area will most likely alter the rural character of the area. Finally, staff believes that the changes of this magnitude to the plan should be looked at comprehensively, not changed with an individual site-specific request. Page 70 October 19, 2009 Based on these findings and the findings and conclusions in the staff report beginning on Page 27, staff is recommending that this hearing body forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to not transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. And Mr. Chairman, before we go on, I wanted to enter into the record, I just received and it was last week, one letter of opposition and one in support. Do you want me to read them into the record or no? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's not necessary. But I think the count is what's relevant. Now, I sent Corby many, many e-mails. Did you bother counting those? MS. MOSCA: I did, and those actually were for another project, CP-2008-2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. MOSCA: But the one individual that I believe was related to this particular project, I did include in that number. Also, I received a packet, it was a supplemental packet that was provided by the applicant last Wednesday citing approximately 1,947 letters of support, which is approximately 13 percent of the residents within the market area. And that's based on the CIGM population of 14,443, just for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Well, you said for the record letters of support. Do you mean feedback on a surveyor letters of support? MS. MOSCA: No, this actually was a supplemental document. I believe that the applicant submitted it to the planning commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. MOSCA: Okay. Within there it cites that number, 1,947. This is the packet that I received last week. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and I -- within there the 1,947 reference you believe are actual letters? That 1,947 people took the Page 71 October 19, 2009 time to write these people a letter? MS. MOSCA: I did receive a large box, a plastic bin. I haven't had time to go through to verify who's on the list. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And ifit is, did you notice if the letters were form letters or -- MS. MOSCA: They were form letters, the first packet that I pulled out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good marketing. Are there any questions of staff? Randy? MR. COHEN: I think it's probably incumbent on staff to discuss surveys, petitions, just in terms of generality, and then some specifics that have transpired in the county in the past. And maybe as well as how staff would perceive this applying to Golden Gate in its entirety. So I just wanted to run through some things in general on behalf of staff for the Planning Commission. Normally surveys, there's a sample, something statistically sound. They used to say a sample of 30 was sound. Obviously with a larger area it's a larger number. Then we look at margin of error. You know, what is that margin of error? So that's something that you need to take into consideration. Then I think you run into intangibles. And I just wanted to run, you know, through a few of these. For example, how was the survey administered? Who administered the surveyor petition, you know? Was it administered by a party with a bias or was it administered by somebody that has no interest whatsoever in the survey? Was it prepared by an unaffiliated professional with professional acceptable background in sampling techniques? Very similar to something that we did with Naples Park when we hired Jim Trullinger to do that on behalf of the county. Are there any idiosyncrasies that may bring in to question the reliability of a survey sample? Always something that we need to take Page 72 October 19, 2009 a look at. What was the general context of the survey itself? Were the survey participants selected at random? I wanted to kind of talk about that in terms of the context of what transpired in Naples Park, because it's something that you as a Planning Commission and the board as a county commission went through a very lengthy process. Originally we had a very small sample size that went to the Board of County Commissioners and said we want to do a plan for Naples Park. The board approved it, funded it, and it went forward. At that time it was -- the proponents were a very small homeowners association in Naples Park. There was also another homeowners association in Naples Park. So what ended up happening is Dover-Kohl went forward and they prepared a community plan for Naples Park. And there were numerous charrettes that took place, input was taken from various members of the community, and from those charrettes a plan for Naples Park came about. Those charrettes had maybe six to eight people sitting at a table with a whole bunch of people there sitting around and gathering ideas. One of the things that happened was it wasn't a consensus, you know, of -- it was a consensus more at each table rather than individual ideas. And I guess the reason I wanted to talk about that is that what ended up coming out of that particular process was a proposed plan. And there was a group in that community that came forward in opposition to that proposed plan, more along the lines of not what was asked but what wasn't asked. And I think that's very important in the context of when we look at these six petitions today. All they basically ask was would you like enclosed drainage, would you like sidewalks, would you like wider roads, and a variety of other things. They neglected to answer one pivotal question: Do you want to pay for it, and if so, how do you want to pay for it? Page 73 October 19, 2009 So how does this apply to Golden Gate as we move forward, okay? And I'm going to kind of keep this a little general in how I do this because I think what went forward was, and I looked at the box that Michele had, which was one particular sample letter, it asked one specific question, okay. It didn't ask a lot of other questions. And I think you need to take that into consideration. Earlier Mr. Weeks spoke about a global approach, about what all the residents in the Estates would want. It didn't ask the question do you prefer this location over that location, if given the choice of multiple locations for a community center. Didn't ask the question, you know, along the lines of well, would you like a grocery store, but yeah, what type, what size, what amenities. All those things come into play and are very important. Would you prefer this location of a store, a grocery store, over another location of a grocery store? I don't know the answer to that. There's a tremendous amount of questions that are out there as somebody that's been involved in sampling and survey techniques over the years. And when you're asked one question and it seems to be a yes or no, sometimes it takes away from the totality of what you as a body ought to be considering. And I think because of the number of petitions that you have before you today in Golden Gate Estates with respect to commercial needs, it kind of shows you the totality of what's actually being requested and asked for out there and what might those locations be, you know, in the future. I think the global approach that staff has recommended ties into the survey concept itself, not based on what was asked by this particular petitioner, but by what wasn't asked. And I think that's very important and you need to consider that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Randy. Any questions of Michele at this point? This is the staff report. Page 74 October 19,2009 So go ahead, Mr. Schiffer and then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Michele, in terms of transportation, if this were developed would that increase or decrease the efficiency of transportation in that area? MS. MOSCA: I'll defer to transportation. But my understanding is that it will in fact reduce some trip lengths. But I'll defer to Nick if you need to answer that further. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning. For the record, Nick Casalanguida, Transportation. The blunt answer is yes, vehicle miles traveled would get reduced with a shopping center of this size in this location. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, does that mean you don't need to extend Green corridor -- the Green Boulevard corridor and take out more homes in Golden Gate Estates and you'll give us back Vanderbilt Beach extension so those homes won't be taken out? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Ifwe do responsible land planning, there will be a reduction for needs of roads. I mean, that's what happens if -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I might hold you to that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay, that's fine. COMMISSIONER CARON: And please note for the record he didn't say that he would give those back to you, so __ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to interpret it differently. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very astute. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you leave, Nick, go ahead Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah. Nick, my biggest concern in looking at this project was Wilson north of Golden Gate Boulevard, two lane, and Golden Gate Boulevard east of Wilson. It mean, I have taken to not using when I go out to J atrophaland (sic) out into the -- to look at some trees that were growing, I never take Naples Page 75 October 19, 2009 Immokalee Road anymore. I'm always going up Golden Gate Boulevard, DeSoto, and, you know, past Ave Maria. And invariably, if it's in the morning -- well, if it's in the evening the traffic is just unbearable. And then I looked through this AUIR and I didn't see anything, any improvements to those segments that I was concerned with, Wilson north and Golden Gate Boulevard east. How -- I mean, this is -- I didn't know whether to ask the applicant or now that you're up here what __ MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. That's one of the reasons why staff wanted to condition some of the improvements or expectations from the center to wait until that improvement was done. Your primary nodes to get transportation out of there east and west is Immokalee Road and Golden Gate Boulevard. And one of the biggest restrictions is the intersection of Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate. We do not have Golden Gate Boulevard as an improvement in our five-year work program. Right now it's probably not even -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Slow down a little bit, Nick, she's got to type as fast as you talk. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Very good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: In our seven-year program we're in right now. But we're only working in a five-year phase -- but if I was to look at funding scenario, it's quite a ways away. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It is, yeah. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You know, I'd be amiss (sic) if I didn't touch on a couple of things that were brought up today. N one of the applications that are coming forward today are consistent with the long-range transportation plan, financially feasible plan. None of them. You have a divergence between your needs plan and your feasible plan. It's always been that way and probably always will be Page 76 October 19, 2009 that way. But what we look at when an application comes forward is do they offer us something that reduces that need in the future, whether it's they're helping to defray the cost of right-of-way or water management or if they're reducing a vehicle miles traveled initiative in that future consideration. We did a recent study last year for the impact fee update. We did a trip length study. The board chose not to include it in because there were some disturbing numbers that came out of that. We sampled Golden Gate Estates residents, and they drive almost twice as far as your urban area residents to get to services and employment. Twice at far. And that would mean that their impact fee would be greatly reduced. We don't have a split impact fee. We look at impact fee as countywide. But one of the factors that goes in is vehicle miles traveled, how far do people drive. So when you look at a center like this -- and the map that he put up I thought was interesting. When you submit a traffic impact statement, you get to take credit for what's called internal capture and pass-by. Now, when they submit their study they're only looking at their center. But if you do a traffic analysis of the area and you say I'm going to look at the broader area and do an internal capture and pass-by analysis, that's something, if I was working for them, I would have done. Because what it will show is those trips start to match up. Residents that live within the area start to work at these centers, they start to use the shopping center and the CVSs and the banks and they don't drive farther west. And if you look at what they have shown, there's only two roads really in and out as I had mentioned earlier, Immokalee Road and Golden Gate Boulevard. This center services most of the roads __ most of the population to the east and to the south. So you can see Page 77 October 19, 2009 someone who lives out there who if they were going to do shopping, was going go to services would not travel as far . We would expect something like this would reduce the vehicle miles traveled in the future. So from a transportation perspective we support something like this. Now from a total staff perspective we defer to, obviously, Compo Planning because they're looking at a more comprehensive approach. But from our point of view, things like this make sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of Nick? Go ahead, Mr. Ko I flat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: No, not Nick, staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of Nick? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, I have a couple, don't leave. What is the current level of service on Golden Gate Boulevard east of Wilson? MR. CASALANGUIDA: F. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When do you think that's going to improve? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can't answer definitively. It's not in our five-year plan. Right now it's been trending down. Every year we've had counts go down. If they continue to go down as they've done, next year it will not be failing. It's been dropping about 10 percent a year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you think this facility will make them go down or make them go up? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think the numbers would go up. But you've got to keep in mind what it does to other facilities as well too, so there's a balancing act. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What other facilities? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Collier Boulevard south of Golden Gate Boulevard. That's a two-lane road that's coming up as a Page 78 October 19, 2009 deficiency in 2011. It reduces trips in that direction. So it rebalances those trips. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, on the other hand, people that are heading to Collier Boulevard, for the most part if you live in Golden Gate Estates you're going to work. And you've still got to go back and forth even if you might on a weekend run into a Publix at this location. But don't you feel that this location is going to now attract more road -- road activity on Golden Gate Boulevard than before, since it now is a large enough size to be an attractor instead of just a convenience? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It will in certain directions. But let's quantify level of service F, especially in the Estates area. Your Golden Gate Boulevard is primarily a commuter road. So when does it fail? Maybe for 45 minutes in the morning and maybe for 45 minutes in the evening. Your urban area roads experience longer periods of congestion because they're not commuter facilities. So when we say Golden Gate Boulevard is level of service F, it's level of service F for maybe 45 minutes in the evening hour. The rest of the time it runs probably a level of service B. So primarily during the day and most of the time that road runs great. It's just when people are heading home you experience that one hour of congestion. It's a commuter facility. So that's one of the reasons we chose to put that out in the work program, because we have priorities in the urban area that experience congestion for longer periods of time. Not to mention we're not through the design and permitting phase as well, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the traffic analysis that was supplied, we had talked about this years ago, that the TIS is done based on usually the least intense use. And that's really unfortunate because when a facility builds out the uses are much more intense and we can count on them. In this one they did the same idea, they used the shopping center Page 79 October 19, 2009 LUI 820, I believe it was. And apparently your department allowed that. When you know that some of the intense uses on there, including convenience gas station and other things are going to be much more intense than the shopping center category catch-all of 820. How do you justify that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Easy, because we always have this de bate. When you use those other categories, you're not taking into account that trip reduction you get from internal captures. Shopping center does that. It's all encompassing. And we've run those many times. You're within five percent of the number, high or low, depending on what you put in there. So when you say highest and best use, you plug in those categories and you run your internal capture and pass-by, then you run shopping center, which has internal capture already plugged in. They're not that far off. The level of accuracy in the TIS I would beg to argue is at best five to 10 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Nick, thank you. Anybody else have any -- Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, when we are talking about putting this shopping center at this location on what you're telling us in drive times are a failing situation, if I work all day am I not going to be making -- and that leaves me my evening, that leaves me on the way home to go shop at this shopping center, am I not making your road even worse at the time it is already failing? MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're using the analysis of you working all day. There's many residents that shop at different times. It's not just a shopping center, it's also is general office in there and other uses. So through the course of the day they'll get a lot of interaction that you won't see back at the urban area. So yes, the answer is you will see more congestion in that p.m. peak hour, but you'll see less of that traffic being to the west, the ones Page 80 October 19, 2009 that are not coming back on that commuter road, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions on the transportation matter? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't mean to be naughty, but would you have the same conclusions for each of these that are being presented today? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, not necessarily. Because when you look at the areas that they're presented, it wouldn't -- you know, some of these don't make sense to add to an already existing area. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: This seems to be removed from the other commercial centers. As shown on that map, those circle maps, he's showing a drive time of about 10 minutes and he's using a general circle. But you have primarily two commuter roads, Golden Gate Boulevard and Immokalee Road. This would service that Golden Gate Boulevard and south area, where the other ones may service the north. But if you've got additional applications side by side already approved commercial in those areas, then it probably wouldn't make any sense. And that's more for a Compo Planning land use perspective than transportation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Appreciate your comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on transportation? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Nick, thank you. Michele, see if we finish up with any questions from you at this point. Anybody else? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, I have a question for staff. Have you heard any testimony today in which you would alter your recommendation of denial? Page 81 October 19, 2009 MR. WEEKS: No. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She's looking at you, David. Is that it, Mr. Ko I flat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Michele, I have a question on Page 28 of the staffreport. The very top paragraph says the CIGM identifies a deficit in community commercial serving land uses in the Estates and the rural settlement area beginning in the year 2010 in the amount of63,817 and increasing to 412,216 by build-out. So that means next year you've acknowledged there's going to be a deficit in community commercial, which is what we're talking about here today, of at least say about 64,000 square feet. And it's going to increase continually from there. Why then is this not -- let's forget the other matters, but I understand the visioning -- I probably understand the visioning concept better than staff does. Why then do you feel this is not appropriate for square footage? MS. MOSCA: Well, there are other elements out there. David had mentioned earlier about the Orangetree development, they were just approved a binding letter by the state for an additional 172,000 square feet. So that's one component. There might be -- those lots, those tracts within Orangetree however are fragmented. There is in fact one tract at the comer of Oil Well and Immokalee Road next to E's that may be a potential community commercial site. Just don't know yet. Also, you have the RLSA. And I know you touched on this at the beginning with the Big Cypress. Although not approved, it's important to bring that up because the Big Cypress will support a large percentage of the Estates on the eastern side. And then you have your other regulations in place, the rural villages, for example. Or the community may decide to expand the Page 82 October 19, 2009 neighborhood center concept. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if this property were developed to a grocery store, and I'm not saying it should be, I'm just saying let's take a theory, that property would be immediately successful, I have no doubt about that. I think everybody in the Estates would use that rather than having to drive outside the Estates. Now maybe that isn't the intent in which the community originally wanted, but that would be the practical result of that center. Knowing that, I mean, did staff look at that practical aspect versus insisting there was vacant commercial land, knowing that there might be hardships with that vacant commercial land as to why it's not producing today as commercial? I mean, I have heard various circumstances why some of the properties you just mentioned can't be developed. Has nothing to do with the county rules and regulations, it just has to do with people and personalities and demands. So it doesn't seem like we're looking at first come first serve in regards to how we develop out based on say desire or need, it looks like we're setting the market up to force someone to be successful in spite of themselves because we're holding off other areas. What do you think about that? MS. MOSCA: Well, I think that especially in this particular area, if you're going to have a successful grocer, you're going to have to have the rooftops to support it. Now, does that mean the entire population, the rooftops within Golden Gate Estates? Probably not. Because you have people north of Immokalee Road that are going to continue to shop at Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard. You're going to have people on Golden Gate Boulevard that live one, two, three miles in maybe that are going to continue to shop on Collier Boulevard. So this may not be the most suitable location. Or maybe it turns out that it is. We just don't know. I mean, there are other regulations Page 83 October 19,2009 in place that would allow for this type of development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we had the community retirement facility before us not too long ago up on Orange Blossom Way, I think it was Serreno Lakes or something like that, they showed us something that was done very well, a very detailed demographic showing how the people in that area would support it in their argument why they located it there. Because our argument was you could have found a different place. And they tried to show us why not. Corporations of that magnitude do those kind of detailed demographics to show that not only are the households there but the income is in those households to support whatever they're trying to do. Have you seen one from Publix to support a location, this location? Has anybody looked at one or presented one, has the applicant bothered to offer one? MS. MOSCA: Not that I'm aware of. I know at the NIM they informed the community that they did not have a commitment. Now, you're looking at a potential 27,000 square foot anchored grocery store. Again, 12 percent of the total commercial square feet that they're proposing. If you look at the Publix located at Pine Ridge and Collier Boulevard, I think it's Brooks Village, they're roughly at 46,000 square feet, 40 percent of the shopping center. And there's other examples as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm kind of heading in that direction. I'm trying to understand. Because the community that is supporting this is putting most of its support or it seems to put a large chunk of its support in the fact there's going to be a Publix grocery store with a minimum square footage of 20,000 square feet. But -- or I think it's a grocery store, I shouldn't say Publix. But if I was Publix or SweetBay, which probably are the only two that may look at this, you're going to do a very careful corporate demographics of the area in order to put something there. And I was Page 84 October 19, 2009 just wondering if anything has been done, and I'd sure like to see it if the applicant were to offer that for discussion. Richard? MS. MOSCA: I'll have to defer it, right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, we have had contact from several major grocers. They have not done the level of -- they have not entered into a contract with us for the reason that we're not a real location for them right now. We're in the Comprehensive Plan stage. They have told us they will be ready to sit down and talk to us about a contract when we're in a position to deliver zoning. And so we're confident, so confident that we'll be able to deliver the grocery store that we bet the entire project on the grocery store and being able to deliver a major grocer. We picked the 27,000 square feet number because that was the minimum size prototype that grocery stores have basically right now, full service grocery stores. I don't know, they may do a bigger store, but they certainly will not do a smaller than their smallest prototype. That's where those numbers came from to assure the community that we were going to deliver a real grocery store and not call a little 3,000 square foot area that we sold food in a grocery store. Because they were -- the community was concerned that, you know, there is -- if that's the definition of grocery store, then you've got one in the Wilson Center, there's a very small -- what is it -- it's a very small little area that sells food. The community said you're not telling me that's what you're going to deliver. No, that's not what we're going to deliver. So the answer to your question is I don't have a study from a major grocer that I could turn in because they haven't provided that to us yet because they've said they're not ready until we can deliver . zonIng. We have Mr. Timmerman who has done those studies on behalf Page 85 October 19,2009 of grocery stores who can basically say that there are enough rooftops to support the use that we want to put on this site. So -- and the fact that we've bet the entire project on being able to deliver that use I think answers the question that yes, there's a demand today for that type of use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, Richard, since the community is kind of like banking on that use, I would hate to see something like this happen and then not that happen. And that's why I'm exploring this, because I remember the detail that your client went through on Orange Blossom to show how supportive they felt that that location was for what they were trying to do there, realizing the same thing could have been done here. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And Mr. Strain, to give you the level of comfort that I think the community wants, I've got a client who's spent about $12 million putting this property together ahead of time. He has every incentive to deliver on getting that grocery store there as the first C.O. So between that and what we've been told by grocers in our preliminary discussions, we're confident that we're going to deliver that grocery store, or else we never would have made that commitment in that Comprehensive Plan document. We know we're going to do that. I can't tell you who it's going to be, but I do know we'll be able to deliver it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I want you to know that once the die is cast, it's very hard to undo it. And when you put that language in a Growth Management Plan amendment about a grocery store and for some reason it doesn't pan out, your client wants to sell that property, it's just a matter then of coming before the boards again, whether it be these people sitting here today or a new group, which it probably would be, to argue that well, I've already got approval to do commercial here, I've got to change this one line because it really doesn't work we didn't know that at the Page 86 October 19, 2009 time. And you would end up getting the political sympathy to make that happen. I just want to make sure where we're going on this thing. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think I'll get the political sympathy -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, not from us maybe, but you might from others. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think we will, because we've promised it. We've set it up front. That's the condition that we're willing to live with to go forward. And if we can't -- if we're not willing to live with that, we shouldn't be making that commitment. And also knowing that a Comprehensive Plan amendment takes -- depending on if we ever get back into the regular cycle -- if we get back to the regular cycle it's every bit of 14 months to go through that process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mike, if you have -- have you done any of the studies that I'm talking about for this site? MR. TIMMERMAN: Yes, I have. And I just wanted to note in the addendum of this report is a breakdown that shows the amount of square footage by each of the different expenditures, by the different types of uses. And it goes through and estimates the amount of square footage. But yes, we have done those types of analysis. But it typically comes from the grocer. They have -- that's kind of their proprietary -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I was asking. Have you done one, though -- do you do any for Publix or SweetBay or larger grocery store chains like that? MR. TIMMERMAN: We have, but it's been directed by the grocer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's what I was getting at. Thank you, sir. Page 87 October 19, 2009 MR. TIMMERMAN: Like I said, there is the detail from the analysis in our -- back of our report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any -- Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Michele, back to this Page 28 where we started the discussion. You talk about the commercial supply in pending Big Cypress. We've seen a lot of maps with the circles on them. Where would the Big Cypress circle fall? MS. MOSCA: Actually -- thanks David. There's also a map in the staff report on Page 13. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you, I just wanted to point that out to everybody as to where -- thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of staff before we start looking at the GMP language for comments on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Brad, that was the point that you were asking about earlier. Before we get into it, there are two sections of GMP language. There's one that's produced I believe by the applicant and there's one produced by staff. Has it been agreed to between the applicant and staffwhich is the more appropriate language to move forward with? MS. MOSCA: We haven't had a conversation, but we would say staffs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I know you would. That's why we've got to start talking about both of it. And I guess we could start talking using staffs, because we can read then both what you propose versus what was there and -- Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I reviewed the staffs because it had everything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You what? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I reviewed the staff version, because obviously they crossed out what they didn't like. You could Page 88 October 19, 2009 view everything with that version. That's the only version you can -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that starts on Page 28 of our packet, if I'm not mistaken. Is that the same page you're starting from? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Same one. MS. MOSCA: It's 28. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that, let's move through the staff report and try to understand why staff had recommended the changes and where the applicant stands in regards to those. And then when we finish with that, finally we'll have public input. And we'll need all the input we can get to get us to a point where we can conclude this study. And by the way, we will be taking a break for lunch. We're going to try it around 11 :45. So we'll certainly come back and finish right after that. On Page 28 -- normally we take this a page at a time from the Planning Commission. There are some changes on Page 28 recommended by staff. Does the applicant have any objection to those? You need the speaker. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I guess we could live with those. I don't know why that language needs to be deleted, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's put it this way: If staff has -- it doesn't hurt. I'm not sure it hinders, but we need to know if there's any objection before we weigh in on it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think -- this page doesn't the intent of what we're trying -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any question from the Planning Commission on the first page? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a quick question. And Rich, why did you decide to carve out and create a new district versus amending either -- through the description of this location the old Page 89 October 19, 2009 district? MR. YOV ANOVICH: So you mean just expand the neighborhood center to be 40 acres on this comer? Because I think that the residents around us wanted the level of specificity that staff is recommending come out. And that just by simply going to a 41-acre neighborhood center we didn't think was going to provide the community with what they wanted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, that's fine. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's basically what it was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, Michele, why did you take out the word basic? MS. MOSCA: They're actually -- with their list of uses, they're going beyond your basic goods and services. They're going up to C-4. And that's another difference between the neighborhood, which allows C-l through C-3, versus the proposal. Also within their listed uses, they also had some C-5 mixed in there. MR. YOV ANOVICH: What was that? MS. MOSCA: The auto -- the auto related. Some of those are C-5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard, you're shaking your head no, you disagree with the staffs interpretation of C-5 use? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, I'm not aware of any C-5 uses we've asked for, Commissioner Strain. I'm certainly willing to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we get it ironed out. Michele, which one is the C-5 use? Or which number, which group are C-5 use? MS. MOSCA: I don't have my print in front of me, but I believe under the -- I want to say under the auto repair and services. I would have to get my SIC codes out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, during lunch I can look it up on Page 90 October 19, 2009 the -- we're showing now PUD type data, which you said neighbors and everybody wanted. Where does that leave us if we had an issue with it? For example, let's say you show an access drive up further north. You have two access drives on the street that divides it. And I don't want to get into that, but let's say in the future we had a problem with the northern one. Let's say we felt it was too close to the neighbors and we did want to eliminate it. If we accept that in this application now, would we be able to do that at the rezone stage, or will you sit there and say, hey, wait a minute, I'd love to take it out but look what you did in the GMP? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let me find the -- we were -- I believe we included a note that just showed them as conceptual and not guaranteed, and that that would be decided at the PUD. It does. It says access points shown are conceptual. The location and number of access points to the project will be established at the time -- would be established at the time of PUD approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I was just going to make a comment, I'd like the audience, if you've got communication between yourselves, you need to step out in the hall, because it has been distracting. So, from now on. Thank you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So Mr. Schiffer, we were trying to address that concern that, you know, should -- we didn't want, and transportation staff said, listen, you know, we don't want to guarantee you any of these access points right now, that needs to be decided at PUD. But again, the neighbors, you know, they -- in a craving for detail wanted to know kind of a worst case scenario. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And my point isn't just about access. So-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- the point is when we go into Page 68 October 19, 2009 the Internet and take a look at it for you. Okay, so basically Page 28, if this were to go forward, we'd accept -- staffs recommendations would be accepted. Page 29. Questions on Page 29? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess there's a philosophical question overall here, and that is you are -- staff is recommending, as we're used to, taking the intense detail out and reserving that for the zoning application, which is the PUD, which I understand is going to be running almost concurrently with adoption. MS. MOSCA: Well, according to what I heard today, the PUD has already been submitted. I wasn't aware of that. But because it is running concurrently it makes sense to put of all the details into the PUD document rather than within the plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that has been our standard procedure. Now, the situation here would be that I'd be concerned for the public's understanding of what they can expect if it's taken out of the GMP. Because a lot of times I think everybody reads the GMP and thinks that's got to be the document that either allows everything or does not. Well, when I read the First and Third agreement last night, it's clear in their agreement they're expecting all this to be in the PUD, at least that's what they're saying. And I'm sure if someone's here we'll hear more on this matter. And if they understand that's in the PUD and we're trying to get that kind of detail out of the GMP, I'm not sure it's needed in both, as long as the major issues are. And I notice that we left in the size of the grocery store and some other issues like that involving the development aspects of the property that are on the next page. As the applicant's representative, Richard, where are you guys on Page 91 October 19, 2009 this issue? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, you know, I felt that the community was very concerned that these types of uses be in the Comprehensive Plan. Now, again, that was before the legislation changed that would allow us to do a PUD concurrently. I don't know if they feel the same way. But just based on the NIMs that we had, both formal and informal, the community wanted a lot of specificity in the Compo Plan amendment. So I as the applicant's rep can go either way. But I don't want to do anything that in any way would take away a level of comfort for the community, and it might by taking it out of the Compo Plan amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I wouldn't want to either, but I'm trying to find out the cause behind all this and how we can be assured if it weren't here that it would still stay in place. As David said in his introduction earlier, that the Golden Gate Area Master Plan was a more intense look at a specified area of the county, just like the Immokalee Master Plan is. So I'm not seeing why this would hurt to leave it in. And I just -- I think I'll wait until I see what the citizens have got to say when we get to that point of the debate today. MS. MOSCA: What I'd like to also point out then, if we were to leave it in, if they're not going to have any other C-5 uses, those would come out, we would have to go item by item. But also on Page 29, Item 28, any other similar use as may be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Well, I mean, that kind of negates everything you've just put in the document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kind of takes the GMP and makes it subject to the Board of Zoning Appeals, which isn't in a GMP process. Good point, thank you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But I understand. Page 92 October 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm sorry, did you-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think he just said but I understand. COMMISSIONER CARON: Also crossed out here at the bottom of Page 29, it says the following uses shall be prohibited. And then we go on to Page 30 and it's allowable uses, not prohibited uses. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But then it ends with, except that the following uses shall be prohibited. So the -- I thought the same thing when I first read it. It basically says, and I guess I should let Michele speak, is that we can have anything through the C-4 uses -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Except the following-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- except the following uses. They just rephrased the way -- reformatted, if you will, because they took away our previous list of allowed uses. Fair? MS. MOSCA: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'd just like to see that paragraph rewritten. It's very -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, we felt the way we wrote it was a little bit clearer. It stuck out more that these are absolutely prohibited. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Either Michele or Mr. Y ovanovich, in comparing the permitted uses in the One Three ( sic), whatever that organization is, where you've indicated that they'd like to see these things, and what we have here originally, do we find any issues where something has snuck in, so to speak? How do I make myself clear? That we have a contradiction. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think there's a contradiction. I think it's just a philosophy of what should be in the Compo Plan and what shouldn't be in the Compo Plan. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I understand that part of it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think she snuck anything in to Page 93 October 19, 2009 benefit me, okay -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, well, that's what I was wondering, yeah. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm pretty sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She seems very pro to that, yeah. MS. MOSCA: The original application came in as listing C-4 uses. And as I started to go through some of the listings -- and I'm sure they didn't sneak it in, I'm sure they wouldn't do that. I just wanted to make it more clear if that's what they were asking for, that we would just limit the uses to permitted and conditional uses of the C-4 zoning district. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, that was what provoked my question, basically, is that because you can get into some wild stuff. All right, I won't belabor it. But in going through the SIC codes, when you go into the OSHA program you find out that there -- you know, within certain things there's a lot more that's possible. And I just -- I don't care to have it in the GMP, but specificity in this case may be useful, may be beneficial rather than the more open, because it's open because it's limited, oddly enough. And you understand what I mean because of the code statements. So a thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if we're done with Page 29, let's move on to Page 30. Any questions on Page 30? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. Michele, and this is maybe a big question, but where we are today in how to develop properties and everything, there's nothing mixed use here, this is just a good old 1960's shopping center, right? MS. MOSCA: I'm not sure exactly how it's going to be designed. It looks like it's going to be two or three different tracts. You're referring to the proposed site plan? Page 94 October 19, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, just, you know, all that we've learned about growth, all we've learned about intermingling uses, all we've learned about how to develop these kind of things are thrown aside and we go back to the days of Elvis Presley on planning, right? MR. YOV ANOVICH: This is going to be -- this actually started out as -- in '06 as having a residential component. And that's when the community said whoa, whoa, whoa, that's not what we need out here. So this is really a retail, and it would be a mixture of retail and offices. But clearly no residential or any quasi-residential type use is going to go on this site. That was, we believe, clearly out of character. I would use the word that was used, but I think that will just take us sideways. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I don't want to hang there, I just want to note that. The second question I have is B, it references gross leasable floor area. Now, we get into this argument with Rich and he points to the GMP saying well, because it was in there we've got to stay with it. What does that mean? Is there a definition for it? MR. ARNOLD: I'll try to answer. Wayne Arnold, for the record. We put in gross leasable because that's the way most retailers designate space. I think we can live with a gross number, whatever the county commonly says. I think it's gross floor area, maybe, the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't think it's wrong. I mean, I think it's actually right. But the problem is we don't have a definition of it. And being a dull boy, I collect code definitions of area, and this one's not there. But there is like BOMA, there is things that really do make sense that we probably should have. So the question is should we provide a definition of gross area? Maybe reference some of the standards in the industry to determine Page 95 October 19, 2009 that so we don't get into arguments over -- people have talked about that a lot and have a lot of meetings so we may as well take advantage of that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's fine, we don't mind coming up with a definition of what gross leasable area -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So for now maybe just put a parenthesis. I think it should just say BOMA. And we should really write that out, we shouldn't use the acronym. Okay, the other question is the next one, the intent of the grocery store is obviously to be a big one, but what if a second comes along, let's say a health food store or something. We don't want to limit him to that. So could we change the wording of that to the first grocery use? And then that way if a second one comes along -- some health food stores would -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, so a smaller one -- I understand what you're saying. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- could follow suit, and it would not be stuck with 27,000 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, that makes sense. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other question is on E.l, you have 180 days from a written request from the county. When can the county write that request? Since you're in for a PUD now, and -- you're not in for an SDP yet, are you? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, we're -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Supposed to be funny. But the -- and then if you had that first review, you could have a building permit and you could be looking for a CO tomorrow. But the point is, when does that 180 days start ticking? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It wasn't -- I thought that -- and maybe somebody did sneak one by me. But I thought that was -- I thought we had to least have our PUD before we had to give the donation. Page 96 October 19, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe if this is favorable, you get a letter tomorrow. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, that was never the intent. I believe it was supposed to be within 180 days of the PUD approval. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And that's it. I'm done. Thank you, Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Still on Page 30. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Michele, if Mr. Yovanovich and company comes up with a gross leasable space or gross leasable area definition, will that then make it the definition in the GMP? MS. MOSCA: This is specific to the subdistrict, so most likely not. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. I mean, it's a good idea to try to get an answer. If there's an encumbrance to that, then maybe we ought to have an FAR and then put your gross leasable space in parentheses somehow, unless of course you can come up with that which equates. I mean, it has to equate, doesn't it? All right, a grocer is used to working with gross leasable space. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We're used to working with floor area ratio, right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, no. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No? MR. YOV ANOVICH: You always use square footage. The only time you ever get into floor area ratio is on senior housing. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's the only time? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's the only time I'm aware of it. There was a brief period where you did it with hotels, but that went away. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right, well -- Page 97 October 19, 2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: I mean, that was -- that's my knowledge. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My confusion then, sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on Page 30? Ms. Caron, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was just going to -- just to go back to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, finish that thought. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, and Michele, would it be okay to maybe put right after that in parentheses, it's the building owners and managers association. If you put that in parentheses maybe that gives us a standard we can go to? Is that good or is that -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can we -- we're obviously going to have a break, so why don't we -- why don't we see if we can come up with something that makes more sense. We can call our shopping center clients and say how do you want to define gross leasable area and we'll figure what that is. If that's acceptable to you all, then that would be what we would propose. And BOMA may be it. I just can't tell you I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, come back with something. David? MR. WEEKS: I just wanted to ask if I'm missing something. But I've always understood gross leasable floor area as literally that, the space that you can lease. You would discount your storage area, for example, you would discount the square footage literally from the outside of the wall to the interior of the wall. I thought that was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's maybe what the objective IS. We're trying to nail it down. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And where it gets tricky, David, is in common areas that get drawn into leases too. In other words, you don't want them to build a huge basketball Page 98 October 19, 2009 court in the center and not have to consider that part of the square footage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, the anchor for this proposed shopping center is supposed to be the supermarket. And it's contained here as a minimum of27,000 square feet. However, everything else in that plaza can come in at a greater size than the minimum of that, because the next line says that nothing else shall exceed 30,000 square feet. So what I'm asking is, in your conversations with the neighborhood do they realize that they could potentially be getting a series of anchor type stores? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I don't recall that coming up, to be honest with you. I mean, we -- the focus was on the grocery store, what can we assure them. And we said look, we've got to go with a measurable standard, which is the prototype that we know of today. And I think it's built out in Ave Maria. I said I can't promise you a name brand. So that's where we came up with that number. We didn't really ever focus on -- and you know what may be a way to answer that is limit the number of things that can go above. Other than the grocery store, you can have "X" number of things greater than or up to that 30,000 feet. I t never came up because that really wasn't anything we ever envisioned. We always envisioned it was going to be your shopping center with your typical out-parcels, and figured we would probably have one 30,000 square foot user, maybe. That's the honest answer of what we were thinking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody else have any questions? We're going to -- after we finish with 30, we're going to take a break. Does anybody else have any questions on 30? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one. Page 99 October 19, 2009 Richard, if this were to go through, under A, would you consider adding a number 14? It would simply say, anything not specified as included in the allowable uses. So that means everything's prohibited except what's in those allowable uses, in case we missed anything. It's a catchall. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, which uses are we using, Commissioner Strain? Are we using-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the language on Page-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- our laundry list? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- 29 was included in the GMP, then I would suggest putting a number 14 -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: 14 that says -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that basically says anything not specifically included within the allowable uses. MR. YOV ANOVICH: First blush that sounds okay, but let me think about that over break, if that's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And there were some other changes on page 30 recommended by staff. Are those contested or -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, we really think it's important that the conceptual plan stay in; again, for the same assurances we had given to the community that they would have their conceptual plan to show the relationship of our developable areas to their residences. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what's staffs -- is this a do or die issue for staff? MS. MOSCA: We don't typically -- as you know, we don't typically adopt conceptual plans. And I did have a conversation with environmental staff, and they haven't even had an opportunity to look at the preserve areas. They require additional detail in order to do so. And so that conceptual plan is pretty much laid out the way that they want to develop the property, except for the notation about the access points. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because the conceptual plan will be Page 100 October 19, 2009 tracking through the PUD process by the time adoption comes back, if this gets that far, right? MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's take a break. We'll come back at -- why don't we just round it off till 1 :00 and then everybody knows we're going to be here at 1 :00. (Luncheon recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from the lunch break for the Collier County Planning Commission hearing on right now. Today would be Golden Gate Area Master Plan changes. We're still on the very first one, 2008-1. I would hope once we finish the first one, the others may go a little faster, but we're not done with the first one yet. And we left off on Page 30 in review of the actual GMP language. We have a couple of pages to go after that, and then we'll move into public speakers. Before we do, during the lunch break I compared the First-Third agreement and the uses listed there to the uses list in the GMP, and they do not match up. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Tadaa. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I want to make sure that somehow that's rectified. And one of the easiest ways to do that would certainly be to endorse staff s -- if this goes forward, to endorse staff s recommendation at Number 28 which says any other similar use may be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals, that that be removed from the listing. There's a few other issues in there that need to be cleaned up. And I'll just mention them briefly so staffs aware of them. There are two uses that have been added. Apparently this list that First- Third came in was found in the PUD application. I can't find in the GMP numbers 7352 or 7359, yet they are on First- Third's list. Page 101 October 19, 2009 They also included a number nine. It's called construction specialty trade contractors, office use only. Starts and goes from 1 711 all the way through 1 799. And looks to be about 15 or so different uses, all in the 17 category. If I missed them, fine, I'm just trying to catch some at lunch. I may not have caught it. But I didn't see those in there. Under eating establishments, the GMP doesn't note that no outdoor amplified music or televisions, but yet that's what's found in the First-Third document. Under insurance carriers, there's number 6371 and 6399 added in the First-Third item, but it's not in the GMP. And under social services, group 8322 is added, and I didn't find that in the GMP. And again, I looked at this quickly at lunch. If I missed it, then just correct me when you find out I did. But at some point I believe that this stuff has to be correlated so that it's the same and we're all talking from the same page, if we get into that level of discussion on this issue. So does that work for you, Michele? MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Are you, Mr. Y ovanovich, and your client in agreement with everything that's in -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: In the letter? COMMISSIONER CARON: -- in this letter? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, ma'am. That letter is actually based upon the PUD document where we sat down and got into the breakdown of the actual uses that the community could support. So that is the list that is -- if we're going to have a list, I think that's the list that should be in both places. COMMISSIONER CARON: Beyond the list of uses, I think perhaps one of the most important things that it would be good to put Page 102 October 19, 2009 in the GMP is that the first thing that they have to build is this grocery store that these people claim that they want -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's in there. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- that's not in there. Where? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It is. It is actually -- MR. WEEKS: Page 30. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Page 30. No, there's a specific place where -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Page 30, number three. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's E.3. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, that's not what that says. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And a grocery store must be the first C.O. obtained. End of three. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, the end of three. All right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sorry about that. I knew it was in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think the reason -- you've got to understand what has occurred. The GMP does not provide for the uses I read off. So they would not get those uses unless we left in Number 28. But that also opens a can of worms as to what other uses could they possibly simply ask for because 28, the catchall, is there. All that does is further our argument that 28 should not be there. And if they know what uses they want and the First-Third Group is comfortable with them, then they ought to be very distinct in the GMP if that's what the decision is made that they stay there. So one way or another, it needs to be cleaned up and it needs to be exact instead of this ambiguous part of it, so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, let's move back to our process. We were on Page 30. We'll move to Page 31. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, Rich, is there anything in Page 103 October 19,2009 this that limits the size of a build-out? Could you have a 150,000 square foot IKEA store, for example? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, the only -- we're capped at nothing could be greater -- other than the grocery store, nothing could be greater than 30,000 square feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where is that? Because I was quick looking for that and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 30. MR. YOV ANOVICH: 30? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which one? MR. YOV ANOVICH: D. COMMISSIONER CARON: D. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No individual user shall exceed 30,000 square feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And I guess on 31 then, staffwants to force this to be something called old Florida style. I mean, what is staffs intent there, to -- because, you know, the drawings they showed us, is that ole Florida sty Ie? I mean, it's a box with a canopy in front of it. MR. WEEKS: Staffs intent was to take the language that's within the neighborhood center subdistrict and apply it to this petition. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's something that you can define and be objective about? MR. WEEKS: I'll say I assume so, because it's in the subdistrict and it's been implemented through several rezone petitions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then the other question is limiting it to one story in height. What's the concern there? Because like some of the office uses and stuff could -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We didn't agree with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, the staff. MR. WEEKS: That's the same thing, it comes from the neighborhood center subdistrict. We're trying to take all of those Page 104 October 19, 2009 regulations from the neighborhood center subdistrict and apply them to this project. That's all part of the development standards to help ensure the semi-rural character is maintained. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But what will happen then is the square footage will be spread over more of the site. I mean, there's an effect from that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Not to jump too far ahead, just, we -- when we met with the First and Third Group representatives, we have actually identified where on the master plan two-story buildings could go. So we're at to that level of detail. And they're comfortable with where we've put those two-story buildings will not affect the character of that shopping center. So we would like to continue to have the ability to do two stories, because we know we've work out on the master plan where the two-story can occur. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's something we're aware of or-- , MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, that's part of the PUD. I mean, I could show you that master plan, if you'd like to see it. But we thought that that's the level of detail that we all agreed should really be addressed at the PUD stage, not at the Comprehensive Plan stage. But again, if you want to see that, we can provide it to you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on Page 31. Any other questions on Page 31 ? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michele and/or David, if something is not listed as changed in this language change, does it fall back then on the standard elements of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, or do we have to restate all the elements of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan that we think apply to this if this is a standalone? MR. WEEKS: It would fall back. As an example, Policy 5 -- I Page 105 October 19, 2009 think it's 5.1.3 pertains to lighting requirements for all development in Golden Gate Estates. Unless this subdistrict specifically excludes itself from that requirement, it will be subject to it. So even if there's nothing said about that policy, either that we are subject to it or that we're not, it will be subject to that policy, as an example. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why do you have J and K? If your comment earlier was that they are to be -- make sure it stays consistent with the current Golden Gate Area Master Plan, if those weren't there, wouldn't they automatically fall back to that language anyway? MR. WEEKS: No, because they're creating a separate subdistrict. They're not part of the neighborhood center subdistrict. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So then let's go back to my first question. They fall back on the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, but not the elements of design or criteria within the neighborhood district section of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan; is that what you're trying to say? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. Because they are creating their own new subdistrict. So what they will be subject to are any policies that generally apply throughout the Estates. And if there are any general provisions under the Estates designation or Estates commercial district, then those would still be applicable here. And I don't know that there are any. I don't think there are any general in the district designation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the key point here is anything that's in the neighborhood centers that we like as residents of the Estates, if it's not in this document it isn't going to happen. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. And again, that's where staff has taken -- several of the additions that you see there on Page 31 and 32, staff has suggesting adding. And we've taken them verbatim from the neighborhood center subdistrict. Page 106 October 19,2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: And not to muddy it a little bit, but the letter from First and Third on the architectural actually said Key West, old Florida or Bermuda architecture. So they even -- so we may want to lift from that document the architectural sty Ie within this subdistrict. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's on their Page 1, item number three. I just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, I can't remember, does the Golden Gate Area Master Plan simply refer to just the old Florida sty Ie, or does it have the others? MR. WEEKS: Just old Florida style, as you see it here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I thought it was this, all buildings shall have tile roofs, old Florida -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought there was something about the roof sty les and things like that. I haven't got it in front of me, I should have brought it -- MR. WEEKS: Maybe I misunderstood. On Page 31, paragraph J as in John, that staff recommended language, that whole entry, that whole paragraph J comes from the neighborhood center subdistrict. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the First-Third Group is recommending that there be other elements added like Key West and -- you know what, I think Brad hit it. I mean, Brad's the architect here. You're not going to be able as staff to say they submit a Key West or Bermuda style whether that's old Florida or not. What are you going to do, say, oh, no, I don't like your old Florida, that's not old Florida, that's Key West? So I'm not sure it matters, but I don't think that staffs going to be picking up those kind of elements in review. With that, also, Richard, I noticed, you're going to have car Page 107 October 19, 2009 washes on this site? MR. YOV ANOVICH: As part of a convenience store/gas station, you know, the convenience gas, potentially. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the number five in the First-Third letter says no car washes will be permitted, so, in talking about gas and convenience. I just want to make sure if we get into that letter at any point there's not a discrepancy there. Anybody else got any questions on Page 31 ? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the last question is the objections from the applicant on Page 31 is in J, you want to add two other styles, Key West and Bermuda, and then K, you want the two stories; is that what I'm hearing? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it goes back to you showed us pictures of designs. How relevant will they be? In other words, are we going to be in the future dealing with the fact that hey, these designs show signs up at the top of the parapet, therefore, during the hearing everybody was aware of signs on top of the parapet so we have to be able to have signs on top of the parapet or MR. YOV ANOVICH: I thought that was -- those are more of the conceptual. We didn't get into the details of, you know, here's where the signage on the building will be and -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm just afraid because we have had where some of this stuff is used against us in future -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That was not our intent. Our intent was just to show them that if we did an old Florida tin roof type look with Page 108 October 19, 2009 the landscaping we're proposing, this would fit in nicely in the community . COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So your testimony today is you will never go back, nor should the applicant ever go back and use those as proof of anything. MR. YOV ANOVICH: If you need me to say that, I just said that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Thank you, I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I had a question regarding -- we're talking about old Florida style architecture or just the roof? Because all this is talking about is the metal roof. And I've just kind of -- this is the third or fourth time it's come up, and I guess I'm not clear now. I just read it as the roof style, not the whole building. I just wanted a clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, David. MR. WEEKS: That is correct, that sentence is only referring to the roof style, not the building style as a whole. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's why the Key West and all this. I didn't know if Key West had a different roof style than Collier. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that's a -- are they allowed flat roofs? MR. WEEKS: If that's deemed old Florida style, they sure are. Admittedly it's a vague term and the question was asked earlier. I cannot answer it with specificity. It's -- I'm assuming that it is a recognized architectural style. And Brad, you tell me if I'm off base here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Style is in the eye of the beholder and that can be warped to the beholders and-- MR. WEEKS: I repeat what I said earlier. We have had a Page 109 October 19, 2009 handful of PUD petitions come through in neighborhood centers and they've had to comply with this requirement. Very few have actually developed, though, so they have simply mirrored this language in their PUD. I think when we really find out what that means, and if there's an issue in interpreting this language, it's going to be when an SDP gets submitted, because that's when a certain level of detail is required where if there's a disagreement between staff and petitioner that's where it's going to happen, when we actually see what is being proposed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I guess the point, is it important to put in color schemes and roof materials and stuff like that in the GMP. That's, I guess, the question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think so. MR. WEEKS: Again, we're at a tremendous level of specificity, and arguably it doesn't belong here. But this is existing language in the neighborhood center subdistrict, and that's why staff has grabbed several of these rather specific criterion or requirements and recommended they be added to this project. They're already in the Golden Gate Master Plan, they're applicable elsewhere, their purpose is to help maintain the semi-rural character, help ensure a certain type of development physically. So we thought it would be appropriate to apply here. MR. SCHMITT: The old Florida architecture theme is required in our activity center number nine as well. It's the same -- it's in the GMP. It's specified as old Florida. And activity center number nine is Collier -- the 951/75 interchange, in that area. So old Florida would be -- the Wal-Mart was classified as old Florida. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I know it's even in the architectural standard, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? Page 110 October 19, 2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: On the next one, K, 35 feet -- this is to staff -- 35 feet is okay? I mean, that's what you want to limit the height to, is 35 feet; is that correct, David? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. Again-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. Now, certainly a grocery store would be 35 feet. But you could also put two stories in 35 feet. Now, you did not want two stories, is that why you crossed this out? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. Again, going to what language is in the neighborhood center subdistrict today, and it is 35 feet, capped at one story. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I know, but this is a different one. This is a -- this is different. This is its own subdistrict. So I was just wondering if you're sticking on that, no two-story if it's under 35 feet? MR. WEEKS: We are. Look, I have to acknowledge, I mean, what they're not asking -- they're not asking for a neighborhood center. They're asking for its own subdistrict, they're asking for something different. They're asking for F ARs -- greater square feet than are allowed in the neighborhood center subdistrict. They're allowing for an intensity of use range that's more. I mean, one way of looking at this is this is a different animal than a neighborhood center, don't add any of those neighborhood center criteria, they don't belong. That's one perspective. The staff perspective is that it's still within the Estates. It still should be fitting in with overall vision of the Estates for the type of development to occur there. Okay, they're going to get their C-4 uses if this is approved as proposed. They're going to get the square footage that's greater, okay. But let's try to take the design parameters and make them the same as Page 111 October 19, 2009 elsewhere allowed within the Estates. That's the staff perspective. Even something as simple as two-story versus one-story. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, there's two-story homes out in the Estates. I just don't understand why that got crossed off. But okay, I got you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on Page 31? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now let's move to Page 32. There's only a few paragraphs up on top. Does anybody have any questions on Page 32? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just wood fences -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- but I'm sure you carried that from across the street, right? MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Question on N. David, all buildings and projects shall utilize common architectural theme. Well, if you're allowing the three that you said before for the roofs, then it would follow then that the rest of the building should conform to that same architectural, agreed? MR. WEEKS: Correct. Once a design is set, that has to apply to all buildings, so you can't have this building with this sty Ie, that -- no, the entire project needs to have a uniform theme. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But that takes away that issue of it's only -- we're only talking about the roof. We really are talking about the entire structure. MR. WEEKS: Correct. That specific paragraph spoke to a roof sty Ie, but whatever architectural theme is chosen for the building sty Ie and for signage, that applies to all of them within the subdistrict. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Super. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. Page 112 October 19, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just challenge. You know, one thing, Dave, they want a rural look. And a rural look isn't one big building that all looks like it's unified together. I mean, I could argue that this is not a good idea anyplace. But you think isn't this an example of where it's really not a good idea to make it appear that that whole group of buildings are going to be unified? As opposed to somebody who can make it look like multiple different looking buildings all designed well, let's hope. So the point is why do we want -- in other words, why do we want the banding, the coloring and the signage to totally look like a huge shopping -- again, back to the Sixties shopping center is what we're doing here. MR. WEEKS: Again, coming from the neighborhood center subdistrict, the neighborhood centers themselves, though much smaller in acreage and therefore allowable square footage, could still have multiple buildings. And if it does, they will all have to have that same theme. So we're carrying that through to this project as well. You're right, it's a whole lot more square footage, but if it's broken up into separate buildings or if it's all one, it would be subject to that same limitation. Sounds like you view that as a negative and -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I view it as a negative. It makes sense in the small little thing. But the point is then you're not saying that all four corners have to have the same look when we did it originally. So now what you're -- I mean, you should really be able to break this thing up into multiple -- maybe the scale of the neighborhood centers would make more sense to split the styles. But I think you're going to get that massive building look because of that clause. You're guaranteeing that. MR. WEEKS: So even if there's multiple buildings, you believe Page 113 October 19, 2009 that with the architectural theme being uniform that that will give an appearance of one large center? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wouldn't it? I mean, when you read what the intent of that is, when you see how that works, I mean, go to any shopping center, go to the southwest comer of Airport and Pine Ridge, that building is all one big architectural theme. One color, one -- the banding's all the same. In other words, it makes the scale of the building bigger. That clause does not reduce the scale of the building. MR. WEEKS: One approach would be to -- if I'm understanding you, one approach then would be to cap the maximum size of an individual building to ensure that you end up with a series of buildings, not one massive building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, if we went to like a -- if we all pictured a charming little rural area, it's made up of multiple little buildings and made during multiple times. That should be kind of what we're trying to recreate, not the big 1960's shopping center. Anyway, enough said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good point. And we'll have to -- as we move towards finality on this one, I've been making notes of any of the issues that have come up, and we'll certainly have to discuss it as we move further along. Okay, if that's all the questions of staff and the applicant, we can get to the public speakers. MR. ARNOLD: Could I interject one thing on Page 32, Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. ARNOLD: You didn't have a question about it, apparently, but we wanted to go on record on item 0, the drive-through establishment restriction to only banks. We would not like that restriction included. We believe that there are other uses that could also have functional or drive-through uses. Page 114 October 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Like what? MR. ARNOLD: Dry cleaner, restaurant, bank. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So fast food restaurant is what you're thinking of, like a McDonald's? MR. ARNOLD: Doesn't have to be a fast food. It could be a Starbuck's coffee shop. I mean, there's a lot of formats these days that have drive-through facilities, Mr. Strain. It's a convenience; it's how we live. It doesn't have to be designed as a negative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, it's -- why don't we hear from the public first, and it's an issue we can take up if this gets that far. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. Sorry to interrupt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we'll move to public speakers. How many do we have registered? By the way, if you're not registered, it doesn't mean you can't speak, I just said we're going to start with the registered and then we'll go into everybody else afterwards. MR. WEEKS : We have a total of six registered speakers and a seventh person was here this morning but had to leave and so they wrote out their letter and asked that it be read into the record. And I said that we would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And when you come up to speak, either one of the microphones is okay. You need to state your name and your address for the record. You need to speak in a speed that she can type as fast as you speak so we have to be careful of that. And I would like to ask that you try to limit your discussion to five minutes, but we don't hold fast to that rule. We just ask as a courtesy because of the quantity of people we want to get through the meeting. So with that, David, if you'll call the first speaker, we'll get . mOVIng. Page 115 October 19, 2009 MR. WEEKS: First speaker is Pat Humphries, to be followed by Jim Banks. MS. HUMPHRIES: My name is Pat Humphries, 441 20th Avenue Northwest. Zip 34120. I am a resident of Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can pull that microphone if you want, Pat, closer to you. There you go. MS. HUMPHRIES: My name is Pat Humphries. I am a resident of Collier County for 33 years. I am a past member and director of the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association and presently a member of the Golden Gate Estates Homeowners Association, as well as a past director. I also serve on the Golden Gate Land Trust Committee. I live three miles from the proposed project. Today I am speaking for myself. In my opinion, this large project will devastate Golden Gate Boulevard. It will ruin the ambience of the Estates, destroy the quality of life for the nearby residents, and is most certainly not in compliance with the Golden Gate Master Plan. The for sale signs dubbed commercial are already going up on the vacant lots along Golden Gate Boulevard. If this project is approved, those property owners will be standing here petitioning for a Growth Management Plan change because you did it for them, now you have to do it for us. The owners of vacant property on Wilson Boulevard won't be far behind. A 40-acre shopping center at this intersection will result in more traffic. It may cause the widening of Golden Gate Boulevard west to five lanes. If this happens we will lose the landscape median and homes and property will possibly be subject to eminent domain. On the northeast comer is E's General Store and gas station. On the southeast comer is Wilson Plaza. On the southwest comer is a new Walgreen's, all less than 10 acres and all in compliance with the Page 116 October 19, 2009 Golden Gate Master Plan. The northwest comer should be no larger. There are two large approved commercial sites in the Estates that are more appropriate for such an enormous undertaking. The people in these neighborhoods were aware of the commercial zoning before they moved in. Altogether there are eight existing commercial sites in and near the Estates and eight approved sites not yet developed. There are three grocery stores in close proximity of this proposed shopping center. The developers mailed a survey, set up a web page, manned a booth at Collier County Fair, recruited people to do door-to-door petitions, and held various meetings to promote their project. I am sure this all turned out favorably for them. But I feel certain that if the opposition had the time and money to do all of the above it would have turned out unfavorably for the developers. I wonder if their survey included the four pages of allowed uses for the potential project that may not be so appealing to nearby homeowners, or did it just tout the so-called grocery store that no one can legally guarantee will come to fruition? Did it include the fact that the property could be sold once all the permits are granted or that for one to two years the nearby residents will be inundated with dump trucks, graders, bulldozers, dirt and noise as they watch trees, animals and houses uprooted right under their noses. Or did it happen to mention that it is twice the size of the new completed Publix shopping center on Collier Boulevard. The proposed project is a monstrosity and does not belong in an unsuspecting residential neighborhood in Golden Gate Estates. The argument that the shopping center will lessen trips into town is not true. We don't go into town to grocery shop. We have three grocery store shopping centers right in or very near the Estates. However, we are not going to stop going into town for the beach, Page 11 7 October 19, 2009 the mall, the Phil, the hospital, Fifth A venue, Third Street or any of the other attractions that bring people into town. Not to mention that is where most people in the Estates work. This shopping center is not compatible with the goals and objectives of a subdivision that is striving to become a world class rural community. It would only serve to put Golden Gate Estates on the path of urban nightmares such as Pembroke Pines, Davie, Sunrise, and worst of all, Miami. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, please. I know that some of you are very tied up into these issues, as I am too for that matter, but if we can, please don't clap or acknowledge, just everybody quietly come up and make their peace and we'll go on. MR. BANKS: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Jim Banks and I'm a registered professional engineer in the State of Florida and I am president of JMB Transportation Engineering, Incorporated, which is an engineering consulting firm here in Collier County . I'm speaking on behalf of a group of residents that was organized in opposition to the proposed Estates shopping center Compo Plan amendment and the forthcoming PUD. The group of residents that I am representing refer themselves as the First and Third Group. The First and Third Group consists of residents that own homes or own property on First Street Northwest or Third Street Northwest within the Golden Gate Estates community. It's important, though, that you note that the First and Third Group does not represent every resident that may own property on First and Third Street or reside on First and Third Street. So I just want to make that point perfectly clear. And in fact it's not our intent to suppress or influence anyone Page 118 October 19, 2009 else's opinion that may not agree with the position that First and Third Group has taken up on this particular application. As you are aware, First and Third Streets are contiguous to the subject property for which the Compo Plan amendment is being requested. In response to the proposed plan amendment and the forthcoming PUD, the First and Third Group retained the services of my firm in order to work with the applicant in order to develop some development considerations and some design criteria that would minimize the impacts and possibly even mitigate some of the impacts onto the residents. Since my involvement numerous meetings, phone conferences and e-mail correspondences have been -- have occurred with the applicant's representative, Mr. Y ovanovich, as well as Mr. Wayne Arnold, which has resulted in significant changes, and I submit to you, improvements to the PUD as it relates to the protection of the residents. Let the record show that the First and Third Group does greatly appreciate the applicant's willingness to address all of their concerns. Mr. Y ovanovich and Mr. Arnold made themselves available at every opportunity when we requested them to do so. The applicant's representatives participated in our discussions in a spirit of cooperation and a willingness to make every reasonable effort to resolve any conflicts that the -- or concerns that the residents had brought forth to them. I have prepared a letter to the Planning Commission and also addressed to the Board of County Commissioners which is dated October 19th, 2009, which was belatedly submitted to the commission. And I apologize for that, I had some medical problems that kept me off my feet for about three weeks. So I apologize for the lateness in the submittal and I'm sorry you did not have a thorough time to review the document. Page 119 October 19, 2009 I won't read the letter and/or the attached exhibit into the record, but I'm going to give you a brief overview of the content of that. And then if any questions come about regarding those documents, I'll be happy to answer them. The letter that was submitted to the commission summarizes the First and Third Group's position on the proposed plan amendment, as well as the forthcoming PUD. Also attached to that letter is a document identified as Exhibit A. And Exhibit A is an outline of an agreement that the First and Third Group has reached with the applicant. Mr. Y ovanovich has a copy of this letter and the attached Exhibit A, and has confirmed to the commission that the applicant is in agreement with these documents. As an example of some of the development restrictions and impact mitigation provisions which the applicant has agreed to and has implemented into the PUD at our request are: Increased landscape bufferings; a commitment to construct school bus stop shelters; to adopt an on-site lighting criteria which would protect from lighting overspill into the neighborhoods as well as maintain what we consider reasonable dark sky conditions. They've also imposed restricted hours of operations, depending on the various type of uses. We did work closely with the applicant in developing a site plan that identified where certain land uses would be located. And we apprec iate that. There's also a limitation on the land uses that could actually be constructed on this particular site, which they've also agreed to. They've also implemented some features which would provide noise abatement. They also took into consideration some of the concerns regarding vehicular access and did make changes to their access management plan, or the site's access plan. As well as doing enhanced design and commitments on the Page 120 October 19, 2009 sewage and water treatment system that the site will have, which includes the construction of a building to enclose those systems that will protect the residents against odor and noise when those systems are in operation. Now, that's just some of the conditions. All of the conditions are listed in Exhibit A, or discussed in Exhibit A. In response to the applicant's acceptance of these terms and conditions of Exhibit A, the First and Third Group acknowledges that the forthcoming PUD will include the necessary elements in order to substantially minimize or mitigate potential impacts to the residents. As a result of the applicant's commitment to minimize these impacts to the adjacent neighborhood, members of the First and Third Group do not object to the approval of the Compo Plan amendment CP-2008-1, the Estates shopping center. If the Board of Commissioners and the Planning Commission determine that the Compo Plan amendment is appropriate, and we believe that the terms and conditions as outlined in Exhibit A protect the neighbors, then the First and Third group will support your decision to approve the plan amendment. However, we are adamantly -- when we say we specifically request that Exhibit A, which was an agreement with the applicant, is made part of any approval or recommendation of approval that can be applied to this Compo Plan amendment by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. There was a couple of other items that came up which I wasn't planning on -- well, I wasn't planning on discussing till they came up. So just a few more moments, if you please. There was talk about the zoning appeals process, item number 28. I talked with some of the folks that I was representing today, they had some concern with that. I spoke with the applicant. They explained to me that item 28 was for the purpose -- if they decided to use a less intense use that was Page 121 October 19, 2009 listed on their land use. And the folks I represent, we believe that the list of land uses that are permitted represents the most intense use. Now, if they want to come in for a zoning -- for a zoning amendment through the appeals process, as long as it is clearly a less intense use than what is identified on this list of uses, then Group One and Three would not object to that. If it is borderline intense or more intense than the uses that were on this list, then we firmly object to that as being a way to circumvent this agreement. Now, Mr. Y ovanovich, Mr. Arnold, his client, I have the utmost trust in them that they would not circumvent the terms of our agreement. But if they sell the property to another person, they bring over an attorney from the east coast, they may not be willing to abide by the terms and conditions if there's a way to circumvent this agreement. So the residents need to know that they are protected, that there is not a way to circumvent this agreement and come up with a more intense land use. Lower intensity, fine. As far as the reference to a 1960's grocery store, what we were told by the applicant, and I'm not here as an advocate for the applicant, but what was explained to us was a Jupiter Farms type development, Key West sty Ie, Bermuda sty Ie development. N ow what we picture in our head or what we picture in our minds is something that would be integrated into the community . We realize it's going to look like a commercial center, but I think everyone in this room pretty much has a good grasp and an understanding of what a Key West or Bermuda sty Ie development looks like. And they provided architectural renderings to us that was to our satisfaction. And as long as the intent of the project is to develop consistent with those architectural designs, then we do not have an objection to the language that's being proposed. And as far as the drive-through use, as I explained I had a little bit of an issue that I was out of the loop for about three weeks, and Page 122 October 19, 2009 there was certain discussions that went on with some of the members of the First-Third Group and the applicant that I was not in the room. The drive-through, as it was always explained to me, was for a bank use. I was not informed that it may be for the possible use of a Starbuck's or dry cleaners. I cannot speak to the fact whether the First and Third Group would support a Starbuck's or a dry cleaners. I'm certain that they would not support a McDonald's drive-through or something to that nature. So as long as again the intent of this agreement is to keep the intensity level down, then there may be a little bit of some room for that type of use, a drive-through use with something that is not of a significant impact. And finally, I just have some clean-up work on my -- the Exhibit A to that attachment I provided to you. On the third page, which is actually the first page of Exhibit A, we start out with number one, number two, then we go back to number one. I need the second number one to be 3.A. Then we go to number two. I need the -- that number two to be 3.B. And the one that is actually correctly numbered as three, I need it to become 3.C. And I apologize for that typo, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: How many homes in that neighborhood are represented in this group? MR. BANKS: I wasn't given a specific number of the homes but what I was told is -- I basically met with the people that were assigned to be in charge. First of all, this group was organized, I don't know, a year-and-a-half ago, something to that effect. And the way I understand it is it was a group of about 50 folks strong. And during their first kind of meeting, they decided -- they put in charge a couple folks, Tim Wallen and some other folks that were to kind of act as the Page 123 October 19, 2009 lead folks for this group. And they developed a website and those type of things. But at the time that it initiated, I understand there was about 50 . folks. Probably two adults per residence probably is a good rule of thumb to use, so maybe 25 homes. And it was also -- what was explained to me is that was represented -- the most vocal opposition of the folks on First and Third. Since then, when it was first organized, they were opposed to any type of development. Since that time they have been working with the applicant to develop a more -- a development scenario that would not have such a significant impact. During that time there may be some folks that have decided that the First and Third Group no longer represent their position on this matter. And that's why I wanted to make it clear, I suspect there's probably some folks here in the audience today that -- and I encourage them to state their position to you because I don't want to misrepresent anybody that resides or owns property on First and Third Street. But the way it's been explained to me, that the group relatively stayed together other than a few folks that disagreed with any type of negotiations with the applicant. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, did you have something? Then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, can we have a list of -- I mean, this could be five people now, could be 50 people now. I mean, what is this? It's a secret group? MR. BANKS: Well, it's not a secret group, no, it's not. But I think that when you have a group of folks that organize with one objective, to stop a development, and then the core group starts to decide that maybe it's better to work with the applicant, you alienate Page 124 October 19, 2009 some of the folks that originally -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think the real question is I'm trying to see what you represent. I mean, a petition comes, it has a list of names. But you're representing a group of people that I'm not sure how strong -- I mean, are there members here that could stand up and say -- MR. BANKS : Well, is it more than one? Yes. Is it less than 50, yes. But I don't have a number to provide to you. All I can tell you is that I've met with the lead folks on the First and Third Group as well as some of the members of the civic association that also had input into this matter and developed a plan. I did not meet with the group as an entirety because I only met with three to four folks that was representing the First and Third Group. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It just seems weird to me. I mean, it could be vapor, it could be a real -- MR. BANKS: I'll say it this way: When I first met with Mr. Y ovanovich, we started discussing the aspects of what we could do to satisfy this First and Third Group. Since our initial meeting -- and I went back and reported to my folks, and there was e-mails circulating between the neighbors, and I did not count heads -- the last time they had the NIM meeting, Mr. Y ovanovich came to me and said the opposition was significantly less than what it was in our first NIM, and there was a lot less residents from the First and Third Group opposing the application. And what I was told is that they asked the folks, let's put it on the table. These folks are not advocates for the project, so we're not going to get them to file in here to bang their fist on the desk and say please approve this. What they're saying is, if you approve it these are the conditions we want. So they stand down -- they're standing down on this issue, because if you're going to approve it, they've worked out an agreement with the applicant and they don't want that to be compromised. Page 125 October 19, 2009 And there's been too many times where the community has fought tooth and nail on these, the applicant has no obligation to negotiate or soften their development if they're going to be fought to the bitter end on it. And so these members of this group authorized me to meet with them to try and reach a compromise. And this is where we are. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is there any ex-members in the room? Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, we can't do that, no way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just wanted to see a hand. Let me ask you this: How many unique faces have you seen from this group when you've met with them? MR. BANKS: Nine? Nine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Randy, you wanted to say something, then David. MR. COHEN: Yeah, I had a few questions for the gentleman. First, is the First and Third Group a legal entity? MR. BANKS: I don't know. Did they file with the Internal Revenue Service as a non-profit? I don't -- probably not. MR. COHEN: Is it a corporation, is-- MR. BANKS: No. MR. COHEN: -- it a limited liability company? MR. BANKS: No. MR. COHEN: Okay. When you say you have an agreement, okay, is that an understanding? Because when you're talking about an entity, you said the developer's representatives entered into an agreement. I'm just trying to understand the context of that. MR. BANKS : Well, I specifically said I'm representing a group of folks that refer to themselves as the First and Third Group. I never implied that they were a corporation, I never implied that they were a limited corporation. Page 126 October 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No one's -- we're just trying to get to the bottom of it. MR. COHEN: I'm just trying to understand the context-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's not accusing you of anything, we're just trying -- MR. BANKS: No, I understand that. But the question was put forth. And the way I understand it, they are not a legal entity as required by the Internal Revenue Service, nor have they filed with the Florida Corporations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The form of agreement, is it signed by anybody? MR. BANKS: It was an e-mail correspondence between myself and Tim Wallen, who is acting as the lead for the group. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You sent the e-mail to Mr. Y ovanovich and they signed off on it; is that -- and I'm seeing a nod of the head yes from Richard. MR. BANKS: The letter agreement? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. BANKS: Yes, we've had verbal. I think there might be a misunderstanding on one of the uses that me and Mr. Y ovanovich may need to debate. I don't know. He seems to think there was one of the provisions that I have on this document that he did not see. I'm willing to basically concede the point, whatever our last two e-mail correspondences were. Whatever they read, if something was put in afterwards then it can be omitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Randy, did you have anything else you wanted to contribute? MR. COHEN : You know, the concern I have is obviously there's an agreement between parties. And the question I have is what is the party and what's the right to agree and in what situation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, see, Randy, I think a lot of -- and I've read the agreement thoroughly. Most everything in it is something Page 127 October 19, 2009 that pertains to another level of zoning than what we're here for today. There are a lot of what I would consider very ambiguous and loose statements here that I'm sure are to the benefit of anybody if somebody from the other side wanted to deviate. But that's an issue that I think we'd take up at a PUD zoning if we get that far. Certainly it would waste a lot of time here today. The group hired their representative. They feel comfortable at this point. And I think the next point that would come up is at the PUD, if we go to PUD. So with that in mind, let's move to Mr. Wolfley. David? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Mine is real quick. Page 3 of Exhibit -- is it Exhibit 1, A, permitted uses, number three. Do you mean to say you were okay with automotive dealers there, or did you mean like an auto supply shop? You certainly did not mean like a used car dealer. MR. BANKS: No, not at all. What we meant was an auto parts store. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, okay. So you're talking about an auto supply. MR. BANKS: And there's actually a provision in this exhibit. One of the items was is that the PUD must restrict folks from actually just working their cars in the parking lot like you might occasionally see -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, I read that, yeah. MR. BANKS: Okay. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And it just said automotive dealers and I just went, what? Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But on that category, the only two that they're listing are the two below, 5531, I think it is, and 5541. So 5531 is auto and home supply stores and 5541 is gasoline service stations without repair. It's in your -- look on -- Page 128 October 19, 2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I got it. MR. BANKS: And can I further one other point to that, please, if you may? The last item on that was 7542, which specifies car wash as an accessory to the convenience store --I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I-- MR. BANKS: Okay, I'm sorry. And the First and Third Group informed me at the last discussion they had with the applicant, it was agreed that there would be no car washes. And I think that's the -- maybe the misunderstanding that myself and Mr. Y ovanovich may have at this -- and again, I will concede that whatever the last correspondences were between myself and Mr. Yovanovich, that's what we will abide by. And until I can check my e-mails, I can't say whether we can oppose the car wash or we can include the car wash. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions of Mr. Banks? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, was this Exhibit A submitted to staff for their review? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. BANKS: I again belatedly provided it to Mr. Strain and he informed me that he forwarded it to staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I t was submitted to staff last night at 9:00, and I'm sure they weren't in their offices to receive it. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Have they had an opportunity to review it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, Michele earlier said she has not had the opportunity to review it yet. Okay, anything else of Mr. Banks? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll go to the next public speaker, David. Page 129 October 19, 2009 Thank you, sir. MR. WEEKS: Norma Maroquin. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Maroquin came up during lunch and said that she had to leave but she wanted me to note that she was not in favor of this request -- she was in favor of this request. She was in favor of this particular application. MR. WEEKS: Kim Ellis. MS. ELLIS: Hello, Kim Ellis. I've been a Golden Gate Estates resident since 1985, Collier County since 1973. 530 Third Street Southwest. And I'll clarify something regarding the gentleman that just spoke. I don't -- I never really heard -- I heard from the First-Third Group once or twice, maybe, quite some time ago. I don't think it was within the last year. And at that time I was going to send somebody an e-mail in support of not having a project at this location. It will not affect me personally as far as lighting or traffic. I'm on Third Street Southwest, the other side of the boulevard, three-quarters of the way down, so there won't be any lighting issues or anything like that that will affect me. However, I really don't see why or -- I'm in the real estate business, I've sold residential real estate in Golden Gate Estates since 1991. Most of the growth that everybody -- you know, everybody knows it's one of the fastest growing areas in Collier County. The growth in Collier County has really slowed as everybody knows due to the economy, the national economy. But most of the growth in the Estates -- I think I sell a lot of houses out there too. At one point it was more than any other residential real estate agent in Collier County. I had the most transactions out there per year. So I do know what's going on out there. Most of the growth I will say is if you go down Golden Gate Boulevard and you take a left on Everglades Boulevard, it's in that Page 130 October 19, 2009 section up there. And for those people to travel to this area will absolutely not happen. They're going to take the road of most convenience, as someone else stated earlier in the day, which would be down Randall or down Oil Well Road to Immokalee. And also I did get a survey in the mail at one time. And I do want a grocery store. I just don't want it smack dab in the middle of my neighborhood. It is a neighborhood, okay. And this is right in the middle of it. And that's for everybody around that intersection. I'm talking about people from Everglades Boulevard, DeSoto Boulevard. I think if you go to 13th Street, those people are not going to come out into the Estates to shop, so that, maybe that area should have been eliminated rather than a lot -- some of the other areas that I can see have been eliminated. It doesn't make sense to me that with a 50 percent vacancy ratio at Wilson Plaza, which by the way doesn't look anything like Key West or old Florida style development. It's not even close. The Walgreen's looks really pretty, I can't wait for it to open. We want services. We don't want them in the middle of our neighborhood that's going to expand out. Oh, another thing. You know, I didn't write anything, and I'm sorry that I didn't write a letter -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to slow down just a little bit. She's trying to type -- MS. ELLIS: I'm sorry. You know, it's very important to me. But I didn't know anything about this until the signs went up. Which were, I'm sure 30 days ago. And I could have prepared something more professional to read to you, but I too have issues that have not allowed me to do so, a lot of family members here, a couple of them very elderly that I also help take care of, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and everything else we have to deal with in our own lives. But Wilson Plaza has a 50 percent vacancy ratio. There was a restaurant in there. We all want a restaurant. The restaurant's already Page 131 October 19, 2009 gone out of business. It was a small restaurant. We couldn't support them, okay. I've spoken to the people that have Walgreen's, because they're looking for somebody to lease the property immediately adjacent to them, and that is zoned already, I believe, they got something for a drive-through there, and it's going to be something with multiple lanes. I'm guessing that would be a great spot for a bank. Where G's is, or E's. It's now E's, it used to be G's. But there's a beauty salon, there's a pizza parlor and an excellent deli and a little shopping, you know, market. That corner at Wilson, the northwest comer, that's completely not developed. A nice five-acre parcel there is available for the type of development that we've always expected in our neighborhood. You know, my biggest point is I can't see people coming from the west, like most definitely west of 13th Street, to come out to this store. I can't see people coming from the Everglades Boulevard north, like any Second Avenue Northwest, Fourth, Sixth, it's all even numbers up until after 40th something. They're going to hop on Randall, they're going to hop on Oil Well and they're going to go straight to Immokalee Road for convenience purposes. The people in the south, well, it used to be the southern blocks when you go out Golden Gate Boulevard and make a right on Everglades, they'll come this way, but they have -- they might eventually, I'm thinking -- I spoke with Nick at a few road meetings -- eventually have an interchange there for 1-75. They're going to go right to Collier Boulevard for their shopping. I don't think it's -- oh, 41 acres. CoastlandMall's 38 acres. This is not going to fit in our community plan. Nowhere near it. 28 acres is the Carillon Plaza at the comer of Airport Road and Pine Ridge. That's on 28 acres. And they want to do 41 acres. It's going to demolish our community. I also had a lady call me that has property between 7th and 9th Page 132 October 19, 2009 Avenues, right on the Boulevard. Ms. Cummings has had her property for sale for two years for over $2 million. She wants it to be commercial because she's seeing what's going on with this development. It's the same real estate agent. I wish I could remember her name. She's got the red blazer. Weikert Realtors. I can't think of her name right now because I'm a little nervous, I'm not used to speaking in public. But I had to go and tell Ms. Cummings that her property was valued at about 100,000. That wasn't an easy task. But this is what's happening, you know, people are thinking if they live along the Boulevard, it doesn't matter how far west they are. Between Wilson and 951 it's going to be commercial. If this goes in at 41 acres, we're going to see a whole different community. I moved out to the Estates because it's what I could afford. We've come used to a certain type of lifestyle. And I think that this will devastate it. I don't be redundant in what I'm saying. I think I've made some valid points. We have a lot of vacant areas where we can get the services we want and need without turning this into a Miami or Pembroke Pines or anything else like that. It's just way out of control at 41 acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. MS. ELLIS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate your time and your patience today waiting for your time to speak. Thank you. Next speaker, please. MR. WEEKS: Bianca Long. MS. LONG: My name is Bianca Long. I am a resident of Golden Gate Estates, 160 First Street. It do live on First Street. I am not part of the First and Third Group. I'm a stay-at-home mom, so I'm speaking for myself and for the Page 133 October 19, 2009 moms around the area. Today there's a lot of moms I'm sure that would have known about this would have been here. I'm really excited about the shopping center. I'm excited for myself, for the moms and the children in the area. And I'm just going to humble myself, I'm not used to speaking in front of a group of people, that I would really ask for a Mickey D's even for my children and the children around the area. And Mickey D's does have a drive-through. And the restaurant on that comer is the Cuban restaurant. I'm not Cuban, I don't really like different -- but I love McDonald's. So I know that McDonald's is going to be a great hit. And the shopping -- today, yes, I wanted to go grocery shopping yesterday and I didn't do it because of going to town. But today I'm going on the way home grocery shopping. But it would so nice to have a plaza. Even for work. I'm laid off right now. I usually work six months out of the year and I'm home six months, and I travel a lot. So once I'm home, I do not want to fight traffic, I do not want to go to town. And yes, I understand most of the people do work in town. But when I moved to Naples five years ago, I was so disappointed, I'm like, oh, my husband, we're way out in the boonies. And he was telling me well, we can't afford anything else. I'm like, what do you mean we can't afford anything else? So yes, I do have a wonderful house and I love the location. But I do have a child, I do take care of other children. Even at night the lights -- I used to live actually behind a shopping plaza, and the way the lights are, they shine within, not out. And for protection for the children, yes, there are animals, and we do love animals, I have dogs and cats and everything, but even late at night I have to be very careful because of cats or something. So I'm going to feel more protected for my children with the plaza there. This is all I have to say. And I just hope in favor that we're going Page 134 October 19, 2009 to bring in money also and work for the area, not just even for myself, but even for the teenagers that are out here in Golden Gate. Not everyone can go to town and find work. So thank you so much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. Next speaker, David. MR. WEEKS: I'll try. Yonel Vixamar? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Vixamar? Not here. MR. WEEKS: 3031 Golden Gate Boulevard East? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just move on. We're still going to ask for speakers when you're done anyway. MR. WEEKS: That's the last registered speaker, Commissioners. I do have this one -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry, what was that gentleman -- Bob just reminded me of something. What was his last name? MR. WEEKS: Vixamar. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He wasn't the man that owns the store out there, is he? I don't know. That's the gentleman that asked to let Richard Y ovanovich speak on his behalf, which means he can only be in favor of this. You're not going to carry the water for the non-vote. But go ahead, Richard. MR. YOV ANOVICH: If someone asked me to speak for them, I would. It actually is -- we have been working with the owner ofE's. And E's, they're not crazy about the fact that we may someday have a gas station, but we've worked out an appropriate period amongst ourselves as to when a gas station can occur. Other than that, E's is in favor of what we're doing. We think we'll be a good neighbor to them. And that's what Vlaus asked me to communicate to the Planning Commission, that as far as E's -- E's is not afraid of the competition and is okay with the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. Page 135 October 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. The next real public speaker, David. MR. WEEKS: That's the end of those signed up and that are present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this matter? Because if you do, just please raise your hand, you can come up and take your time. Sir, come on up to the podium. Just a minute, ma'am, we've got to get everybody else first. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: While he's coming up, was he going to read a letter? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have a letter you want to read? MR. WEEKS: Yes, you want to wait until -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, when this gentleman is done. Just identify yourself and address, sir, and we'll be ready to go. MR. HARRIS: My name is Stanley Harris, and my address is 161 First Street Northwest. And to me change is fine, but 40 acres is just too much. I think, you know, you're going to have four comers. If you just utilized the four comers with the five acres each, that will save the Estates. Forty more acres is just -- like she said, just imagine 40 acres and you're driving by, and it's -- if it's the way he says it is, it's going to be more of a parking lot. You're going to see more openness, you know. You're going to miss the trees. I believe, if I'm not mistaken, I've seen an eagle around there. So I mean, all these -- you know, a lot of these birds and stuff like that are -- and plus it's going to bring -- for me I think it will bring more different types of animals, like rats, more rats, more mice, you know. And that in turn will bring more snakes, you know, and different stuff that will eat them. So I mean, to me it's just -- it's just for greed, I think it is, you know. We came -- I came out here in '97 and I love it. And that's -- I Page 136 October 19, 2009 looked for a place to live and it wasn't because I couldn't afford it or it was too high. That's where I wanted to live. I looked and seen everything that was there, and it was just beautiful. Because I came from a concrete jungle, I call it, Chicago, and that's all you seen was buildings everywhere. And the lady is right, I'm worried about what's going to happen after that gets rezoned, you know. And then like she said, it changes hands. And then this one says well, we got to -- can't we get it rezoned over here for commercial and then so forth down the line. The street is wide enough for it, so it invites it in now. And we really don't need it. Like you got the three corners with businesses on them. And some of them are not even filled, and like they say, out of work already, it closed down. So I mean, even -- didn't the Collier County office that's in there, or the state, they closed down, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know, sir. MR. HARRIS: Well, didn't they close down so many of the offices around in the area? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's been a lot of offices closed. I don't know if that one was, though. MR. HARRIS: Okay. Because it looked close to me when I went by the other day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a ruse. The county does that a lot. MR. HARRIS: But yeah, I mean even that's going to throw that business out. You know, what's going to happen to those business people that moved in there? They're not going to -- they can't compete with a big store, you know. That's the whole idea. If it's supposed to be a community, keep it small. That way you are building, you are making jobs and livelihood for people, you know. The big guy's going to take it away from everybody. And that's all I got to say, and I'm -- Page 137 October 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. MR. HARRIS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. David, you want to read that letter you have? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. This is from a Ms. Tony Kincaid at 881 Third Street Northwest, Naples. First I'd like to acknowledge that I have approached this neighborhood since their project with exhaustion from Vanderbilt Beach Road project. I'm sure I'm not alone in this feeling explaining why so few people are willing to put much energy into this fight. We feel defeated already. However, still having hope, I'm writing this. We moved to rural Golden Gate Estates in 1992. I believe we know and understand the essence of this area. Even after all this time we still do not support this neighborhood center and still would rather drive a few miles to a grocery store. I've heard ERA, CIGM, NIMs and others. I'll try to keep it basic. Conditional uses allowed, day care, churches, nursing homes, yet there are very few if any in the Estates. Five acres is the norm for commercial, yet this individual bought 41 acres, confident he would be successful in getting his way. To me this is presumptuous and excessive. $12 million just to buy the land, then all the money for the lawyers and the studies. This is intimidating for most people. In fact, some people believe this is a sign that their money equals power and they will get their way, so they may as well accept this neighborhood center. Weare hearing the need for a grocery store is huge in the Estates. I disagree. There is a new Publix at 951 and Pine Ridge and a new Publix in Ave Maria, SweetBay at 951 and Vanderbilt. Is there no end? Here are some contradictions I've heard. Our neighbors, from the lawyer's mouth, yet they are not our Golden Gate Estates neighbors. Page 138 October 19, 2009 Some can't afford $3.00 per gallon for gas versus people will still drive to mall or other regional centers. Conceptual versus reality. Buffers on conceptual plan versus desire of residents for this project. If people really want store, do they all care about a buffer zone? Surveys. I received a phone call after signing a sheet at a NIM meeting. After speaking on phone I was told I wasn't needed to meet with them. Remember, I opposed the project. Rooftops does not mean there are actual people living under those roofs, foreclosures/for sale properties. E's traffic versus in reality will bring more traffic. The truth is, if you recommend this project be allowed and it becomes a reality, there will be many unforeseen negative consequences in addition to the identified foreseen negative impacts. Please represent those of us who understand and appreciate the essence of our residential rural Golden Gate Estates. We desperately need you to help us maintain our existing lifestyle. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, thank you for reading. I know it's hard to read someone's handwritten note, so I appreciate that. Now, are there any other -- anybody else wish to speak on this matter before -- you've already spoken once, you'll be able to come back up, but let me get somebody else that hasn't already. Ma'am, you raised your hand, please come up to the microphone. Were you sworn in in the mass swearing? Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The mass swearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We had a mass swearing this morning. MS. BURNS: After listening to all this, that's kind of what I feel like doing, a mass swearing. My name is Lori Bums, and I have a home at 210 Third Street Northwest. And while I respect all the opinions of those who desire a major grocery store, while I respect the efforts of the Third and First Street group to do the best they can to minimize the intrusion of ao Page 139 October 19, 2009 commercial center of that size on the neighborhood, on the street and on our residents, and while I greatly respect the efforts by Mr. Y ovanovich and Mr. Arnold trying to address my concerns, trying to meet with the residents, trying to minimize the impact of everything, I really just have a lot of questions about this. I'm a newcomer to all this. I kind of moved -- I bought the home about a year ago, heard about this in March, didn't realize the severity of it until I got to the neighborhood information meeting a month ago. So I've been in contact with a lot of people trying to gather my data, trying to figure what's coming, what am I up against. I have to say that I bought my home in Golden Gate Estates to retire in. I bought it because I wanted a quiet, rural, simpler lifestyle. Little did I realize how complicated this simpler lifestyle is seems to have become today. I know that there -- a lot of people bought out in the Golden Gate Estates, despite their reason. They bought the rurallifesty Ie, whether they wanted that or not. They bought that there was no grocery store out there. They bought that there were only neighborhood centers to accommodate the basic needs of the residents. With a commercial shopping center of this magnitude, despite all the efforts to try to minimize the noise, the light, this is the first thing that's happened out there. There's no guarantee. There's no way of knowing the extent of impact. My house is 150 feet from this, to the back side of it. So I mean, I just don't know what to expect. I like the dark, I like the quiet, I like no noise. That's why I moved out there. And I just don't know what the impacts of all this is going to be, despite the intense efforts to protect that. Despite its aesthetically rural appearance, it is still 40 acres at 225,000 square feet. It is still a stark contrast to what is out there now. The lady mentioned earlier one of the things that -- right now there are only three out of 10 of the neighborhood centers planned for Page 140 October 19, 2009 the area partially developed, with only two of them currently providing goods and services. What experience of evidence is there that we as a community can have the financial wherewithal to economically support and sustain the neighborhood centers, given that one of them doesn't have a full occupancy at this time? If we're not sure we can economically financially sustain and support a neighborhood center, how are we going to possibly sustain a commercial community center of that magnitude and that size? The 40 acres is eight times the size of a five-acre planned neighborhood center. The square footage is about eight times the size of what would normally be expected in a neighborhood center. I also don't have a problem going to the grocery stores, because there is a major grocery store on every major artery leading to Golden Gate Estates: Pine Ridge, Vanderbilt Beach and Immokalee. I don't know, I'm just going by what the staff report said, that 75 percent of the people work in the urban area. That means 74 percent of the population pass by a major grocery store on their way to and from work. I've been reading a lot about greenhouse emissions and reducing vehicle miles and that kind of thing, and what I've got to ask to that is as residents, what is our responsibility in efficiently planning and combining our trips to and from work with our errands and the purchasing of goods and services? This doesn't seem to me, based on what I've heard today, to be consistent with the vision of commercial development in Golden Gate Estates. It doesn't seem to be completely consistent with the preservation of a rural lifestyle. While I understand that yes, I will still continue to be able to plant crops on my land, yes, I will continue to be able to have livestock on my land, yes, I will continue to have a -- live in a low dense area of residential area, I know as I was reading multiple things, Page 141 October 19, 2009 including the Growth Management Plan, the Horizon Study, the staff report, I know that there is an Objective 5.3 to provide for the protection of rural character of Golden Gate Estates, stating that the provisions shall provide for preservation of such rural amenities as, but not limited to, wooded lots, keeping of livestock, ability to grow crops, wildlife activity and low density residential development, the operative words there being but not limited to. For me rural character and rural lifestyle also is quiet. It's dark at night. The stars are out. It's a community of where you go into town and you have your basic needs like convenience store to pick up last minute goods. You have gas, you have those kinds of things. So I really stand here with a dilemma of how do I best protect my home. I understand and greatly appreciate the detail that the Third and First Street neighbors went to to try to protect themselves. Because when I bought out there, I bought a rural lifestyle. There were nine houses at the end of the street. There were some vacant residential property and there was planning for a neighborhood center. And then I come to find out there's a possibility of a 225,000, 40-square foot (sic) commercial community center going in there. Not what I bought, not what I was expecting. So I completely understand the necessariness and to protect yourself with the details. Because what keeps us -- what keeps this from getting approved and we end up not getting what we thought we were going to get? Which is already what I may be getting if this gets approved. So again, I really do appreciate again the concerted efforts of the applicant to try to meet the needs. I just -- however, it's not what I bought when I moved out there. So I thank you for your time. I thank you for your listening. And I respect that you've got a difficult and very complicated decision to make on whether to transmit or not. And so I do thank you for your Page 142 October 19, 2009 time and thank you for your diligence in trying to sort through everything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We appreciate it. Thank you very much. MR. WEEKS: Ms. Bums? Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. WEEKS: Just clarification. Your name again, please. MR. BURNS: Lori Bums. MR. WEEKS: How do you spell your first name, please? MR. BURNS: L-O-R-I. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, there's been a lot of people come up here with very complicated names, but that's the simplest name that's come up and that's the one you asked for. I don't know, David. Are there any other speakers? Yes, sir, come on up, use the microphone. MR. WEST: Good afternoon -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you sworn in in the mass swearing in? MR. WEST: No, I did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, she's going to have to do that for you. (Speaker duly sworn.) MR. WEST: My name is Steven West, S-T-E-V-E-N W-E-S-T. I'm speaking on behalf of two people today, that's myself and my mom. We moved out here from Miami in, I want to say, 2002 or three. To get away from the construction, busy streets, noise, not really much peace and quiet. Convenient parks were very nice. Change is good for the community, but I feel in Golden Gate Page 143 October 19, 2009 Estates with too much I think would hurt it. And this particular project I think would. When you have too much construction and you have a lot of beautiful nature and very nice scenery and darkness, peace and quiet, hear nature around you, you ever get a chance and you go outside and you stand in the dark, you get a chance to really get a feel for nature and you learn to appreciate it. And I've kind of grown accustomed to that and so has mom. And we have a lot of livestock that, you know, we really appreciate and we have also exotic birds that we love hearing at night. I mean, I'm sorry to some of the neighbors around me if you hear them. But it's something that you learn to love. It's nature. I mean, I love having absolutely no light, no sound, barely hearing traffic. You get something like this thrown in the middle of it and you hear all the beeping from the trucks, construction dump trucks, cranes, it kind of spoils the love of it. And I think I could speak for a lot of people out in Golden Gate Estates and a lot of my neighbors that would love to be here today and would give their thoughts and literally their feelings about it. And it's not that a shopping center like this would be well appreciated, but don't we already have enough? Walgreen's, G's. There's a gas station there already, why would we need another one? You can go into town and you can get gas there. It's cheaper than what you would have out in the Estates. You know, you already have a convenience store on the comer of Wilson Boulevard, and the majority of that is already out of business. You know, why do you want to put something up like this when you have the chance of more business and more work being no longer there, having it there for a short month and then it's just gone? I mean, really, I mean, take the time and really sit back and think about that before you go ahead and just say oh, we're going to throw a huge shopping plaza in the middle of this and then all of a sudden it Page 144 October 19, 2009 winds up becoming an utter waste. You know, you throw $12 million right down the toilet and it's just no longer a smart investment. But those are my feelings and I thank you all for hearing it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for your time. MR. WEEKS: Mr. West? Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, you need to spell West? W-E-S-T. MR. WEEKS: Could I get his address, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Sir, come on up and give us your address. I don't get a chance often to say something to David because he's always so serious, so that was good. MR. WEST: It's 825 Fifth Street Northwest. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Now, young lady, I think everybody else has spoken. If you want to just take a minute or two, because this is your second time, so please keep it short. MS. ELLIS: One minute. It will just be one minute. I wanted to mention that -- Kim Ellis. If you put the shopping center at the comer of Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevards, there probably wouldn't be enough support for two shopping centers, and it just makes so much more sense to have it at Oil Well or Randall and Immokalee Road. We're going to have people from Orangetree, Orange Blossom, Waterways, Valencia Lakes, Valencia Country Club all coming from there down Wilson Boulevard where there's a school bus stop at every street, by the way, for the lady with kids. I have kids that go to Palmetto Ridge High School, and all of their friends are picked up at the end of their streets. They're all dead-end streets. So that's an issue for safety for the children with all of those people coming to and from our neighborhood to shop, when if the property is located on Immokalee Road, that would not be an issue. Page 145 October 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, with that I think we've heard all the public comments involving this issue. We've I think gone through public -- I mean staff presentation, the petitioner's presentation. And Richard, we're not going to vote on this today, we're going to vote on this after all the presentations are heard on all five matters. At the time prior to the vote on each one of them, I'll give each applicant 10 minutes to summation, and it'll have given you time to think about things that were said so that if you want to have changes or suggestions at that time you'll -- it will be an opportunity. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I wasn't sure of the process. That will-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will be the process. So with that, we will end the discussion on this particular Golden Gate -- Growth Management Plan amendment and we'll begin the discussion when we come back from break on the second amendment, which will be CP-2008-2. Let's take a 15-minute break and come back at 2:40. (Recess. ) Item #4B CP-2008-2, RANDALL BOULEVARD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from the break. We left finishing up presentation and public input and discussion on the Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard commercial area. We're now going to open up this meeting for CP-2008-2, which another amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. And this is on Randall and Immokalee Road. Page 146 October 19, 2009 All those wishing to participate in this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter, if you weren't here for the mass swearing in this morning. (Speakers duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. Let's start with Ms. Homiak. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes, I had a conversation with Mr. Anderson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, with Mr. Anderson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I rode up on the elevator with the applicant, and I can't remember -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Guilty. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I had a meeting with Mr. Anderson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I too had a meeting with Mr. Anderson and Tim Hancock and I had -- as I said earlier, I received piles of e-mails. Now it turns out quite a few of them were for this project. I forwarded them all down -- I just saw what their intentions are, whether it was for or against, and I forwarded them all to staff, staff has them all. So with that in mind, Bruce, it's all yours. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Page 147 October 19,2009 F or the record, my name is Bruce Anderson from the Roetzel and Andress law firm. And with me today is my client Jack Sullivan from the Emergent Development Group; and planner on the project, Tim Hancock from Davidson Engineering. Before I get into the substance of what I want to say, I do want to just clarify something that I want to make sure that is clearly understood. At the beginning of the proceeding there was a reference to the fact that all of these were neighborhood centers. And I want to be really clear that there are six different neighborhood subdistricts -- of six different commercial subdistricts. A neighborhood center is one of the six. Randall Boulevard is its own separate special subdistrict. So it's different and it's not subject to the same standards as a neighborhood center. You have more latitude on uses and sizes. And I would point out that Randall Boulevard commercial subdistrict is the only standalone subdistrict east of 951. So its status is different and it ought not to be lumped in with a series of scattered neighborhood centers. This application is for the expansion of the Randall Boulevard commercial subdistrict. I'm going to simply say Randall district from now on, and it's located at Randall and Immokalee Road. It's always been identified as separate in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. It is a preferred location for commercial development chosen several years ago. A convenience store and a small shopping center have been constructed there. So expansion of this separately previously identified commercial district is consistent with and doesn't conflict with locational considerations that the county has previously employed in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. And it will be consistent in establishing this standalone district. Page 148 October 19, 2009 What distinguishes this application from all the others is both its special location and the fact that it involves a public-private partnership that provides for donated right-of-way for the eventual six-Ianing of Randall Boulevard, and the construction of a complete realignment of the intersection of Randall Boulevard and Immokalee Road, which will be occurring adjacent to this development. The properties that are being added are all those that would be the most severely impacted by the Randall widening and the realignment of the intersection. Among the owners that are -- of property that are included in this application are Collier County itself and the Big Island Corkscrew Fire District. The county initially plans to four-lane Randall Boulevard and eventually six-lane it. At the time of Randall Boulevard we've been led to understand that in the course of that widening they're going to construct a new intersection of Randall Boulevard and Immokalee Road. A little later you might ask Nick about the possibility of a fly-over. The county transportation staff has indicated to my client that they're going to need some additional right-of-way. Under a developer contribution agreement that my client is donating, almost seven acres out of the 49 that are being added, it will go for county right-of-way. That means about 14 percent of this property will be conveyed to the county at no cost. At present this property is bracketed on the west side by the fire district and the eastern end by the county-owned property, which is leased to the State Forestry Service. A fire tower is located on that property, along with the building utilized by the Forestry Service. We believe that when Randall Boulevard is widened, the Forestry Service building will be nonconforming with respect to setbacks. Under the developer contribution agreement, both the fire district Page 149 October 19, 2009 and the Forestry Service would be moved, and the two essential service agencies would be relocated at the eastern corner of Eighth Street and Randall Boulevard, where a traffic signal will be going. The relocation will be at the sole cost of my client and another property owner, and that includes the cost of either rezoning it or getting a conditional use approval to specifically permit the collocation of those two agencies. It also includes getting SDP approval and providing site improvements. My client will also be acquiring from the fire district a five-acre parcel to the south that will be used primarily for water management from the widened Randall Boulevard and the intersection improvements. That five acres is also being donated to the county. As a consequence of the Randall Boulevard widening and the intersection changes, the two existing businesses there are going to have their access impacted in one way or another, which may give rise to a condemnation claim for severance damages for the impacts it will have on their business. Now, this messy situation is avoided through the developer contribution agreement and approval of this application. Those existing businesses and my client would construct at their expense an access service road from Eighth Street heading west. When my client told me that he was going to try to get three governmental agencies and a handful of private property owners to work together to facilitate the widening of Randall Boulevard and the Immokalee Road changes, I thought to myself, mission improbable. However, he achieved those results, and the result is a win/win/win with the fire district, for the county, for the Forestry Service, and for all those private property owners who are going to be the most impacted by the Randall Boulevard changes. That developer contribution agreement has to be finally approved by the county commission before you would finally approve this amendment. That is why timing is so important as to whether this Page 150 October 19, 2009 plan amendment is approved now. This coalition of cooperating property owners will not last forever. Right now it's in everyone's interest that this Growth Management Plan amendment and the developer contribution agreement be approved. If it falls apart, it's every man for himself and it will be on the county's nickel, not my client's. Now, there's been some discussion about well, we ought to put these things off until the EAR process. Well, I've got to disagree with that strongly. The reason that these petitions have been delayed, we are told, is because of the prior EAR process. And now we're being told, oh, you shouldn't act on them now because we need to go through the EAR process again. We feel like we're being whipsawed and they're trying to stick it in our EAR. My client, Jack Sullivan, has reached out to abutting property owners and surrounding owners, the Golden Gate Civic Association and the homeowners association of Golden Gate. He took the initiative not just to address concerns and answer questions but to ask questions, ask the residences -- ask the residents what kind of businesses do you want at this location. And although the exact uses will be appropriately determined at the time of rezoning, my client has specifically excluded a laundry list of uses that he feels might be objectionable to the neighborhood. My client has committed to surrounding residents that he would work with them to establish a rural character committee that would help design his specific project during the rezoning process. Now, when you read the staff report, you may get the impression that there's already a glut of commercial uses within a few miles of this property. Staff acknowledges that the Collier interactive growth model is only one factor in your decision, and that they haven't considered how location is important in this process. What they haven't said is that Page 151 October 19, 2009 some of these other sites have never had a needs or market analysis in the first place. So those other sites should not carry any presumption that they would actually be constructed. For example, the commercial use that was approved at the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD several miles away. Orange Blossom Ranch is not located at an intersection of major roadways like my client's property. We did some digging back through the county commission records, and they reflect that the property owner didn't originally ask for commercial zoning, but acquiesced to it when one of the commissioners asked him would he please put some in, because he knew that the residents out there needed some place to go shopping. So the property owner went along with that and he included commercial uses in the PUD instead of developing it as all residential. Now, that property has not been developed, and in fact that PUD was set to expire next month until the county commission tolled the sunset time lines on all PUDs. This phantom commercial may look good in theory, but in reality it may never ever get built. Again, there was no study about the viability of commercial in that PUD, and we don't feel it's a valid comparison to my client's project. There's also a pending commercial rezone at Orangetree that the staff report assumes will be approved at the full intensity that's requested. Again, there has been no market or needs analysis requested or received or reviewed for that application. Now, comprehensive planning has been routinely requiring that for all commercial applications. I have never seen the comprehensive planning staff so easily concede a zoning approval. Neither of these two projects ever had a market analysis and neither of them are a valid basis to deny my client's application on the basis of a market analysis. I'm going to conclude that when it comes time to vote separately on each of these projects individually, please remember that this is the Page 152 October 19, 2009 one that provides a real and substantial public benefit through a public-private partnership. And it is the one that will be located at the intersection of two six-lane roads. It's a preferred commercial crossroads location on the periphery of Golden Gate Estates with its own existing special subdistrict. We believe that it's truly the logical location. I'll ask Mr. Hancock to come up now. MR. HANCOCK: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. Tim Hancock, with Davidson Engineering. First of all, thank you, Bruce. I'd like to recognize and thank throughout this process the county staff, in particular Michele Mosca, Mike Bosi, Dave Weeks, Nick Casalanguida and John Podczerwinsky. They've all made themselves available to us to address questions and issues, for which we are grateful. And just as it was this body's first run with the CIGM, so was it ours. And there were a lot of questions. And Mike in particular and Michele have been very helpful in helping us understand what is and is not an appropriate application of the County Interactive Growth model. While the question of demand and locational appropriateness is I believe central to this body's review and may be the primary point of discussion when all is said and done, please allow me to briefly discuss the proposed site, its physical characteristics. While most development standards are more appropriately addressed at the rezone stage, some have been included in the GMP A to ensure that they are more specifically addressed at the rezone for the benefit of adjacent residents. Emergent Development Group has assembled parcels for the purpose of this application extending from Eighth Street Northeast, which is on the right of the exhibit that you see before you, and runs along the east side of the project all the way to the Corkscrew canal on the west. Page 153 October 19, 2009 The total project size, including the existing Randall Boulevard subdistrict, is 56.5 acres, plus or minus. 5.46 acres that Bruce mentioned earlier are owned by the county and are actually sitting here on the northeast corner at the corner of Eighth and Randall. This is the one that is occupied by the State Forestry Division at this time, has a fire tower and a fire station. 7.32 acres are owned by the Big Corkscrew Island Fire District, which is on the far west side of the project here as I'm indicating. On this parcel is located a fire station very close to Immokalee Road whose access is truly going to be impacted by the widening and the intersection improvements. Behind that is an administrative center. And actually in between it is a lOO-foot -- I believe it's a cell tower or communication tower. The rear parcel, which makes up the balance of the 7.53, is the five acres that has been earmarked and allocated for water management purposes for the proposed project. The physical characteristics of the project when viewed in relation to our neighbors is really fairly straightforward. This master plan exhibit shows conceptual access locations that quite honestly are still being developed and refined in coordination with the transportation department, as they work through the potential designs for Randall Boulevard. However, what we do know is that Randall Boulevard is coming. Whether our project moves forward or not, it is going to be widened, the intersection is going to be improved and the improvements are necessary. Again, with or without our project. One of the nice things about this scenario is that even with the donation of right-of-way along Randall, there is enough depth on this property to not just provide for the necessary commercial services but also to provide adequate buffering to the residents to the rear. What you see here behind the development envelopes is a 75-foot native vegetation buffer where all existing native vegetation will Page 154 October 19, 2009 remain. Within that 75-foot buffer, the applicant has agreed to install the equivalent of a Type D buffer utilizing additional native vegetation to provide the necessary visual screening. As you may recall, a Type D buffer reaches a high degree of opacity within one year of planting. And there are some areas in this buffer that are on the thin side. We recognize that, and it's going to need to be addressed moving forward. One request that was conveyed to us was that they have a wall along the rear of the property. And the reason for the request was not really what I expected. Apparently the current use of the property as it sits today is somewhat of a local dirt track for A TV s. Even pickup trucks have been seen making a few turns out there in the sand. And from what I understand, even golf carts have been driving onto and in some cases through the properties that front on 24th. So we were asked if we would consider putting a wall along the rear property line, maybe to preclude that from happening in the future. I think a shopping center might go a long way towards precluding that, but nonetheless, we think the wall serves two purposes: One is to address the request of the adjacent neighbors; and the second is by constructing the wall along the rear access road, it will act as a better sound deterrent than even the native vegetation buffer would by itself. So again, that's something we're happy to comply with. One other concern expressed by the residents that will experience the eventual six-Ianing of Randall is what would happen without the project. When you compare a retail project with building heights of 35 feet versus 15 or so single-family homes along this same stretch, the buildings will in fact act as some bit of a noise mitigation wall, if you will. I understand there are noises associated with commercial properties that we will have to mitigate for and address at the time of zoning. But one of the things brought to our attention was the Page 155 October 19,2009 presence ofa retail center will do a lot more to knock the noise down from Randall Boulevard than just about any buffer or any wall could do. So ironically buildings themselves become part of our noise mitigation. The site circulation as proposed will use Eighth Avenue Northeast prominently since a traffic signal is anticipated in this location, and will also provide enough distance between the signal at Eighth, again, the corner intersection right here, and Randall to ensure the smooth flow oftraffic for Estates residents. Again, this has been a key condition of where and how access points are directed with transportation staff. The roadway design -- and we show a design here, and please understand, the design is in a state of flux. But primarily the focus of the design as it currently is is to take eastbound traffic on Immokalee and have two continuous through lanes continuing straight on to Randall. Again, preliminary designs, but this is a tenant that seems to hold up as we go through design to design. The traffic that is then westbound will have additional turn lanes meeting at Immokalee Road to allow them to get through quicker and faster in the morning. And anyone who's sat at that traffic light in the morning, as many of the residents have expressed to us, would welcome additional turn lanes. The accesses for the project will be designed in such a way to ensure the smooth flow, while providing the minimal access necessary for the shopping center parcel to be viable. As was provided in the testimony ofthe prior application, she left, I didn't get a chance to thank her, but there's at least one person thinks everybody's using Randall and Oil Well anyway. So we want to thank her for that testimony and I'd like to repeat it here if we may. In addition to the right-of-way donation discussed earlier, this is Tract 55 back here. This is the one that we talk about that is really -- has been picked up and going to be secured for the purpose of Page 156 October 19, 2009 primarily providing the water management for the widening of Randall Boulevard. And when we ran the numbers we were a little surprised in just how much pavement actually is getting added out there. The majority of that lake is going to be required to provide the water quality treatment necessary. What's interesting, though, is that we've been asked and done our very best to do it to make that lake of a certain size to accommodate future improvements, such as potentially a fly-over that hasn't even been designed yet. So to say your transportation staff was looking to the future for this intersection would, in my opinion, be a gross understatement. We're trying to plan not just for the immediate needs of this roadway but the future needs as well. Most importantly, what we've shared with the residents is what's envisioned for this property. As you can see here, the project is set up basically to be carved, if you will, into about three distinctive elements. And let me walk you through those elements. At the corner of Eighth and Randall here, this will be a little more of an office type complex, medical and general office. Our application allows up to 75,000 square feet of the two; 25,000 square feet of medical but a total of75,000 square feet. We see this area as being most appropriate for again retaining a 35-foot building height but possibly two-story office buildings that would not be open during the evenings or on the weekends, unless potentially maybe on the corner something like a walk-in medical clinic, which we have heard some requests for. As you move to the center section here, this would be more of a traditional shopping center. Obviously designed with the rural character in mind, and we'll discuss that a little bit later. But the center section is of a size and breadth that would allow for some type of an anchor retailer there, preferably a grocer retailer, Page 157 October 19,2009 and a traditional shopping environment. As you move to the west, you get to the part of the project that quite frankly excites the developer and maybe a little bit more. And this is what we're really calling an old town section of the project. This is where we'd like to see a little more of a walking district, an area that has maybe two-story buildings with retail and restaurants on the bottom, office on the top floor in a Main Street type setting. My wife worked at Palmetto Ridge as a dean out there, and we'd go out to the football games, and after the game everybody would just disappear. There's really not too many places to go, and they were looking for places. And we thought what a great opportunity here at the gateway to the Estates at Randall and Immokalee to create some type of a destination center. And we really like the idea of parsing the project into these three distinct pods, and that one pod being a little bit of what we're calling old town or a town center destination within the Estates. There's a -- there are a lot of numbers that fly around, particularly with square footage, and we found out as recently as last week that we may have led to some confusion on the part of staff. And so what I'd like to do is I'd like to walk you through real quickly how the square footage breakdown of 390,950 square feet that is contained in your application, where that comes from. That is what we call all new commercial. But that's a little bit deceiving, and let me explain how. Right now there's 20,000 square feet here that is currently developed as a small shopping center. There's a gas station and convenience store here, and I apologize, the square footages slip my mind. It's something in the area of about 5,000 square feet, four to 5,000 square feet. And those two are currently developed. And looking at the balance of the project, we basically assigned a roughly 7,500 square feet per acre to come up with the parcel over here, which is fire district parcel would be approximately 20,000 Page 158 October 19, 2009 square feet. The area behind the gas station, which is currently within the Randall Boulevard commercial subdistrict, we allocated 30,000 square feet. Even though the PUD currently lists a maximum of 21 ,000, if this project moves forward, water and sewer will become a component at some point, and there may be the opportunity to develop a little more than 21,000 square feet on that piece. So we wanted to make sure we didn't hem that property owner in with our petition. So we've allocated approximately 30,000 square feet. And that number is somewhat duplicated, because it's within the Randall Boulevard subdistrict, but we're calling it new square footage. So I wanted to clear that up. There's a little bit of a 30,000 foot duplication there. What that leaves on the balance of the project -- and we talk about the retail component or the shopping center or the Emergent Development Group piece -- is the balance of the acreage here allows for up to 265,950 square feet of retail; 75,000 square feet of office, 25,000 of which can be medical. That is a maximum. And quite honestly, with most maximums at the planning stage you put it up there where you may attain it, but a lot of things have to go right to get there. So hopefully that will help any potential clarification on square footage. And I'd like to kind of go into the issues that are related to the staff report. And quite honestly, the staff report, as we review it, is thorough and with relatively few exceptions reflective of what this petition is seeking to do. The primary focus of the staff report is a discussion of supply and demand for commercial development in the Estates. While we don't share in the opinions necessarily of long-range planning staff and the majority of their conclusions, I believe you'll find the thrust of our disagreement not so much in the data provided itself but in the manner Page 159 October 19, 2009 the data is applied. In short, the staff presents an argument that if you take the built commercial in the Estates, you combine it with the zoned commercial in the Estates, and then you add the designated but unzoned and unbuilt commercial in the Estates, you got a lot of commercial out there. In fact, you have, based solely on a square footage basis, more commercial potential than the demand for neighborhood commercial through the year 2030. Based on that analysis, it may appear that we should all just pack up and go home. If you read further in the staff analysis, though, you will find a recognition that the type and location of the commercial square footage they identify will not fit the future needs of the community. This is a point on which we ardently agree. The primary issue we take exception with really in the aggregate approach appears to say that a square foot is a square foot is a square foot. In other words, if there's a square foot of commercial in a five-acre neighborhood center, it's going to be counted the same as if there's a square foot in a 150,000-square foot shopping center that's in a neighborhood center. And I think we can all agree that's not the case. The reality is what do folks have out there? What are their choices, what are their options? And what will their options be under the current scenario versus under what we're proposing? This is a map basically that shows the existing shopping centers that are primarily the use of the folks in the Estates located Immokalee, Vanderbilt Beach Road and Pine Ridge Road all along the 951 corridor. Our site is in green. What is currently built in the Estates is what you see here. We've talked about them earlier, the three corners down at Wilson and Golden Gate. The next thing staff wants to add or does add in their analysis is Page 160 October 19,2009 that which is zoned but yet not built. Again, the only thing existing is what is built. The further addition is that which is designated, not zoned and not built. But the reality if you live in the Estates is this is what you have. You've got Wilson and Golden Gate, three small neighborhood centers, and you have three shopping centers in the urban core. When we review the County Interactive Growth Model, what it really does is it shows that -- where the demand is generally going to be. And I think Mike did a nice job of describing that a little bit earlier. But the type of aggregation that I think is represented in a lot of the CIGM maps that shows the supply being way up here can be misleading. And what we'd like to show you is when you take the County Interactive Growth Model and you walk it through from 2007 and so forth, you see a little different picture. For example, again, the starting point, this is 2007. The yellow dots represent the T AZs where proposed neighborhood centers are warranted. Please understand, these dots are representative of somewhere within that T AZ, but they're not geographic specific. It could be one one way or one the other or two one way. They really don't have locational criteria attached to them, they're just population based. As we proceed to 2010 what pops up in the orange is a community center. Please remember that neighborhood centers, according to the CIGM, are an average of 11 acres and 110,000 square feet. That's not a five-acre corner. The community centers average 28 acres and 257,000 square feet. Again, that's not achievable in the current neighborhood center designations within the Estates. So as we look at these progression maps, we move on to 2015. Now, I'll point out something I think draws out a bit of a Page 161 October 19, 2009 weakness or an understanding in the model. If you'll notice on the right-hand side, you see a community center and a neighborhood center out literally in the middle of just about nowhere. Based on the model what happens is, whenever you have a high population base or a denser base somewhere in the model, it acts kind of like a magnet. And so when you see the two community -- you see the community center and the neighborhood center right here, they happen to be equidistant between the higher density urban area and the higher density Orangetree settlement district. Those increased densities over time tend to act like magnets and pull or push. And that is part of the explanation on why we see things landing out here. Obviously if you're going to put a community center, this may not be the T AZ you want to put it in because its immediate density or surrounding conditions are not appropriate. So you need to have the flexibility to say okay, that's demand based, now where is the best location. When we go out to 2020, the map changes just a little bit further. What this shows, and I think one of the things that is clear here to us as we ran this, is while there is a dispersal of need in the geographic area for both neighborhood and community centers, the concentration of those within T AZs along Immokalee and Randall Road is noticeable. It's not an accident. The density is there, existing and future. The northern part of the Estates, as you'll hear a little bit later, it's got a little more density, got a little more population than the southern part of the Estates. So this is not an accident. One of the reasons why we believe this site is appropriately located. As stated in the staff report, there are two areas in the vicinity of Randall Boulevard that may serve the commercial needs of the residents. Bruce highlighted both of them. One is the 44-acre tract in the Orange Blossom Ranch project and the other is the proposed rezone for Orangetree. Page 162 October 19, 2009 I happen to know a little bit about the Orangetree rezone, being the agent on the current application. But let me show you on an aerial. This is right here is Orange Blossom Ranch. And the current Orangetree commercial parcels are here and down here directly across the street from the proposed project. Currently Orangetree in their PUD is permitted 60,000 square feet to be developed on two parcels totaling 22 acres. You don't have to be a math wiz to figure out that 22 acres is a lot more land than you need for 60,000 square feet. That decision was made back in 1986 in a vested rights determination. The application that is on file with Collier County and hopefully moving forward again soon will seek to actually increase that commercial square footage to allow for this 12-acre parcel to develop or allow this 10-acre parcel to develop with retail commercial and maybe some small-scale office here on this middle parcel. As you can see, none of those are community centers. And that's what we're talking about when we talk about the Randall Boulevard district. We're talking about a community center, not a neighborhood center. As we then look out to the Orange Blossom Ranch parcel, one of the obvious deficiencies for this site is what we call mid-block. It's sitting on a two-lane roadway. A two-lane roadway whose traffic counts are less than 10,000 cars a day. When you begin looking at the national retailers' matrix, how they make their decisions, 10,000 cars a day is not a plus. The Randall Boulevard site sitting here at the intersection, currently you have an arterial and a minor collector, ultimately arterial and arterial, currently has in excess of 43,000 cars a day at that intersection. It's a world of difference. And I think when the Orange Blossom Ranch project was coming through, the idea of having some level of service out here was so enthralling that the locational constraints were really not a focus of the Page 163 October 19, 2009 board at that time. We now realize of course Oil Well Road is going to be limited to four lanes instead of six that was thought many years ago. The six-lane roadway is going to be Randall. So with that elevated importance, I think the disparity between the two sites and the strength of each site specially rises somewhat. The last thing I'd like to share with you basically is when we're looking at -- and again, because the staff report draws not just Orange Blossom Ranch into the analysis but also draws the petition before us into the analysis, we think it's important that we have to look at all three of them. And quickly what this says is traffic counts for Orange Blossom Ranch are lower, Wilson and Golden Gate a little bit higher, and the Randall Boulevard traffic counts are highest of the three. We're the only one at an intersection of two arterials. Even in the long-range transportation plan Wilson and Golden Gate are planned to be collectors. Again, following, collectors, collectors, collectors, and we're arterial collector. Ultimately we will be arterial, arterial when the six-Ianing of Randall is complete. We are one of the two sites that should have water and sewer available to them. The population density is basically about the same as Orange Blossom Ranch, in that same zone, and the population growth is the same as Orange Blossom Ranch. But when you look at this matrix and you're a national retailer, you start to understand why Orange Blossom Ranch, even though it was rezoned in 2004 at the height of commercial mania in Collier County, did not get more attention. It was the right idea in the wrong location. We believe that the project we're proposing is the right idea in the right location and at the right time. Page 164 October 19, 2009 I'd like to turn the balance of the presentation over to Mr. Sullivan. MR. SULLIVAN: Good afternoon. My name is Jack Sullivan, for the record. I'm the president of Emergent Development Group. I am part owner and project manager for the proposed development that would extend the Randall Boulevard commercial subdistrict. I'm a resident of Naples and I'm homesteaded here. In April of last year I got married to a girl from Texas, which has me traveling back and forth between Dallas and Naples. So I now have two homes. I'm pleased to be here to speak with you today, and thank you for the opportunity. I want to focus my comments on just a few items. First, how did I get here today, what brought me to this point. Second, why should you commissioners decide to amend the County's Growth Management Plan for my project. I was approached back in 2007 by a previous business partner of mine. He and his brother had owned roughly 14 acres along Randall Boulevard and they were unsure of what to do with it. They owned some of it for over a decade thinking that in the future as the Estates grew it might be a good spot for commercial. I agreed to investigate because it seemed like an ideal location for commercial but had been overlooked in the past when allocations were given to potential neighborhood center sites within the Estates GGAMP. I didn't want to push them in a direction that didn't makes sense, so I spent a lot of time at the Horizon Study meetings, which were ongoing at the time, seeing what the community thought, talking to residents, as many as I could get ahold of, and over time came to the general conclusion that there was a tremendous need for services closer to Estates residents and that this site held promise. This led me to follow up further with the county, and it became Page 165 October 19, 2009 clear that the transportation department was in the process of considering different design options for the intersection of Randall and Immokalee in conjunction with the potential widening of Randall Boulevard. This further confirmed for me that the site made a great deal of sense as a commercial tract. It also became clear during early conversations with transportation that by providing some local access options for the existing businesses within the Randall Boulevard commercial subdistrict my project could possibly playa helpful role in solving some of those difficult design decisions at that intersection without damaging some of the existing businesses that are already serving the Estates at that location. It also became clear as discussions continued with transportation that the ideal alignment of Randall might impact the Forestry Service facility. As a result, we started to discuss options of how as a developer I could potentially facilitate a solution to that potential problem as well. So I pulled together the adjacent property owners at that time because it looked like it was a viable project. Some of these adjacent property owners have been Estates landowners for decades. And we petitioned the County to amend the GGAMP to allow commercial services at what I consider to be an ideal site for community serving commercial within the Estates. THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Sullivan? MR. SULLIVAN: Too fast? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. MR. SULLIVAN: I'm sorry. Should I repeat that last sentence? THE COURT REPORTER: No, thank you. MR. SULLIVAN: So that's how I got here. So why should you support my amendment petition? The first part of that answer is because I feel it makes sense. The Estates community is currently underserved for community-scale Page 166 October 19, 2009 commercial services. I think everybody in this room knows that. The Estates have been underserved for many years. That's why a comparison between a planning analysis like the one presented to you by staff and a market analysis, like the one that we've shown you and I'm about to add some additional data to, is significantly different. To be clear, there is no market viability consideration given in the staff report's supply analysis. And I think Tim went through that effectively. We were informed directly by staff last week that we were welcome to add color to this issue. So I think that's what we're trying to do. So one of the ways we could do that was I approached last week CB Richard Ellis, a large commercial broker in town, to run a standard commercial market analysis for my development site this past Friday. It shows only 20.1 percent of the current demand for services within the primary trade area or a three-mile radius around my development site being served within it. That means 124 million of economic activity is going elsewhere, along with the jobs to support that economic activity. If you increase the market area to five miles the deficit actually grows to 385 million in economic activity from Estates' residents being spent elsewhere, either within the county or in subsequent counties. And that's an annual number. This commercial services gap was already the case back in 2004 when this body approved 200,000 square feet of commercial on a 44-acre tract within the rural settlement areas, Orange Blossom Ranch PUD. I went back and read the transcripts of that PUD hearing on October 7th, 2004 in front of this body, as well as the BCC hearing. What was a little surprising was the lack of conversation in that hearing about the commercial component of the petition. The reason being, I presumed, because it was something that was clearly needed, Page 167 October 19, 2009 being the commercial component, and there was very little discussion or debate about that. Also surprising was that there was also no discussion about the market viability ofthat particular site to support a 200,000 square foot commercial center so far off of a major intersection. I think the presumption was that as long as the county approved it, the services would come. And back at that time in 2004, that's arguably understandable. But the climate has changed and that's why we're here. The point I'm trying to make here is that there is a huge amount of underserved demand for commercial services within the Estates currently. And going back five, six, seven, eight years. But there's also a unique problem in attracting quality commercial tenants and service providers to the Estates due to its unique nature as a pre-platted community. The population is geographically dispersed. It's not at all dense, which poses problems for retailers. They have certain metrics they run their businesses by, certain densities they need to see, certain traffic counts they need to see, certain locational criteria that they need to see. And without all ofthese things being ideally lined up, higher quality retailers just aren't going take the chance until population density is improved significantly. But that means the community and the residents who do want services closer to home, which was one of the conclusions found by the Horizon Study committee, it's difficult in order to move forward with those type of recommendations. That's largely why despite the good intentions ofthis body and the good intentions of the Board of County Commissioners back in 2004 the Orange Blossom Ranch site is still undeveloped to this day five years later. There's a question of market viability. It's not on an arterial, traffic counts are insufficient, it's not at a primary intersection of two Page 168 October 19, 2009 major roadways; all critical issues for quality retailers but an insignificant part of the discussion that took place back in 2004. So in consideration of our petition, I wanted to stress both the real world and planning metrics which we think make our case compelling as to why this site is an ideal site for community-scale commercial services that can service the Estates as well as the rural settlement area. Tim Hancock already covered some of them, but I wanted to drive home a few final points. First, roadways are critical. Arterial versus collector makes a huge difference. Just as an example, look at Collier Boulevard, it is an arterial. And the closest grocery stores that service the Estates right now are all located on that arterial roadway. They're also all located at major intersections with at least four-lane roads. Both in traffic counts and therefore market viability, but also in appropriateness and neighborhood support, my site is at the intersection of an arterial and a planned arterial roadway. And it's on the periphery of the Estates and already has existing commercial and institutional uses on three out of four sides. This section of roadway in front of our project is being designed as a six-Iane/six-Iane intersection within a five to seven-year time frame. Randall Boulevard is also now being designed as the primary route into both Big Cypress and Ave Maria. And in the future Oil Well Road will effectively be book-ended by Randall Boulevard on the eastern edge of Big Cypress. Let me show that map. Oil Well Road will effectively become a six-mile stretch of road and will never become more than a collector road. As you can see from this map, it's kind of hard to make out. And you've all seen this before. But again, if you're considering Orange Blossom Ranch as a viable commercial location, it starts -- Oil Well Road starts at Immokalee. And once the realignments occur and Randall becomes Page 169 October 19, 2009 the primary route in and out of Ave Maria and Big Cypress, the realignment considerations have Oil Well Road dead-ending into Randall Boulevard on the eastern edge of Big Cypress. So that segment of roadway will effectively be a six-mile segment. Can you all see that okay? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Not really. MR. SULLIVAN: Sorry. Randall Boulevard will in the future become the arterial extension of Immokalee Road heading east, effectively, where Immokalee Road turns north towards the town of Immokalee. Given this alignment, it's actually hard to argue, as far as I'm concerned, the community-scale commercial should go anywhere else in the Estates, at least in the near to immediate term. The second point I'd like to make is major roadways also help determine true market areas and people's daily travel rituals. Proximity to major roads determine where you shop, not necessarily market circles. Nick Casalanguida actually made the same reference a little bit earlier in his testimony. There are currently only two major ways in and out of the Estates east-west. You guys know this. Everybody who lives in the Estates knows that if you live south of Golden Gate Boulevard, that's your route to connect to the city. If you live north of Immokalee Road, that's your route to connect to the city. If you live north of Immokalee Road -- I'm sorry, I already read that. If you live in the middle, whichever is closer, with a few more leaning towards Immokalee Road, since it's a little larger, a little faster and connects all the way directly into the city. My point in the analysis is this: If you divide the Estates north-south along the only access routes, the only significant access routes, you get basically the following color grid. The people who reside in the blue areas primarily travel Immokalee Road to connect Page 170 October 19, 2009 east-west. The people who reside in the red areas primarily travel Golden Gate Boulevard to connect at least to Collier Boulevard and then disperse from there on either east-west routes -- on one of other east-west routes, primarily Vanderbilt Beach and Pine Ridge Road. An analysis of the Estates population in these two different areas should help you in your analysis today. Can you all see that okay? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I can't tell the roads. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The roads are where the words are. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, I'm sorry, I couldn't see the black. It's my eyes. MR. SULLIVAN: Yeah, the black, sorry. The blue came out a little darker than I had hoped. We can provide copies of these to all of you. Taking the same CIGM data that staff used in their staff reports, based on the T AZ zones you see on this map, which are exactly the same ones that everybody else has been using in their analyses, population and growth projections tell a subtle but very interesting story . That's good. Population density is higher in the northern Estates than the southern Estates per the CIGM 2007 base data, which is currently the best and most accurate data I believe that we have about population in the eastern edges of the county. As you run the -- the difference is subtle. But as you run the population progression in the model you see that the faster growth projected in the northern Estates outstrips the slower growth in the southern Estates, so that by 2020 the population split north-south along those two major traffic routes is 56 in the north and 44 percent in the south. In 2025 the gap increases further to 57 percent, 43 percent Page 171 October 19, 2009 north-south. That's a difference of roughly 8,000 people north to south with the denser components to the north, primarily traveling the Immokalee-Randall corridor. And remember, this isn't an arbitrary line. This blue-red analysis is based on how people actually travel in the Estates, how they live their daily lives. Most clearly stated, the population growth rate per the CIGM in the northern Estates between 2007 and 2025 is projected to grow 111 percent and is probably conservative given the planned growth within the RLSA to the eastern edges of the Estates in the northern sections of the county. In the southern Estates during the same time period, you have a 75 percent growth. The path of progress and the greater increase in population growth during the next 15 to 25 years will be serviced primarily by the Immokalee-Randall corridor. Next. Again, just going back to some of the data. And by the way, I'm a fan of the CIGM. I attended all the Horizon Study meetings, and I think Mike Bosi and staff did a great job. I think it's a great tool. I think going through the process, we're all learning about how to best utilize it. And I just wanted to utilize it here to my advantage. I want to reiterate that per the staffs report, its own CIGM analysis, which is this page, there is sufficient demand within my project's primary and secondary trade area in 2015 to support a community scale commercial center. And if you take the Estates as a whole, there's sufficient demand today. I also suggest that because of the timing of the road widening and the effective timing of when our site would likely be coming on line, that coincides with that 2015 number. Finally, in getting away from the metrics a bit, a quick comment about rural character. And I think it's already been mentioned but I wanted to repeat it again today, especially after the dialogue you had earlier about the different rural character components of the other Page 1 72 October 19, 2009 project and how do you define it and is the developer going to decide what rural character is or is the community going to decide what rural character is. I've thought about it and I've reached out to some of the local residents, and the idea of establishing a developer resident rural character committee seems to make sense to me. It doesn't need to be a formal body that engages the county in any way, but I want to commit to it here as far as working with the residents, whether it be a couple of different representatives from the adjacent HOA's or those that have a vested interest or just individual residents who wanted to come out and participate in the process. Defining what that rural character is for a community center, Estates town center, whatever you want to call it, something of this scale I think makes a lot of sense. So I'm committing to that here publicly and I'll do that at the board meeting as well. Finally a quick comment about outreach and community feedback, and then I'll conclude my comments. Very early on in the cycle, and I think I referenced this, I reached out to just a random assortment of residential leaders or who I thought were residential leaders to collect their feedback, to collect their comments, to get reassurances or, you know, comments of discouragement. I've enjoyed the process. We've gotten a lot of very favorable feedback throughout it. I want to continue to pledge my willingness and actual excitement to engage the community, because I do think that given the location and given the potential for the location, this may be a really good site for what I think a lot of the Estates residents have wanted for a long time. And working together, I think it can be a better project for both the developer and all the constituents involved, including the residents. And that's about all I have to say. Thank you for your time. Page 173 October 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, we normally go through questions of the applicant first. Does anybody have any questions at this time of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think my questions are mixed up between the applicant and staff, so why don't we have the staff presentation now and then we'll go into questions of both at the same time and we'll see who can best answer them when we get to that point. MR. COHEN: Commissioner Strain, just for the record, the gentleman put quite a few exhibits up there. I didn't know if you wanted to introduce those into the record. And also he put up there a slide which was from CB Richard Ellis, which was more or less data and it was entitled Market Study. I didn't know if there was analysis to go with that study, because we normally rely upon that as well, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For any of the documentation you showed on the screen, we will need copies for the court reporter before this meeting's over. COMMISSIONER CARON: And back-up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, the back-up to go with it too. So please make sure you provide it before the day's over. Michele, it's all yours. MS. MOSCA: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, Michele Mosca with the Comprehensive Planning staff. Commissioners, similar to the last request, staff again reviewed the proposed amendment to, one, determine the commercial acreage within the defined area and whether or not there's an additional need; also to determine whether the proposed project furthers the goals of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan; and if the requested change is appropriate. Staff determined that the existing and the zoned and designated Page 174 October 19, 2009 community commercial supply of 200,000 square feet in the market area, which is the Orange Blossom PUD, is sufficient to meet demand until sometime between the years 2025 and 2030. The proposed addition of the 390,950 square feet most likely could not be supported until well beyond year 2030, based on the CIGM population of 30,989 and a demand of approximately 231,798 square feet in the year 2030, a deficit of about 31,798 square feet. The applicant did mention the site's viability. Whether or not the Orange Blossom site is a viable site is still unknown at this point. It still is part of the supply until an amendment comes in to remove the commercial square feet. In regard to the furtherance of the goals of the master plan and the appropriateness of the request, staff has determined that the request is not consistent with certain goals and the vision of the master plan. Again, specifically Goal 3, balancing the needs of commercial and five, the preservation goal. The development intensity and scale of the project is consistent with urban commercial centers, such as that developed for example in the Granada Shoppes. Now, remember that the applicant has not included in their subdistrict text any provisions for any type of commercial. So what you could see on that development, this is an example. The Granada Shoppes is located at the southeast corner of Immokalee Road and U.S. 41. The center is approximately 39-plus acres and is developed with 306,637 square feet. Again, as with the last petition, the proposed development far exceeds the intended vision for commercial development, as designed by the area residents for the master plan. And the increased noise, traffic, lighting, et cetera, expected at the site and the surrounding area will likely alter the rural character of the area. Staff believes that a change to the plan of this magnitude should be looked at comprehensively, looking at all of the available Page 175 October 19, 2009 commercial, all of the proposed commercial Growth Management Plan amendments, not just as an individual site request. Based on these findings and the findings and conclusions in the staff report beginning on Page 24, staff is recommending that this hearing body forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to not transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. And Mr. Chairman, similar to the last one, I also received correspondence from the public. Those were sent to me by you. I had nine letters in support and I got clarification on this, one letter of concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just before we ask you questions, what was the purpose of you showing us this photograph? MS. MOSCA: This is just simply to demonstrate the square footage and the similar acreage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Were you trying to say it's something bad in regards to -- MS. MOSCA: No, no, I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- how this one's laid out? I'm just trying to understand it. Was this cited as a bad example -- MS. MOSCA: Not at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and what we're trying to avoid? MS. MOSCA: What I was simply trying to do is show the magnitude of the project -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. MOSCA: -- without commitments presently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. Okay, so now we've had the applicant's presentation and staffs -- oh, David, you have a question of staff? MR. WEEKS: I have a few comments I'd like to make, mostly in response to what Bruce and some of the other petitioner team have made. I'll call it part of the staff presentation, if you'll let me. Page 176 October 19, 2009 First of all, it was touching on this visual that Michele put up. Certainly there's one clear distinction between this development and what this subject project would be limited to as far as site design goes, and that is this being in the urban area, subject to urban development standards. And the Randall Boulevard center does have a 75-foot setback requirement along the roadway, which definitely is not shown here on the aerial because it's not subject to that requirement. And that 75-foot buffer includes the retention of native vegetation. So that even if we take this square footage and this intensity of development, you would have to push it away from the roadways and put in a native vegetative buffer of 75 feet. Mr. Anderson had mentioned that the Randall Boulevard commercial subdistrict is not part of the neighborhood centers, that it's its own subdistrict, it's not subject to those neighborhood center development standards as we talked about quite a bit this morning on the other petition. And I certainly don't disagree. But I would actually point out that the existing Randall Boulevard commercial subdistrict is even more restrictive than a neighborhood center from a perspective of allowable uses. The neighborhood centers allow all C-1, C-2 and C-3 uses. The existing Randall Boulevard subdistrict is limited to 12 uses. It's almost like a PUD document, you look at -- the uses are spelled out explicitly, one, two, three, four in bullet format and there's only 12 of those, and they're generally C-1, 2 and 3 uses. There may be a C-4 use in there because I know automobile service station is allowed, and I think that's a C-4 use. And it also does have, as I was mentioning a moment ago, a 75-foot front setback requirement in which the buffer must be retained. But in all other respects, as Bruce has said, those other neighborhood center subdistrict development standards, such as the Page 1 77 October 19,2009 old style Florida roof and many, many others, the building height and 35 feet and one story and on and on and on are not applicable to this subdistrict. And it's for that reason that staff did not recommend them be applicable to this subdistrict, because it is different from the neighborhood center and we recognize that. Secondly, Mr. Anderson had made mention something to the effect that he had never seen staff concede so quickly to an approval in reference to the pending Orangetree PUD without a market study. And I would simply point out no market study is required at the rezone stage for that petition. And it's typically not required as part of the rezone process, with the exception of a parcel within a mixed use activity center, because that specifically has a requirement for a commercial demand study. I simply note, I guess you heard it too, but one of the selling points of this project is what it will offer. And I would just respectfully submit to you that the carrots that are offered as part of a petition are not appropriate considerations for a land use request. You're being asked to approve an expansion of a subdistrict and to allow a tremendous amount of commercial development on this piece of property. And I don't think it's appropriate to consider what you're going to get out of it. It should be is it the appropriate location, is it compatible, does it fit with the character of the community that it's within, in this case the Golden Gate Estates area and the Golden Gate Master Plan, et cetera. A few different representations have been made about the type of development, and Michele touched on this. One had to do with the three different elements that were depicted on the site plan that was placed on the visualizer. Reference was made to certain specific square feet for office development, retail development, et cetera, and also to a total square feet within the subdistrict, none of which are part of the subdistrict Page 1 78 October 19, 2009 text before you today. That is, that's not part of the proposed amendment. And of course that's one of the things that as staff if you do recommend approval of this petition, we would, as you can see in the subdistrict language, our version, we certainly do recommend be made part of the subdistrict. The last thing has to do with the mid-block location of the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD commercial tract. I certainly have no expertise in commercial development. I simply offer a couple of observations. There are at least two, and I can only think of two or three, staff in discussion, but two community shopping centers that are in existence today both in the urbanized area, neither of which is at the intersection of two major streets. One is King's Lake Square shopping center, which is about 10 acres and about 100,000 square feet and the other is the Neapolitan Shopping center in the City of Naples at the intersection of U.S. 41 and Neapolitan Way, a local street. King's Lake Square being on the south side of Davis Boulevard. Both Davis Boulevard and U.S. 41 at those respective locations are six-lane highways. But in all fairness to the applicant too, I would point out that both of those are developments that have been in existence for many years. So certainly the market viability standards today may necessitate the intersection of two streets. I don't know. But I just wanted to point out there are at least two in existence that have been around for many years and functioning, and from my observations and personal use seem to be successful. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go on to everybody else, I have a question of David, unless somebody else wants to go first. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A question for David? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Page 1 79 October 19, 2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: David, doesn't Neapolitan have a road running through the middle of it? I mean, it is on a corner, kind of, isn't it? MR. WEEKS: Well, it's at the intersection of U.S. 41 and Neapolitan Way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, which a lot of people drive through, so -- not a mid-block. MR. WEEKS : Well, thank you for that correction. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's not play that, we can -- MR. WEEKS: That's true. You're right, it's not mid-block, my mistake. It's not at the intersection of two major roadways, as has been suggested as necessary. And again, maybe today it is necessary. But that one is at the intersection of a local street and an arterial, and then King's Lake Square being mid-block. You're correct, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, you had said that we should not be basing our approval on things that have been offered in relationship to the approval of the land use. Is that a fair summation? MR. WEEKS: That sure is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why would transportation then say the following: Transportation staff has reviewed the petitioner's TIS and has determined that this project can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 if the applicant provides adequate mitigation. Is that then appropriate to consider the mitigation to offset any traffic impacts in regards to the statement for approval that transportation staff offered? MR. WEEKS: Right. Specifically in Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element and also it's in the Capital Improvement Element, I think Policy 2.1, specifically provides that the county shall Page 180 October 19, 2009 not approve a rezoning, a future land use element amendment and lists other types of petitions. That is not -- that creates that significant impact, that lowers that adopted level of service standard, et cetera, that creates an unacceptable impact on infrastructure unless mitigation is provided to address that. And I want to distinguish how -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But isn't what they're offering like mitigation for them disrupting this commercial -- to try to come in with this commercial use? You're going exactly where my question was. I'm trying to explain more my question. It sounds like they're trying to mitigate what they're proposing in the same way that transportation suggests they can mitigate to be found consistent. I'm wondering how that fits. MR. WEEKS: My perception is that they're going -- you know, on the one hand you could say to their credit, but that they are going beyond what is required to mitigate for their impacts. And perhaps Nick needs to respond to that from the specific question of what mitigation is necessary for their impacts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was going to be one of my questions when we got to Nick. Before we get to Nick, though, I want to make sure we've exhausted any -- well, we can start with -- I guess Nick can be part of the staff presentation, if that's the consensus of the board. I think the traffic issues are important. So Nick, I'd sure like to explain (sic) while you're making your presentation, why we're building Oil Well Road only to have it ripped out when it changes. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're not right now. As of right now there is no approved DR! over there, so we're moving forward with the county plans. So until something changes -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the county plans show Oil Well Road in its current location; is that correct? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct. Page 181 October 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The current plan -- the plan we saw, that I've seen -- and it's been around for -- and it's in the DR! package for Big Cypress shows Oil Well realigned. So that means if you build it like it is today, we're going to rip all those lanes back out and it's going to be rebuilt. Is that correct? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, right now the county's put out to bid the western section up to Everglades Boulevard. Then the eastern section east of where that Randall realignment would be put out. So that middle section is not in the currently advertised road plans. And that's one of the reasons we've been holding off, other than financial reasons. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the current widening of Oil Well won't go all the way to Ave Maria? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It will not. The middle section is left out of that current phase right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: And to address one of David's comments, he's right in a sense. I'm doing a transportation review, in 5.1. I'm recommending approval consistent with Policy 5.1. David does a comprehensive review. So I don't want to mix the two up. Although I may be offering a recommendation of approval based on transportation impacts, he's looking at things that I don't look at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just wanted to get clarification on what sounded like in one case we should be considering the . mitigation and the other case where it shouldn't be. And I think David clarified that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From a traffic viewpoint, while you're up here, does this board have any traffic questions they want to ask? Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Nick, same question as the last one, will this cause a more efficient use of transportation? Page 182 October 19, 2009 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure it would. And let me expand on that a little bit. And if you could put on the viewer that access management plan that you had earlier. It's interesting to note. I have to give Jack a lot of credit. As Bruce had noted, I didn't give him much credence to be able to combine coordination, negotiation with adjacent property owners, the adjacent landowners, fire station, gas station, shopping center. One of the issues we've worked on for almost a year-and-a-half is one of the tasks I have as part of transportation is I have to analyze three critical intersections a year for long-range planning purposes. And this is one of them. Probably spent almost $80,000 in design fees having engineers look at ways to fix this intersection, looking at its present condition and then planning for what's going to happen in the future. He's correct, Randall Boulevard and Immokalee will emerge one day to be one of the top traffic intersections in the county. And we've got two existing businesses there as well as a fire station, and they prove to be problematic how you address access for both of those facilities, all three of them. So Jack was tasked with, you know, taking this on. I would not recommend this project to move forward unless he was able to come forward successfully and negotiate and coordinate access, water management and right-of-way with everybody concerned. As a matter of fact, as we move forward, I'd say to Jack and to this Planning Commission, unless we come back -- if this is voted to go for transmittal for adoption without a signed DCA that documents all this, I would recommend not adopting it. But I think we've got a good plan and I think we'll work together on that. Right now you have that fire station that we don't know how to deal with in terms of access when this road's widened. You're looking at maybe possibly complete takes or at least business damages to those existing businesses that are at the corner. Page 183 October 19, 2009 By what we're doing right now in the preliminary plan that we have, we're looking at a reverse frontage road that would tie in Jack's development with the existing businesses there and then relocating the fire station as well as the forestry building that's at the northeast corner of that site. You're looking at two water management ponds and a significant amount of right-of-way that would have to be otherwise acquired and damages to the area without working with this gentleman here. So I give him a lot of credit for doing that. With that said, I'll entertain some of the questions you have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nick, setting the prizes aside, locating commercial development here to provide commercial development for the people who live in the Estates, is that a more efficient location for transportation? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Now, I'll tell you this: The answer is yes, but I want to quantify that. The way to do that is to run that interactive model similar to the County Interactive Growth Model using a transportation model. It will serve those people there, because right now there is a shortage out there. We have had many comments about trip lengths. I'd say the one that's at Golden Gate and Wilson also does the same thing. Both of these provide an opportunity for shorter trip distances. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I didn't say compare them, it's just -- in other words, this one standalone would provide efficiency. It would seem that it would because people coming into the Estates would stop in without making any additional travel and then do their purchase and continue on. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The short answer is yes. As I noted, two roadways in and out of the Estates right now that work sufficiently well, Golden Gate Boulevard and Immokalee Road. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this will be the third? Page 184 October 19, 2009 MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, Randall and Immokalee I consider one route. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of Nick? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, let's just go over the whole issue here between Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road. You're going to four-lane and then six-lane Randall but -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am. We'll probably six-lane it at the outset, at least to the outside footprint. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So the intent is right from the beginning to six-lane Randall, but that's not in the five-year plan. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not in the five-year plan. COMMISSIONER CARON: Was it in the 10-year? MR. CASALANGUIDA: We don't do anything else other than a five-year plan. Nice try. COMMISSIONER CARON: Not this week. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not any week if I want my job. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Oil Well. Now, Oil Well you're going to four-lane in a six-lane footprint, correct, until Everglades? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am. We're going to four-lane to Everglades in a four-lane footprint. We're constrained at that location. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So Oil Well will be always four-lane. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Approximately to Everglades, that's correct. And then we have the ability to jump -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Then you're going to -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll put it all together for you. Right now you have a four-lane Oil Well that's constrained from Immokalee Road to about Everglades. Then it's planned to go to six lanes all the Page 185 October 19, 2009 way out to Camp Keais Road. Now in the meantime, if Big Cypress gets approved and we hold off on where we are right now, we'll continue that four-lane from Everglades all the way over to where the Randall relocation would take place. And that would stay a four-lane facility. If it does not -- right now we are committed by contract to widen that section of road. And all the parties are aware of the timing of these issues. Ideally what you would have is if Big Cypress is approved the county would review those plans. If they're adopted you would look at realigning Randall and making Randall the critical facility east-west. And the number one reason is simple. Oil Well ties into Immokalee Road at a T intersection. It's constrained by two schools, a residence to the north and south. It cannot handle east-west capacity I ike Randall can. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we need to give the court reporter a short break. During the break will the Planning Commission please think of how long we'd like to proceed today. And with your permission, I'd like to suggest that anybody that's here beyond this one we won't be getting to today. If we can we'll be lucky to finish this one up today. So for all those of you waiting for other matters that go beyond 2008-2, we'll be starting back up in the morning on those. So with that, we'll take a break until five after 4:00. (Recess. ) Item #4C CP-2008-3, GOLDEN GATE P ARKW A Y MIXED-USE SUBDISTRICT Page 186 October 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from the short break. We're going to, as I notified everybody earlier, if we get through this one today, that's as far as we'll get. Couple homework or housecleaning items. CP-2008-3, which is the Golden Gate Area Master Plan on Santa Barbara and Golden Gate Parkway, that's not going to occur until November 19th because of some advertising issues. CP-2007-5, which is on Logan and Immokalee, that one was going to come up tomorrow. In talking with the applicant, they would like until the 29th, which is the other make-up day that we have. They want to have a chance to meet with the neighborhood again because of some extensive changes to that project. That's item G on our agenda and it's on Logan and Immokalee. So we'll be putting that off until the 29th of October. And the other one will be November 19th. With that, Nick, if you have a few moments, I'll try to finish up with you quickly. Before we do, Planning Commissioners, what do you feel about time frame? Does 5:00 work for everybody, is that -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We can finish this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, finish this and getting done at 5:00. I don't care -- I mean myself, I don't mind if we go till 9:00 or 10:00, but I'm sure the rest of you might not want that. So I'm trying to get a consensus. Do you want to finish this or do you want to stop at 5 :OO? There could be a big difference. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Finish it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Finish it? Okay, then we'll finish it. With that in mind, Nick, I had just a couple of short questions. On Page 23 of the staff report there's a paragraph, and I'll read it because I know you don't have it in front of you. Staff has reviewed this petition for adequacy of data analysis to demonstrate how it could reduce greenhouse gas emission. Based on Page 187 October 19, 2009 the petitioner's information, the project would likely reduce vehicle trips. However, the analysis provided was not quantified in terms of trips captured by internal and external users. Do you know what that's getting to? Because I looked at the TIS and it does have the capture rates in there. So where is it insufficient? I'm just -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: One of the issues was when I talked to my reviewers was quantifying what it does with the other neighborhood developments that are in the area to the west, to quantify some of that internal capture that would take place with that development as well too. Because they would be interconnected. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's the only thing that was missing from that. And it would only improve it, not worsen it; is that the conclusion? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Would only improve it. There would be a more internal capture with that one from transportation's perspective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the proposed DCA it says, the county shall reserve capacity within its transportation system for 390,000 square feet of retail -- broken down into retail and office. That then doesn't include the capacity taken up by the fire station and the convenience store that's there, because that's already on road capacity that exists today. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they're not getting any more for that, they're just eliminating that from their total; is that right? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. And fire is not counted, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And it also says the cost of all traffic signalization will be borne solely by the county. Why is that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's not true. We've had a little disagreement about that. But we're going to work that out. It has to Page 188 October 19, 2009 be borne by the developer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we're going to get a new draft. Should this go through, there will be a new draft by the time of adoption? MR. CASALANGUIDA: By the time the adoption goes through -- if this goes through transmittal before we get to adoption, there needs to be a signed DCA. And we've informed Mr. Sullivan of that and he's optimistic, as we are, that we can do that. Not a proposed one, a signed one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we'll have it worked out by then. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Randall is currently level of service F. Will be achieved with or without the project, from what -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Randall is not at LOS F right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is or is not? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Is not. With the project it would go to LOS F, without an expansion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I have an application from Davidson Engineering. Page 9, it says Randall Boulevard will achieve level of service F with or without this project. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's a matter of timing when you propose that. Currently in your AUIR it's not at LOS F. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is this project going to be waiting until Randall is improved in order to go forward? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That will be written into the DCA, that's correct. At least the intersection, not the entire length of Randall, but at least the intersection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have fun at your coaching. I know you're waiting to go. Does anybody else have anything else of Nick? (No response.) Page 189 October 19,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for your time today, Nick, appreciate it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're back to questions of staff and/or the applicant from the Planning Commission before we go to public speakers. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And actually this is for the fire district. Rita, can you come up a sec? And what it is, actually this is the best slide. Is the access and everything from where your station's going to be on here, are you comfortable with that right now or -- CHIEF GREENBERG: With the existing? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, the way they have it laid out on the plan. CHIEF GREENBERG: For the record, Rita Greenberg, Fire Chief, Big Corkscrew Fire District. The plan that we have and the relocation of the fire station, that's one of the reasons we worked with the developer and Bruce Anderson to come up with that language in the DCA is because of the redrafting and rerouting of Randall Boulevard is going to make it very difficult -- a difficult situation even more difficult to enter into and out of the property . We've had several accidents with our apparatus and personal vehicles entering and exiting the fire station. We have the emergency light now which has made significant improvements to that. But as that -- if we take frontage away from the parking lot which was lost when we widened Immokalee Road, there's really no room left to take away additional frontage in our parking turnaround driveway area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The intent here, is it to go behind the shopping center to get into the Estates area? Page 190 October 19, 2009 CHIEF GREENBERG: No, actually the intent is the fire station would be relocated to the corner of Randall Boulevard and Eighth Street Northeast. So to the right-hand side of the screen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, that's where the tower's going as well. Why don't you put a point on it if you don't mind, so that everybody knows where everything's being relocated to. Right there in that corner. CHIEF GREENBERG: And so that access would be again via Randall Boulevard to Immokalee Road or -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I thought they were fitting you in on the far west side, but -- CHIEF GREENBERG: That's where we currently exist today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right, then. Thank you, much better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant or staff? General questions before we go to public speakers? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think I have a couple. Well, actually, before we go to public speakers we're going to walk through the language of the GMP amendment, and that begins -- I kind of want to ask Davidson Engineering before we go too far, on this plan you've got in front of us, Tim, you have a green wide swath south of the buildings. And you have a small green narrow swath. The wide swath is representative of how many foot in width? MR. HANCOCK: 75 feet in width of native vegetation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the little green one, the narrow one? MR. HANCOCK: That's actually a water management area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Water looks good in blue, you know. If you follow that down to the west behind the existing convenience gas store, the white blob you've got there, behind that the green stops. Why? Page 191 October 19, 2009 What does that mean, that no man's land behind that white -- south of that white spot is? MR. HANCOCK: No, that property will be required to also provide in accordance with the Randall Boulevard subdistrict a 75-foot native vegetative buffer also. The only property that would not be required to do that may be the current fire station parcel because it would not be backing up to a residentially zoned parcel anymore. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, and I see the road where it goes around, around the south end of that fire station parcel. So the green was just omitted from taking it all the way to the west -- MR. HANCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- is that a fair statement? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So your intention is 75 feet. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: While we've got you up there, Tim, David Weeks had indicated that there's only 12 uses that are permittable or permissible. Are you folks comfortable with that? MR. HANCOCK: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How do you propose to resolve your desires against what the constraints are? MR. HANCOCK: Well, I think 12 uses may be a little bit misleading based on recent board action and the interpretation of the phrase shopping center with respect to this subdistrict. The board has interpreted one of those 12, the words shopping center, to be far more liberal, and as a result has already expanded the uses within the Randall Boulevard subdistrict. So what we're proposing we believe to be consistent with and complementary to the uses the board has deemed to be appropriate. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, thank you. MR. WEEKS: If I might weigh in further, Mr. Chairman. Page 192 October 19, 2009 Thank you, Tim, for that correction. And if I wasn't clear, I was referring to the existing Randall Boulevard commercial subdistrict. They're proposing this expansion of both physical area but also an expansion of uses. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I didn't misunderstand you then, I thought you put emphasis on the idea that they were constrained as well. I was trying to figure out how that was going to work. MR. WEEKS: And while I jumped in, Mr. Chairman, I need to make one correction in something I stated earlier. Tim's response to your question, Mr. Chairman, prompted it. I erroneously had stated, when that aerial view was up of Granada Shoppes shopping center, about a 75-foot setback requirement, there is one, but I think I said front setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You did. MR. WEEKS: And it's not, it's a setback abutting residential. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's when he clarified that back buffer, that's what I realized. Why don't we go to Page 25 of the staffreport. That's where we begin with the staff recommended language for this amendment. And Bruce or Tim, I don't know which of you wants to pair up with Michele in discussing this, but we're going to proceed like we did with the last one, page at a time. It's only two and a half -- a couple full pages, really, so we should move pretty fast along. First page is 25. And before we ask our questions, Bruce, do you have any objections to the staff suggested changes on Page 25 to the language of the GMPA? MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Tim. MR. HANCOCK: We tossed a coin and he lost, but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a first time. MR. HANCOCK: We discussed this. And I'm not entirely sure Page 193 October 19, 2009 of the staffs intent on this. But under paragraph B at the bottom of Page 25 they strike the language that indicates tract 55 shall provide at a minimum a 50-foot buffer retained native vegetation in which no water management uses are permitted. The reason we state that specifically in the proposed language is because the current Compo Plan requires 75 feet between development and Estates zoned or residentially zoned parcels. What we're trying to clarify here is that 50 feet would be between a lake and a residentially zoned parcel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you show us the parcel in question? I think I know which one it is, but I want to make sure. Right. And the strip in question is that green strip along the eastern side. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. And we felt a 50-foot native buffer between a lake and residential was more than sufficient and we'd like to see that language stay in there so that that is clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michele, you want to weigh in? MS. MOSCA: Actually, Mr. Chairman, if you look on Page 26, it's Item D. It was just struck through for clarity. MR. WEEKS: We relocated it. MS. MOSCA: So it's still in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So now can I take it, then, Tim, as long as that goes back in, whether or not it's a different location, on Page 25 you have no further objections? MR. HANCOCK: Yes. And on that note, I'm going to give it back to Bruce. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, he probably gave it to you for that reason, knowing Bruce. From a Planning Commission perspective, do we have any questions on Page 25 before we move to Page 26? David? MR. WEEKS: I'd actually like to ask a question of the petitioners, because there's been some discussion -- as Tim mentioned Page 194 October 19, 2009 during his presentation, staffwas reading the application to be an increase of 390,950 square feet to the existing subdistrict. And those two PUD's that are within the existing subdistrict are approved for 41,000 square feet. That's where we derived this total figure on Page 25 of 431 ,950 square feet of floor area. But I think from Tim's presentation that maybe that figure is not accurate now. I'd just like clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought it was 411, but-- MR. HANCOCK: The actual increase, if you only count those areas outside of the existing commercial subdistrict, is a total of 360,950 square feet, because that is the Emergent Development Group set of parcels and the fire station parcel. So that's the total true new development. COMMISSIONER CARON: Three-- MR. HANCOCK: 360,950 square feet. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: So what's the grand total? MR. HANCOCK: That's the total new. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. What's the old and new combined? MR. WEEKS: 411,950. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, 411, that's the number I had. So that 431,950 should change to 411,950. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay, are there any other questions on Page 25? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move to Page 26. This is where staff struck the reference to uses. I heard part of the BCC meeting on that shopping center and it was difficult for them or anybody to know what the word shopping center means, since SIC codes weren't referred. Now staff has come in and replaced that language with allowable Page 195 October 19, 2009 uses up to C-4. And David, the reason you word it like that, is it because C-4 includes all the CIS prior to it and then you exempted out the objectionable ones that you felt or somebody else felt was in C-4; is that how this was to be reviewed? MR. WEEKS: I think the answer is yes. This is again our intent of trying to make it simple and have less specificity in the GMP. So just say you get all C-4 uses and then provide your exclusions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If I'm not mistaken, C-4 does reference back and say it includes all the uses of the prior C-l, 2 and 3 districts and then is up to and including C-4, and C-4 adds some new ones; is that correct? MR. WEEKS: I'm not sure. And that's a good question. Because our intent was not to prevent them from developing C-1, 2 and 3 uses. So I'll make a note to verify that. Because I actually think that it's only C-3 and C-2 that capture the lower districts. So I'll put it this way: If C-4 does not capture the prior zoning districts, then we would suggest the language of C-l, C-2, C-3 and C-4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Because also in the wording, with it -- the way it's stated now, it seems like all we want is C-4 there. And that's not the intent either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then your numbers up on E, I'm assuming if you've -- with this information of the 360,000 versus the 411, that 390 probably is going to change; is that correct? MR. WEEKS: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the 390 would be replaced with what? MR. WEEKS: 360,950. And again, so that's for all of this new land area they're proposing 360,950 square feet, and that leaves untouched the 41,000 square feet for the existing portion of the project Page 196 October 19, 2009 that's within the existing subdistrict. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're going to have time before we vote on any of this. So in case this one were to be approved we want to make sure the numbers are right. I'm assuming you guys will tighten this up when you get a chance. And since Michele's probably going to be sitting here for a day or two longer, so give her a chance to take a look at it. Anybody have any questions on Page 26? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Did you resolve what Ms. Caron said? Because I think it would be wise to put C-1 through -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's going to research the language in C-4 to see if it in fact should be done that way. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was just going to say that I think C-2 inherits C-l, C-3 inherits C-2, thus three one, and C-4 inherits -- you know, the backward -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think so, but I'm not sure. And David said the same thing, he wasn't sure if they actually said that, so he's going to double-check that. MR. ANDERSON: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is, okay. So then that would read right in that regard. Does anybody have any other questions on Page 26? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, does the applicant have any objections to Page 26? MR. ANDERSON: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Didn't throw a coin that time. Page 27, does anybody have any objections on Page 27, applicant or otherwise? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, we discussed the paragraph G. Page 197 October 19, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. ANDERSON: And that needs to be struck. That's going to be something that needs to be addressed in the rezoning process, because there are timing issues about needing to construct a service access road early on because some of the access for the other folks is going to be cut off. We don't have the timing nailed down yet, but we would ask that that be struck. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michele, where do you stand with that? MS. MOSCA: Actually, David and I were just discussing this. Actual infrastructure development for the infrastructure, we'd be fine with the infrastructure development versus the actual. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we vote on this, you'll come back with some suggested changes so that if this does go forward it has the right language in it? MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question for David. David, on this one you state -- and again, I'm sorry, it's back on 25, but you state that all the development is encouraged to be in the form of a PUD. The prior one you state all rezones are encouraged to be in the form of a PUD. Does that mean the same thing? I mean -- MR. WEEKS: That was on Page 25? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, it's 25.a, small "a" down at the bottom. But the question is, in some case you actually reference rezone it. And going throughout these it seems to go back and forth. Is there a difference or is that saying the same thing? MR. WEEKS: And your reference is to "a", where it says -- is that correct, paragraph "a"? Page 198 October 19,2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. It says all development is encouraged to be in the form. And the prior said all rezones are encouraged to be in the form. Essentially a PUD is a rezone. Is that saying the same thing or is there a reason you're doing it different on some applications? MR. WEEKS: I'd say it's the same. The specific reason for deleting the word commercial here is because the zoning districts they're eligible for includes arguably noncommercial uses. We didn't want any issue to arise where, hey we're developing an ALF or some other similar type of arguably noncommercial use that the subdistrict would allow. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But whether you reference the word rezone or not is irrelevant. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And David, if this were to go forward and anything was omitted in some of this language, it falls back on the general standards of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan but not the neighborhood center standards; is that correct? MR. WEEKS: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does it fall back on the remaining standards within the Randall center, since this is more of a standalone center? MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, okay. Does any of this written matter on these pages that we discussed for the GMP language contradict any or you have any problems with that Randall center discussion? The criteria. MS. MOSCA: Repeat that again, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is any of the Randall center criteria in conflict with anything that's in here in regards to, say, design standards and things like that? Page 199 October 19, 2009 MS. MOSCA: Actually, there's no design standards already established within the Randall Boulevard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with that, are there any more questions of staff? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, could I just go back to the total square footage here. You said the new is 360,950, and there's 41 left out? MR. WEEKS: 41,000 square feet are approved in the existing subdistrict. Not in the subdistrict text but the two PUDs within. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So that would give you 401,950, not 411. MR. WEEKS : You got me. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just want to make sure we get them right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had 411, and I got it from somewhere in these documents, so -- MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, if I may, on that point, the reason that I -- the 411 was the correct number for us is because while currently the PUD where the gas station sits is limited to 21,000 square feet, one of the criteria for that was that it was being served by septic and well and there were areas that were undevelopable. If it goes forward as a part of this project, we wanted to have the ability to increase that square footage should it wish to come before this board and do so. That's why we were allocating 30,000 square feet instead of the 21,000. COMMISSIONER CARON: You said that earlier. MR. HANCOCK: So the 411,950 accomplishes that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So David, you can take back your gotcha. MR. WEEKS: Okay. But that means that we will need to change on Page 26 paragraph E, which we had changed from 390,950 Page 200 October 19, 2009 to 360,950. That would need to be 370,950, and we would need to make sure that that tract that Tim was just discussing is included in that description. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What tract number is that; do we know? MR. HANCOCK: The sad part is we all kind of understand this. MR. WEEKS: For now could we just say that the tract that contains the existing Randall Boulevard center PUD? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, you're the language guy for the GMP that has been following this for decades in Collier County. So why don't you, when you come back with this prior to our deciding on it, then hopefully you've got language that reflects what you're trying to say. Anybody else have any questions before we go to public speakers? David? MR. WEEKS: I actually did have something I wanted to I guess request that you ask of the applicant. During the discussion of the prior petition you had asked the agent about the competition with this site, and the response was basically we think it will be complementary. And I was just curious if you might want to ask that question of this applicant to see if they have a similar opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Their expert that the other applicant hired made that statement. I didn't put much value in statements made by experts hired by applicants because they're made to ask (sic) what they want to hear. So I don't need an explanation, unless somebody else would. So with that, we'll call public speakers. Do you have a list of any? If not MR. WEEKS: We have three, Ms. Chairman. First is Karen Acquard, followed by Rita Greenberg. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You all know the rules, you've been Page 201 October 19, 2009 sitting here waiting for them all day, so -- thank you. MS. ACQUARD: Good afternoon. For the record, it's Karen Acquard. My address is 441 24th Avenue Northeast. Nice to see you, Commissioners. Your faces I don't recognize. I do now. But just in the way of who I am, I moved to Collier County the first time in '63 and have been in and out of it ever since. My husband and I finally were able to move here permanently when he retired in '91. We built our house in the Estates. I am a past president of the Golden Gate Area Civic Association, a founding member of the Homeowners Association of Golden Gate Estates, and I am active on their advisory board. I was a member of the last Golden Gate Master Plan restudy committee, and I served on various other committees, and right now I'm a vice chair of the land trust committee. Over the years that we have lived on 24th we have successfully fought and -- the change of the rezoning and having it become commercial. And if things were different, I would be standing here fighting against this today. I gave you -- when I got here today, you all have a piece of paper with some signatures on it. Those are my neighbors. I am representing my husband and I and the people who asked me to. We are the people who are on the south side of this shopping center. And staff, one of your reasons that you commented on was on Page 25 you described Randall Boulevard as a feeder road that was some day going to become four lanes. Well, I have a communique from Mr. Feder. Because after Mr. Sullivan came to see me, I immediately got ahold of Norm and said what's going on, what happened to the four-lane road? I'm hearing six. I have an e-mail that I got from Mr. Feder, and I have the copy to the court reporter, your recorder. Anyway, his answer was the plans are for Randall Boulevard to expand it to a six-lane divided arterial Page 202 October 19, 2009 from Immokalee Road to east of DeSoto Boulevard, where it will join with the new road that connects with the widening of Oil Well Road to provide east-west movements for the area. Then he goes into a couple of other things. But his last words to me were, any ability to buffer for the future development in this area would be recommended. And that's why I'm here and that's why my neighbors and I are in favor of this. We have in writing from this group what kind of buffers we're going to get. I'm not worried about the lighting and the noise from a shopping center. But a six-lane freeway, and that's exactly what it's going to be, with no buffers would be disaster. And you put 35-foot buildings and almost 100 feet of buffer by the time you have the 75-foot, then you have the wall, and then you have the road, and then you're going to have another 10- foot of Type D buffer, you're talking close to 100-foot of buffer plus the buildings. We are going to be buffered from that six-lane road, and that is what we're looking for. And I do trust Mr. Feder, and that's what he told me to do was to take what actions I needed to be buffered. You have had questions regarding Big Cypress. The only thing I will say about Big Cypress is it's owned by the Collier Company and the Colliers want it to happen. Now, I've lived in Collier County long enough to know, I'm not going to delude myself, if the Colliers want Big Cypress, Big Cypress is going to be there. Maybe not as fast as what they want, but it will be there. And they're going to funnel Big Cypress and Ave Maria right down behind my house, and I need this man's protection. I'll be honest, I moved to the Estates to live in the country. I was the third house on the street. If you heard two cars go past the house during the night, it was a lot. And it's all changed. And that's fine, that's growth. I have to live with it. But I don't want a six-lane road Page 203 October 19, 2009 behind me, and I can't fight the county, so I want what this gentleman is offering in the way of protection. He has promised us many things, and he's put it in writing about working with the community and the residents to bring us the products, the stores and services that we want. He's promised us quality . And as far as the style, being on the master plan committee, come on, guys, old Florida is old Florida. If you will take a drive down Airport Road towards where it connects with Immokalee there at Greentree, look to the west side of the road, you see those white buildings, office buildings? That's ole Florida. And that's the type of thing we were looking for in the Estates. The other thing that we wanted was earth tones. We don't want bright blues, bright reds, and definitely no Pepto Bismol pinks. We want something that blends with the area and the community. And this Mr. Sullivan is more than willing to work with the people in the area to come up with a design that is going to be pleasing. And that's all I really have to say about it. I thank you for your time. It's been a long day but I thank you for taking it through to the end of this so I didn't have to come back tomorrow morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for your patience with us today. It has been a long day. Next speaker, please. MR. WEEKS: Rita Greenberg, who is actually be (sic) considered part of the petitioner's team. And then finally would be Andrew McElwaine. CHIEF GREENBERG: Actually, good afternoon. Rita Greenberg, Fire Chief, Big Corkscrew Fire Department for the record. I am actually here on behalf of the Board of Fire Commissioners to, as I was directed, to set the record straight. There was some confusion and some concern that our involvement with this project was like a strongarm or muscled in or Page 204 October 19, 2009 something of that nature at one of the -- after one of the association meetings that was held. We had several members of the community ask us about that. And we want to go publicly stating that that was not the case. We were approached by Emergent Development, Jack Sullivan. And based on what we knew of the road development and the changes that were going to take place on the Randall Boulevard intersection, we were quite supportive of his plan and how we would be involved in that plan and the process that it would take to -- that they were willing to work with the fire department to make sure that we were able to retain our operations in that area of the community in the manner in which they have. So we just wanted to make sure that that was set straight for the members of the community and the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. And again, thanks for waiting all day. Andrew, you didn't get to wait all day, so -- MR. McEL W AINE: Just all afternoon, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's close. MR. McEL W AINE: My staff thanks you. I was out of their hair all day. For the record, Andrew McElwaine, Conservancy. I'm not here to speak for or against the Compo Plan amendments, I want to make that clear. Ms. Mosca was very kind to say that I was simply here with concern for the process; commend the applicant for their effort to engage the Golden Gate Estates residents. I think it's very important. But I do want to point out on the master concept plan the portions of the Orangetree settlement district that abut the proposed commercial area and will be more directly, even more directly impacted by this activity than the GGE residents would be in terms of noise and so on. Page 205 October 19, 2009 As you can see there, the very close in subdivision, that's called Valencia Lakes. It has somewhere north of about 50 people that are directly either looking at or looking out at from their backyard 50 families, Randall Boulevard. And then over 100 units within a third of a mile. Now, it's important to note there are two Valencias. This is Valencia Lakes. It's Beazer. And then there's another one oh, a mile-and-a-half down Randall called Valencia Golf Course. That's DR Horton. Both the HOAs, to my understanding, are still under the developer in question. I contacted the applicant about 10 days ago to express concerns that our members had raised in that area regarding what the heck was happening. And I gather that the applicant has been in contact now with Valencia Golf Course and their folks, and I believe a meeting is now scheduled at their HOA for December. They don't have direct frontage on Randall but they do have dozens of homes that the back yards look out on Randall. But they're further down. They're not directly impacted there, they're another mile down. These folks are not a mile down, they're right there. Now, I contacted the homeowners association for Valencia Lakes on Wednesday, and they did not know this hearing was happening. They did not know this Compo Plan amendment had been proposed. And they were largely in ignorance of it. And again, if you look at simply rooftops that are directly impacted by the proposal from the applicant, you've got over 90 percent of them right there in Valencia Lakes. So that's my concern. I do not want my organization or myself to be on record opposing the Compo Plan amendment. I haven't really had enough time to -- I think most of our concerns as an organization would probably be addressed in the next phase of this if it goes to that, which would be the zoning PUD phase. Page 206 October 19, 2009 But I do want to raise concerns about the public participation to date, particularly in terms of some of our members in that area, and would hope that whatever action you take when this goes to the BCC, this would come with a strong caveat that the views and concerns of that 90 percent of the affected residents would be taken into account and that they would not simply be listened to patiently but actually get a fair hearing and the chance to recommend some changes if indeed those would be to the benefit of all those homeowners. So thank you very much for hearing me out and appreciate all the time and effort you've all made today, and also your staff, who I always enjoy working with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, Andrew. Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Andrew? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a second. MR. McEL W AINE: Oh, yes, sir. My apologies, sir. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Maybe I missed it. Do you live there in Valencia? MR. McELWAINE: No. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Were you representing The Conservancy? MR. McEL W AINE: I'm here, yes, we have members there. I do live in the Orangetree settlement district but not in this subdivision. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, okay. Members of the Conservancy that live right -- MR. McEL W AINE: And supporters, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, sir. Appreciate it. David, there is supposed to be mailing addresses provided and everybody within a certain radii, distance is supposed to be mailed. I know that has come up in another item and we've had to continue that item to the 19th of November. What is the situation here? Were not those people on a mailing Page 207 October 19,2009 list, or is there some way to prove that by the time this comes back when the applicant may have its 10 minutes rebuttal for -- prior to vote? MR. WEEKS: I can tell let the agent respond, if you'd like. I can just tell you what the code requires for the neighborhood information meeting, the notice. Because this property is designated within the Estates designation, non-urban, it requires notice of property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject site and also any associations, condominium, homeowner, civic associations that are on a list with the county that have requested to be noticed as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The fact that this other one got continued or is going to have to be heard on the 19th because one page out of its list of homeowners was missing so they've got to redo their NIM, I want to make sure we've covered the bases on this. And if we haven't done something we need to find out about it right away. Tim, can you shed some light? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. The standards that Mr. Weeks has referred to were fully met by the applicant. We mailed out to all property owners within 1,000 feet and all associations as the labels were provided. As a matter of fact, associations further away than this one attended our NIM because of the notice they received. So we did meet those standards. I'm not sure -- as a matter of fact, I got phone calls from people who lived right across the street, the front of their house in essence faces our project, because of the letters we sent out. So I'm not aware of any noticing deficiencies. We provided copies of all of the labels to staff as required, and all of the sheets were present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can't remember, the packet that you provided to us is this big. Do we have copies of all that in here, David, all that -- where the notices were mailed to? Page 208 October 19, 2009 Would you make sure for the record that you bring those tomorrow? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, because I would want to make sure that if there's an error we caught it. If there isn't, we want to make sure it's -- and Andrew come back up if you want to add something to this. MR. McEL W AINE: I spoke to the property manager of Valencia. I had to make a few phone calls to Beazer to track him down. But I did speak to the property manager and the property management company at some length on Wednesday. They'd never heard of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We'll follow up and at least have some kind of response tomorrow, I would assume. Is that -- Mr. Sullivan? MR. SULLIVAN: Jack Sullivan for the record. Just a point of note. In addition to the standard notifications, as I mentioned before during my comments, we've reached out extensively to the broader community and in an unofficial capacity reached out to the homeowners associations within Orangetree, the ones that we were able to easily access phone numbers and contact information. We've had direct conversations with Jake Sullivan at Waterways HOA. He can speak for himself, but we've had no resistance from any of his folks with regard to our project. We've met with Richard Burke and a handful of the leadership within Citrus Greens, which is also part of Orangetree. They've all been very supportive of what we're trying to do. We reached out and met with Franco Olmeda (phonetic), who attended one of our neighborhood information meetings. He's the resident adviser for Valencia Golf and Country Club. Again, it's still -- the HOA is still owned by the developer, so contact with them was difficult, because we wanted to get to the Page 209 October 19, 2009 resident leaders and were able to get through to Franco because he attended one of the meetings. We were having difficulty reaching out in that unofficial capacity with Valencia Lakes. We hadn't bumped into any of the resident leaders. And based on Mr. McElwaine's introduction, I reached out directly, based on his correspondence with me, to the adviser for the developer who's acting in the HOA capacity to make sure that we went above and beyond to get in touch with all those residents. So on Monday he'll be getting -- and this all happened over the last day or two. On Monday I'll be getting a list of all of the residents and we'll send a letter out to every one of them directly. And I'm also trying to work with the developer, which is Beazer Homes, to speak at their annual board meeting coming up in the next month. So hopefully that will transpire and this will all take place before the board transmittal hearing in January. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I would appreciate it if we could get copies of confirmation of the mallings that did occur in the first round of notification that was required before we even got here today. And at least that when it's on the record will certainly help if DCA reviews the testimony and determines that, you know, there's not a problem or there is in regards to notification. So with that in mind, that's the last public speaker. Does anybody else in the public wish to speak at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions on this matter from staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, I will entertain a motion to continue to tomorrow morning at 8:30 in these chambers. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Mr. Wolfley. Page 210 "__"_,,..._________~,...^~,"____~_,__'".._""".,~__"_'__.,.~..."".~-.,~""'..~___..."'~"'H___-_'__.__......""_'_'"_."".__~._ October 19, 2009 All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. See you tomorrow . mornIng. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:48 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK P. STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on as presented or as corrected TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM Page 211