Loading...
CCPC Minutes 10/29/2009 GMP October 29,2009 TRANSCRIPT OF THE CONTINUED AUIR TRANSPORT AnON ELEMENT and THE CONTINUED GMP AMENDMENT MEETING COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, October 29,2009 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 (Absent) Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David J. Wolfley ALSO PRESENT: Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Randy Cohen, Director, Comprehensive Planning David Weeks, Manager, Comprehensive Planning Page 1 SPECIAL AGENDA ~OLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 19. 2009 ,THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEE;TING ROOM. ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY C.oVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 l' AMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA. ~: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMlTED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MA Y BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPe SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFFA MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPe WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE. WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 4. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CP.2008.1, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use MaD and MaD 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 requiremenlto construct a grocery store, for property located on the north side of Golden Gate Boulevard extending from Wilson Blvd. west to 3'. Street Northwest, in Section 4. Township 49 South, Range 27 East, consisting of :1:40.62 acres. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner) B. CP.2008.2. Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gale Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use MaD and MaD Series. 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 properly located on the south side of Randall Boulevard. extending from 8th 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 Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use MaD and MaD Series. to create the Golden Gate Parkway Mixed-Use Subdistrict to allow 100,000 square feet of commercial uses of the C-I through C-3 zoning districts, and reSidential multi.family use al 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 corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard (the site of Naples Christian Academy (NCA) and a church), in Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, consisting of :1:20.71 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 MaD 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-I 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 :1:5.17 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 MaD 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-I thrDUgh C-3 zoning districts, for property located at the southwest comer of Immokalee Road (CR 846) and 33'. Avenue Northeast, in Section 15, Township 48 South. Range 27 East, consisting of :1:10.28 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 MaD and MaD 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, Township 48 South. Range 28 East. consisting of :1:21.72 acres. [Coordinator: Beth Yang, AIC"'P, Principal Planner] G. CP.2007-5, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and MaD Series. to create the Loganllmmokalee Mixed Use Subdistrict to allow a maximum of 260,000 square feet of commercial uses of the C-I through C-4 zoning districts, maximum of 60 dwelling units, and agricultural uses, for properly located at the southeast comer of Immokalee Road (CR 846) and Logan Boulevard, in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, consisting of:t 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 MaD and MaD 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 Naple~ landfill, in Section 31. Township 49 South, Range 27 East. consisting of :1:28.70 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 10 the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use MaD and MaD Series (FLUElFLUM). to create the Dade-Collier Cypress Recreation Area District within the Conservation Designation, for properly 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 CCPC AGENDA iO CONSlDFR 2007.2008 (.\NIl 2009) TRANSMJIT AI. CYCLE GMPA'S Dw/MK October 29,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know what they say about how many county employees needed to change a light bulb. MR. COHEN: But when it comes to microphones, it works. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It only takes two. Okay. Boy, if that's the setting of the tone for this meeting. Welcome everybody to the Collier County Planning Commission Special Meeting. It's actually a dual meeting today. We're going to first talk about the transportation changes to the A UIR, and then we will go into a discussion on Growth Management Plan Amendment for Logan and Immokalee Road. If you'll all please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney is absent. Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is here. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. Page 2 October 29,2009 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Item #3 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting will be next Thursday. Does everybody plan on being here next Thursday? Anybody -- oh, wait a minute, no, next Thursday's been canceled. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They canceled Thursday? Oh, my gosh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, because they ran out of stuff for us to do. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thursday's not canceled, our meeting is canceled, though, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There will not be a planning commission meeting on November 5th. Boy, you guys are on the ball this morning. I don't know what I'm going to do. I'm looking for the next date. I think it's the 19th. Yeah, next one is November 19th. And it will be a -- first thing up on that date will be the remaining item for GMP A amendments, and it's the one on Santa Barbara and Golden Gate Parkway. And then we'll go into whatever regular agenda we have that day. Does anybody know if they're not going to be able to make it? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I will be out of the state. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Page 3 October 29, 2009 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, good, we will have a quorum. Before we go into old business, I just want to make sure we -- everybody's aware of what we're discussing today. So if those in the audience are waiting for a particular issue, we're going to rehear a small item on the AUIR. Actually, it's a huge item on the AUIR, but it's small compared to the paperwork we got on the second item. The second item is CP-2007-5, it's an advertised public hearing for a GMP amendment on the corner of Logan and Immokalee Road. So once we finish with the AUIR review, we'll go right into that. Okay, and with that, Mr. Feder's here and we'll go -- go right ahead, Norm. MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, thank you. For the record, Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator. Appreciate your indulgence in taking this issue on today. We came to you last meeting after having presented the roads portion of the Annual Update and Inventory Report, AUIR, and specifically noted to you that with the information having originally been started in about April, May for the AUIR, we got information on our year end relative to impact fee collections. And the graphic that you now have up here on the prompter basically shows you what's happened to our revenue streams. In your AUIR you have a bar chart of at least the last three years, but this goes a little bit further back. And that line on the top, the red line, if you will, is basically our impact fees. And you can see how they've moved over time. They were moving up. As probably no surprise to anyone that they're coming down. The only part that was surprising to us is how rapidly they came down. And last year at the end of the year, '08, basically our collections are about 13 million, versus almost 70 million two years before. With that in mind, we had had in the AUIR that we presented to Page 4 October 29,2009 you already pulled back, we thought sufficiently, but obviously not enough, for 17 and a half million the first two years and then 20 million for the three years in the outer portion of the AUIR five-year program. We have now removed five million a year, bringing us down to 12 and a half for the first couple of years and then down to 15 million for the last three years to bring it in line. This graphic right here is a little bit hard to work with, but what it shows you is over time we've been responsive to this rather rapid change. And in the various mechanisms that we have, the AUIR -- in this case an update to the AUIR before it gets presented to the board, and that's why we wanted to come to you, because we had presented to you previously -- and the CIE itself where typically you chew it up and it's a little closer to the real data time, We've had to make the adjustments, and that shows you the five years, how it's pulled back since our peak of almost 70 million where we thought we were conservative then, if you look at that first graph I gave you, showed you we were over the dollar figure we started using in that AUIR at that time. And now for the '09 AUIR, as I said, we pulled back to 12 and a half and then 15, or five million out of each year or 25 million reduction. Page 26.1 in the AUIR. I'll put it up on the screen for others. 26.1 basically walks you through one of the changes from the AUIR that you saw previously. Obviously the biggest line is the level of impact fee collections, which is shown as now down to 12 and a half, as I noted, and 15, rather than 17 and a half and 20, That $25 million reduction is basically taken, as you see in the various categories, through some of our contingency, brought out in some of our programs and bridge programs and in other areas. We did not impact anything relative to the projects at this point that comprise our efforts to meet the demands or the needs, which haven't changed Page 5 October 29,2009 under the AUIR that you saw, So what I'll do is rather than taking too much of your time is open up for any questions you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Typically we start -- go through page by page, and I'd like to do that this morning so we can catch everything. MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the first page is the summary form. MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions from the Planning Commission on the summary form? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is the new one that was just -- that should have been mailed to everybody. Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm, the carry-forward was 29 million in the previous version, now it's 23. What happened to the other five million? MR. FEDER: Basically what you're seeing there is just a truing up of difference in dates. As we've told you, the AUIR is a snapshot in time. That's just that some of those funds have been expended in that time. So that's the difference in fees there. The other one, obviously the big difference is the 95 went to 70 million on the impact fees. But yes, the carry-forward, because it's a changing item as of 3:00 a.m., I believe it is each day, this is reflecting when we pulled this off to give you as true and accurate a picture as we have now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the reserve revenue-- MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if you run -- continue to run with the reserve revenue, does that mean that you're eventually going to need to use -- add that to the general fund reimbursed costs, or how is that -- Page 6 October 29,2009 MR. FEDER: No, that is a statutory requirement for five percent to be held in reserve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's shown as a negative. MR. FEDER: It's always shown as a negative, because it's held back in reserve. It's required by staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, So it's not usable, it's just holding there. It's not additional reserve you have to spend, it's reserve out of what you started to spend. MR. FEDER: And after you spend down, you can get to spend that. You're holding five percent in reserve. So it reduces. As you see, I've got 17 here and I had 19 previously. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And then you're -- in 2007 and 2008 you had loans of $50 million? MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where are those loans on this sheet? Or are they -- MR. FEDER: We never took out that loan. We were offered up to our max, the 13 percent, the ability to go with a $15 million commercial paper loan. We looked at that. We didn't need it immediately. And then as we looked at it over the succeeding two years, we determined that we, especially with the income stream and impact fees, which would be the commitment for payback, we're in a position to borrow that money, so we did not. So that's out of our program. And as you see on the graphic, which is basically many ways the same on Page 22, which should be the second page, we've removed that from our income stream. We never used it. It was made available to us. And if you remember, I think it was three years ago when we showed you about $180 million shortfall, we've done a number of adjustments, and one of them was we had brought in that 50 million as part of our answer. We never used that funds (sic) and are not in a Page 7 October 29,2009 position to pay it back, so we did not obligate those dollars. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if you put those funds in as a potential for 2007 and 2008 and the AUIR was supposed to span a five-year horizon, where did you build in the interest payment and principal payment payback of that loan into prior AUIRs, and how is that reflected in this new sheet? MR. FEDER: Again, we never borrowed the money, we never used the money, and so what we did is gave up that commitment of our availability to use the dollars. So it was never used, there was never an interest payment to be made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I understand that. I know you never used it. But you anticipated using it in 2007 and 2008 because you put it in your summary form. MR. FEDER: We put it in the summary form. We had some payback. We took that out, as well as the $50 million proceeds. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But if you anticipated a loan, that means you should have anticipated the negative the loan would have created on the books for both principal and interest payments. MR. FEDER: Correct. And both of those are out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I know that. Where did they come out of? So if we were to go back and reflect then, your expenses were decreased for the amount of principal and interest on that potential $50 million loan? MR. FEDER: Correct. And that's from the prior AUIR. We no longer were assuming those revenue streams and worked accordingly, Some of that was resolved by estimates that are somewhat lower because of the cost of delivery of products. And you see some of our estimates of costs down. Some of that was impacted by reductions and right-of-way and different projects like Vanderbilt Beach Road extension and the like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the impact fee number you have here and the ones you projected for the five years -- I think you've got Page 8 October 29,2009 12 million five and then 15 million for the last three years -- does that include increases or decreases in impact fee value? MR. FEDER: It includes only the current rate of impact fee assessment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With the value of your road construction having gone down, it looks -- I think it's 30 percent or 33, whatever it is, are you anticipating a reduction in impact fee value? MR. FEDER: That's why we didn't go up as much. We're assuming some growth in the outer years, but because our impact fees mayor may not go down, we didn't include as much growth. That's why you only see it going from 12, five to 15. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are your impact fees tied to your road costs? MR. FEDER: Yes, they are. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So in essence that's going to have to be recalibrated. I know they've got -- MR. FEDER: Constantly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- fancy new formulas every time we go to take something back -- MR. FEDER: Every three years we have to do a full methodology, which we did last year. And then every other year we do an indexing. And yes, we do expect that there will be some adjustment. And again, that's a constantly moving item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody else have any questions, Page I? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 2 is a chart. Are there any questions from the chart? (No response.) MR. FEDER: What I will point out, that shows that our other revenue streams, gas taxes are going to step down, as has ad valorem. So as our maintenance costs go up and as our needs continue to some Page 9 October 29,2009 degree, we're getting very strapped financially. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, how about page -- well, it says Page 3 in blue ink on mine. I'm not sure what number you all have. But it's called -- first page of attachment B. MR. FEDER: It should be 23. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 23? Does anybody have any questions on Page 23? Go ahead, Ms. Caron. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'll just make a comment, that under the third bullet -- MR. FEDER: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- I think you need to take the word "while" out and capitalize "the" in order for it to be a complete sentence. MR. FEDER: The first word "while"? COMMISSIONER CARON: (Nods head affirmatively.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on that page, first page of attachment B? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm -- do you have more? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the third sentence of the third bullet you say over 250 additional lane miles of urban, rural, arterial and local roads have been added to the county system for maintenance since 2000. Then you go on, historical funding for O&M has not addressed industry standards for anticipated life cycles, which are six to eight years. Where do you develop your industry standard from? MR. FEDER: Industry standard, as the name implies, is pretty much a rule of thumb that is used nationally and definitely in the State of Florida, and is borne out unfortunately by the conditions we see on Page 10 October 29,2009 portions of what we built at the beginning of2000, Livingston Road right now has areas that need to be resurfaced. And as a major arterial, you're in that six to eight-year time frame. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me get to my question, because it might be simpler than what -- where you're going. MR. FEDER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Roads are affected differently by the temperate climate in which they exist, whether you're in Maine or whether you're in Florida. MR. FEDER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you send me the reference to the industry standards you're using -- MR. FEDER: I'll get you something on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so I can take a look and match it up to Florida? I know you've probably done that, but I'd like to have my own level of comfort on that. MR. FEDER: I'd be happy to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then the next item, next sentence, funding for road surfacing is such that required maintenance can only be performed on an average 50-year cycle. So even though you're saying the life cycles are six to eight years, we're doing them every 50 years? Is that what that sentence means? MR. FEDER: We're a little bit better than that. We're about 42 years. So we have pavement that has to last quite a while, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, So you're already not hitting the industry standards? MR. FEDER: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By two or three times. MR. FEDER: By at least twice, yes. Because a lot of our mileage is in the rural area. So to clarify on that, you're probably about twice. Page 11 October 29, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then the second sentence from the end, you refer to the O&M shortfall. This could reduce capital projects in the work program, resulting in concurrency problems and could require an increase in the impact fee rate. How do you factor -- MR. FEDER: As I move-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- impact fees react to O&M? MR. FEDER: As I move my gas tax and ad valorem to maintenance, less of it is a credit against your impact fee. So as your impact fee is calculated, it's also calculated with a credit based on how much gas tax, ad valorem, which are my other two sources of fund, go to the program. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm not sure I follow all that, but I heard you, and I'll just have to digest it. Anybody else have any questions on that page? MR. FEDER: Ifmy credits go down, the fee could go up. Now, the fee's going to get adjusted by the cost, as you pointed out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. FEDER: But this is just making the observation that ifI have to pull the other credit sources out of the capacity program, then I have less of a credit against that cost, whatever it's determined at that point in time, for the impact fee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on that page? Ifnot-- Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No other reason than just to qualify further on that 50-year cycle. You probably, I'm presuming, and ifI'm wrong I'd like to know, that while you've stated this way here, I would think that you'd have a tiered system of averaging. And could you disclose what, for major roads like Livingston, what your expected frequency would be? MR. FEDER: The expected frequency, as noted, is basically a six to eight on average. You've got some that are in better condition. Page 12 October 29, 2009 We don't resurface unless pavement conditions warrant. So in some roadways, even on arterials, I'll last longer. Some of them I'll be in that situation sometimes a little bit closer, depending upon the amount of truck traffic, other issues that come to bear. We don't have the snow, the hot and the cold, but we do have the considerable heat on asphalt, and so therefore our issues are heaving and other issues that can create hydroplaning more than necessarily the cracking, but we get cracking and other issues as well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can appreciate that before while we had fewer roads, the maintenance probably in tandem, but functional. But now that you've built all these additional lane miles and they're high use lane miles, that changes the relationship for maintenance, doesn't it? MR. FEDER: To a degree. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Makes the maintenance greater MR. FEDER: But I think you answered some of it there. We've added lane miles, but we've also added traffic. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. MR. FEDER: And so we still are having them utilized. And the key is that when I started in 2000, watched 250 lane miles we added. While we were in the process of adding those lane miles over this nine-year period, basically the contract was maintaining those roadways a good portion of that time, or they were brand new. So their maintenance needs are now coming up. And while they were being developed, I wasn't maintaining another 150 lane miles of the existing lanes that also got addressed and were being maintained by the contractor a good portion of that time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a good piece of information. That fills in a blank, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I keep looking over at the clock Page 13 October 29,2009 and realizing we shouldn't have started yet. Mike and Randy, since you guys were so good and took two county employees to fix the speaker, how many will it take to fix that clock, do you think? It's going to throw us off all day long, I can tell you. MR. COHEN: That's in advance of the change in time that's going to occur this weekend. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it? Okay, we're getting prepared. We're a step ahead. Kind of like Norm's doing. MR. FEDER: It's an efficiency measure. We're just trying to be ahead of time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next page, second page of attachment B. Anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm, on note two you talk about there is an artificially -- there's a concern that the artificially low background traffic problem will allow additional development approval which does not consider the current vacancy rate factor in the additional trips on the network. But I do know that you bank trips on the network way in advance of when they're potentially going to be used for all the developments out there that have not progressed as they thought they would. So we do have a lot of excess in the system. Is there some way that you can recalibrate your system so that we're not building roads ahead of time based on ghost density that may not happen now for five, 10, 15 years down the road? I mean, I know some projects right now that are way off in their projections. MR. FEDER: Yes. And we already made some adjustment. This relates to another part of it. But very quickly, when we started out on the concurrency management real-time concurrency, what we did is based on about three different indicators that told us that generally on average Page 14 October 29,2009 developments build out within about seven years residential, commercial of course faster, that we would take one-seventh of that capacity and bring it in each year. For the last two to three years we've slowed down on that because we haven't realized that kind of build-out level. And so we've already made some adjustment that we're not pulling that in as quickly those vested trips into the network. But added to that is those trips, when they're coming in, are assumed to be in the system when we do basically the background traffic, we do the traffic counts and say what's in there. And then assume some more that could come in from development. As I said, we slowed down that bringing in of those vested trips, but we're taking the background traffic with an assumed level of development. What we've got right now is development that isn't generating any trips, called vacancies, And that vacancy rate is very, very high. So here I've got development that may come on and want to go, and I've got an assumption in my background trips with a reasonable level of vested trips that developed, and we've done rooftop studies and things, so we've slowed it down some, because it wasn't growing as fast as one-seventh, as you said, But those rooftops exist. So when I get my background traffic it's in there already theoretically. But we know it's basically understated because many of those are vacant. Now, I don't have all the specifics, but the vacancy rate generalities we've given you here. The importance of that is as we're considering development those vacant trips can come on-line very, very fast. And they pay nothing to come on-line as new trips onto the system. They did previously and that's where the capacity was there. But it's also assumed in there and then we look at it with all that development that's out there, the rooftops that are out there, and we look at what our traffic counts are, and it's giving us a little bit of an understatement, is what we're trying to point out, because there are -- Page 15 October 29,2009 there is a rather large vacancy rate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any way to utilize the suspension of this absorption rate that we used to have in Collier County and it's kind of on hold for say a year or two -- MR. FEDER: In general-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to realize it into the road system build-out? MR. FEDER: In generalities we are pretty close to that. We've slowed it down quite a bit, bringing that one-seventh in, because it's not happening that fast. But this is just a recognition that even if I suspended it, I've got a lot of vacant units, When I do the ground-truthing, traffic counts, even if I don't pull any more vested trips in, I'm getting an idea of what my capacity is. And what we're saying is it's a little bit understated as to -- it's overstated what my available capacity is, because there's a lot of vacancies out there not generating the trips that one would have expected. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if we go on to the next sentence in there -- MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you have a couple of words that I need to understand, It says, observation and sampling continue to indicate that there's a 20 percent vacancy rate east of Collier Boulevard and 20 to 50 percent in the urban area. Whose observations? MR. FEDER: We went out and, as we said -- first of all, we did the rooftops. We also did some work with utility bills and whether or not they've been turned off to available units. And so that's why I said we're calling it observation, because it's not scientific data or anything we could do extensively, but it was just to try to get a feel for this issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It says and sampling. What kind of Page 16 October 29, 2009 sampling? MR. FEDER: Just going out and going certain areas and looking at what level of vacancy you have in some different developments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you send me copies of your observations and -- MR. FEDER: Yes, we will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- sampling that you have in writing? MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have any questions on that page? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next page is attachment C. It's our peak hour directional volume map. Anybody have any questions on that? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next page is the attachment D, and that's the one previously put on the board with the yellow highlighting on it. Involves the specific project names. Does anybody have any questions on that page? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess I hate to keep taking all the time, but I still have a lot of questions. So Norm, on that particular page where it says Oil Well Road -- MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you don't have anything on Oil Well Road for the forthcoming five years, but I know that a lot of work is planned for out there. Why don't we have anything in the forthcoming five years? MR. FEDER: As we discussed with you when we did the AUIR, that was scheduled to be in last year's fiscal year. It is now out on the streets. We expect the bids in very shortly. But we had a number of issues we had to address, not the least of which were the finalization Page 17 October 29,2009 of the permitting items. We had some right-of-way to acquire. And this coming Tuesday one of the last issues that we have on it, which is the right-of-way from Collier Enterprises, is -- was approved last Tuesday. So we're in a situation right now where we're ready to open bids and move on it. But the monies were in fiscal year '09 and they rolled, assuming there (sic) was going to be let in '09, and it wasn't because of those issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And your anticipated cost for Oil Well Road is? MR. FEDER: I believe it was $34 million. COMMISSIONER CARON: Forty-seven. MR. FEDER: $47 million, excuse me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms, Caron, by the way, did you have another question on that issue? COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I was just going to say, all those figures for those dollars that we don't see that we all know are out there on attachment J, and that's where the 47,821,000 for the two Oil Well projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's reading attachment J, which spurred my question from the attachment D. Because previously I had heard indications that the Oil Well Road cost was going to be 60 million or above, yet your attachment G only shows 47 million, And if that's the case and it was to be allocated in 2009, then it would need then to have 13 million further spread out from FY '10 to FY'14. And if your costs have gone down to that point where it's no longer 60 million, I understand that now, so -- MR. FEDER: It was never 60 -- well, it's not 60 million. What we have committed with the 47 million, which you show in attachment J, which is what you had asked for when we came to you with the AUIR previously, is the amount of impact fees that has been collected within the two impact fee districts. Which is what our Page 18 October 29,2009 commitment back was to the construction on Oil Well Road. We're out to bid right now and we'll find out whether or not that gets us the two segments that we're looking for, the western and eastern segments. We just had our meeting with the contractors. We had an exceptionally high volume of people interested in bidding on this project, so we're optimistic, although we'll wait and see what we get for bids. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have a question, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Since that was originally part of '09 but did not get let until right now, it has to come through on your carry-forward, right? MR. FEDER: That's correct. And that's what J is providing for. You had asked what -- COMMISSIONER CARON: So there's 135 million in projects on attachment J. MR. FEDER: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: And there's only 23 million in carry-forward, including your bonds, on the first summary page. MR. FEDER: Yeah, first of all, you've got two different issues in carry-forward. One is encumbered projects and how they roll. So this is really in J is what would be termed as roll forward money attached to projects. When I let a project for 25 million and it's over three years payout and I payout five million the first year, 20 million will roll so that I continue to be able to pay the bills as the project continues the next two years. That's roll forward. Carry-forward is more an item of the budgeting, and that's one that we get a little better handle on. It changes daily, as you saw by the first page, giving you the newer number. COMMISSIONER CARON: So your roll forward dollars don't show anywhere on this? Page 19 October 29,2009 MR. FEDER: No, and that's why we had the category up here, Because they get trued up only after the budget's developed, And they're a snapshot in time. It depends how much I pay down at the end of the year, that gets trued up and then the establishment of what that roll amount is. And that's why we had the category up here and have had it for a number of years, showing you all the active projects that were previously encumbered that still have some level of money on it. You had asked to see that, including the Oil Well, and that's what attachment J is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay? I mean, it may not be okay, but COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I would say I would think it's not okay, but it is what it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, back on attachment-- MR. FEDER: You're always going to have some level of roll forward, as I said, because you have payout curves in times. COMMISSIONER CARON: I understand that. My problem is that it doesn't show and it wouldn't have showed unless we had asked for -- MR. FEDER: And we'll provide it to you each year, as long as it's understood it's a snapshot in time, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And as far as that attachment D under your DCAs -- MR. FEDER: Yes, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- there's only one that you mention. That's the consortium on 41 and 951. I know we have other DCAs in the county. In fact, you're benefiting from one for the Oil Well extension. MR. FEDER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you factor those in, or where do you show those? Page 20 October 29,2009 MR. FEDER: It's showing it in as grant funds, DCA, consortium, but you also have grants and reimbursements, and so you're seeing that down there. You have not only the Oil Well trip funds, we also have trip funds on two of the Collier Boulevard projects, One is six million, the other two together are over nine million. Those are shown down there in your grants. And again, as direction of the board and as this committee's concerns, we're very conservative on that. Ifwe haven't gotten a strong commitment of that money, it's not shown. But that is part of your grant funding, that money on Oil Well, as well as other trip monies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I guess I'm a little confused then. You just said we have more DCAs than the one that's shown on here specifically. It says -- and it differs, by the way, on the top of attachment D than on the bottom. On the top of attachment D you have the 60116 and for that you show a total of 20 million, 646. But down below you show 5 million, 253. Do you know why those differ? MR. FEDER: Yeah, because first of all you've got the total cost in there. I've got monies that I'm working with Florida DOT. We're taking on the resurfacing of 951 to the south, a little over 7 million. That JPA has been executed, it will be made part of this project, as well as the intersection. And you've got the monies that are coming in. Over time you had an initial shot of monies and you have the other monies that are committed out of that JPA with 951 consortium. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you put this attachment D in the yellow format back on the screen? It was on there earlier. MR. FEDER: Yes. It's going up now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you look where it says FY '13 and go down to 60116 that's in the left column. MR. FEDER: Yes, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Follow it over. You have a yellow Page 21 October 29,2009 highlighted 15 million, 393. And over on the right from that it totals in 20 million. But if you go down to DCA consortium, US 41/951 below 60171 under revenues, you have all the other years for that US 41/951 consortium equal to the one up above, but you don't carry the 15393. Why did you exclude that specific year? MR. FEDER: Because those dollars are predominantly coming out, as I said, from the JP A with Florida DOT and is -- a set of grant funds have been brought to it. So it is not just the consortium has been brought down there and is part of the DOT, JPA and the overall intersection design. Because we have a JP A with the state for both the intersection and the resurfacing below it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then where down below is the 15393 included? In which ones of those numbers? MR. FEDER: In the 19657 (sic). CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 6677 MR. FEDER: 667, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So then the 60116, it's only included there because it's part of the resurfacing, it is not part of the DCA. MR. FEDER: It's part of the overall project. Down here you're looking at the funding sources. Up there you're looking at the overall project cost of all funding sources. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we move on to the next line below where it says operation improvements program? MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think whoever did your sheets may have missed something. Could you turn to the second page of attachment F, I believe it is. It's your big spread sheets. Yes. MR. FEDER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And in the lower right-hand corner of Page 22 October 29,2009 that last page you have a series of numbers that reflect operations and maintenance, but they don't correspond with the new numbers you have under operations improvements program on the page attachment D. At least I can't make them correspond. MR. FEDER: And they may not. In the update of this, I'm not sure that table got updated. We'll make that correction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You have an item under 60171 called advanced right-of-ways. What is that? MR. FEDER: Excuse me. That is opportunity buy, as we look at certain corridors. Most recently we've used it to purchase some retention ponds on Randall Boulevard based on negotiated purchase, having done about 30 percent in-house design plans. And so it's basically to look at opportunity buy outside of specific project activities that are programmed for right-of-way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so how far in advance do you buy land for projects? For example, say you have a project on your long-range transportation plan that's 20 years down the road. Would you spend money in the next five years under advanced right-of-way for the goals of that project? MR. FEDER: Not unless I had at least some level of design, first of all, to make sure I knew what my right-of-way needs were. I wouldn't just go off of the long-range plan. Generally it would be something closer and it would be to exclude or preclude, as we are aware of it, a development that might not allow the corridor to be developed, or to acquire like in this case on Randall some of the retention ponds before development makes that very, very expensive or very difficult to do. So it would be nearer term but it's not something that's in our five years. And we'd have to have some level of design to back it up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next page is a -- just a cleanup of the first page, at least the one I have. Whoever's got that phone on, please stop. It happens to be me. You know what? When Page 23 October 29,2009 I'm working out in the yard I put this thing on noise so I hear, and that was last night, so now I've got to put it back on vibrate. Sorry. Attachment E would probably be the next attachment. Does anybody have any questions on attachment E? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we get to attachment F, which is a fold-out 11 by 17 page. Anybody have questions on attachment F? (No response.) MR. FEDER: And we'll make those adjustments we just spoke about, gentlemen, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Attachment G is a spreadsheet showing updated deficiencies report. Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Attachment H? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Attachment I? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then the last one is attachment J, which we already discussed. And then the two charts, Does anybody have any further questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I know the Productivity Committee has taken up this issue -- or they're going to. They will hopefully have issues involving the financial part of it that I think they are -- probably understand better than I certainly do. And I don't necessarily disagree with their position, but I don't know if it's a planning issue for the Planning Commission, so at this point I want to ask anybody, do they have any questions involving this? COMMISSIONER CARON: Norm, have you already met with the Productivity Committee? Page 24 October 29,2009 MR. FEDER: Yes, we did, we met with them. The sub-committee met with the full committee and we presented to them, yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. And what was the outcome? MR. FEDER: They recommended the sub-committee recommendation, that we look at taking eight-and-a-half million out of the roads program and three million out of the stormwater program. In your AUIR you have the letter that was drafted and signed for I guess the chairman. COMMISSIONER CARON: We don't have that. MR. FEDER: Okay. It's in the AUIR in the introduction. I would tell you and we'll be discussing this with the board, and I have a correspondence that's just gone out to everyone. The statement is that the transportation administrator said that the only implication on the roads program for eight-and-a-half million out a year for the four common years was that two 951 projects would be each delayed one year. That is extremely far -- relatively inaccurate to my presentation, including both the written material that I gave and in my verbal presentation in issues that were discussed. But we'll discuss that with the board. It would be very significant impacts if that were followed. We recognize that well, as we already have, it used to be 10 million, it's actually not eight-five anymore, it's seven-six beyond the debt service, which has been constant, that is made available in ad valorem to the capital program in transportation. But even if you took that out at that level, you will have basically everything that is outside of the current year other than one 951 project. The one at 13 from Golden Gate Boulevard down to Green would be removed. The 41/951 scope somewhat modified remains, the others would be out. Your prospect's to fund all of the projects Page 25 October 29,2009 under that funding level scenario, even assuming that impact fees stay at the exorbitant 20 million, depending where they go, of course. But if you keep other things even, if you will, you're talking 2022 just to deliver on what's in your AUIR today. That's with no other issues comIng up. So we recognize, just as we've gone from 10 million down to about seven-six that we're probably part of the solution when we're looking at reduced ad valorem assessments and therefore revenues. But at the same time taking all of it out other than debt service is rather draconian is what we're going to at least present to the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER CARON: Whatever that letter was, the Planning Commission did not get a copy of it. MR. BOSI: And I apologize. That's a recommendation from the Productivity Committee -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. MR. BOSI: -- to the Board of County Commissioners. It provided with in the books that it was going to the Board of County Commissioners. It was provided -- I guess we should have provided it as an additional exhibit for the review of the transportation component. But when I distributed the transportation component by FedEx, that was not available yet per the Productivity Committee. . MR. COHEN: And what we'll do is we'll e-mail it to you. COMMISSIONER CARON: Perfect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you just provided, though, the example as to why the Board of County Commissioners saw it best for the Productivity Committee and the Planning Commission to jointly hear this. While they are numbers crunchers more than we are and we are more planning effort, it would have been nice to hear their position and hear it debated in an open forum where we're all present like originally anticipated. I know that had to change because of the add-on at the last Page 26 October 29,2009 minute, but I certainly would have liked to have heard that portion of it. But on the other hand I've got to ask you a question, Norm. I think we're going to have a tougher year ahead of us than not. I think 2010 is going to be another -- more of a reaction year to the economic problems in this country for us because of our high level of standards we have here than other countries may have in reaction in 2010. And if it takes us longer to come back, we have to do things next year that are going to be desperate. And some of those is maybe the gold fleecing on the outside of our buildings has to peel off. And maybe we have to do not quite so much glitter and get down to some very, very hard basics just to get by without imposing additional taxes on our citizens, which I certainly don't think we need in any category whatsoever. If you go forward with this AUIR and the board decides because of the reduction in revenues next year that they go along with the Productivity Committee either now or next year and they want to cut this, are they able to? MR. FEDER: Yes. And obviously we're going to the board. The Productivity Committee will be presenting their issues. But let me just hit a couple of things, if I can have your indulgence. First of all, as well as they send you the Productivity Committee response, I'd like to have them send you the response that I'm providing as well as follow-up to that. I need to tell you that this board, while we have both entities that we presented to, the issue is the AUIR. The AUIR is to identify what in a snapshot in time, based on the level of service that we establish, our anticipated revenues, whether or not we have a cost feasible five-year situation. Which then leads into both the CIE, which has to be a cost feasible plan, and our budgeting. But it is not a budgeting item. And what I'm dealing with is one Page 27 October 29, 2009 month after having established a budget, a request to develop a five-year budget. And interestingly enough, their comments from the Productivity Committee found that all others were fine except for take eight-and-a-half out of transportation, it's really seven-six, and three million out of stormwater. There was nothing in that discussion about what it does for concurrency. Let me discuss for just a minute. We had a savings and loan crisis in the late Eighties and early Nineties. We had a growth curve that wasn't quite as extreme, it was more recent. We then had a leveling off and somewhat of a drop because it got very hard and very tight to get money. And everybody declared that well, the growth spurt is over, we're okay. I came in 2000 at the end of the crisis that was created by being okay and deciding not to do anything for six or seven years. I spent nine years of my life, it feels like 25 as far as age, trying to get us out of the hole. What we are proposing here is to do it again. It's deja vous all over again. As the great philosopher, Yogi Berra says, it's deja vous all over again. And I hope that we don't go to that -- that's why I called it draconian -- orientation. Do we need to pull back? Yes. Am I at level of service E, which is the lowest level of service? Yes. So I'm not guild-plating the issue. I'm not even maintaining at a proper level. So I'm not advocating increased revenues. And I've already said to you, as I said to the Productivity Committee, we recognize that we're part of the solution as well. And the times call for belt tightening, and we're going to have more of that. But the idea of only taking one area in the whole county, who has already the lowest level of service set, and resolving your issues on that basis and recreating what we did before tells me we've learned nothing from history, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let me reflect on something I Page 28 October 29, 2009 heard the last time we talked about this. Not you and I but in a meeting, I think Nick was there. I questioned the fact that Golden Gate Boulevard east of Wilson was now kind of like off the books, it's postponed for years when it's got a level of service F and there's backup traffic, and the money I was told had to go to other areas that we're committed to. And I understand that, I'm not even complaining about it, because I knew it was a commitment. But I said well, how can you just move it from the books from the year it was there till these past years? Well, you know the failure is really only at the peak time. It's only early in the morning. After that it works just fine. Well, I drive 951 probably more than you do. I drive it continuously -- I shouldn't say continuously but I drive it many times every day. And it is only peak time in the morning that it's backed up. And it's not backed up for more than a couple of light changes. I've been there from 6:00 in the morning to 8:30 in the morning to 9:00 to midday to late day going north and south. So if that's the inconvenience we have to have in order not to have a tax increase, that's not a bad inconvenience. And all I'm suggesting is, and I think you already answered it, is if the board realizes next year we have to cut further and these are programs that they may want to consider, that isn't as bad of a thing to cut in my opinion as other things that could be done. So-- MR. FEDER: And that's fine, that's what the board will have to decide. The only thing I'll say on that is Golden Gate Boulevard is slated to be, at least at the program stages here, even with the impact fee reduction, slated to be the new six-year project. And that's why you see a balance maintained at the end of the fifth year to allow the revenues in the sixth year to allow that project to go. It is a backlog. It's identified in your AUIR as a backlog. And Page 29 October 29,2009 it's one that we hope to get to. So I don't want to minimize that issue. And it isn't just a little bit in the morning. I've been out there. First of all, it's particularly in the morning because the school buses during the school year. But it's also other times of the day as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm, it wasn't me that was said it was a little bit in the morning, that was the answer that was given to me is that it's only a peak hour backup just in the morning. Well, okay, well, so is 951. MR. FEDER: All of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you can -- MR, FEDER: All of the systems-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you can justify it on one, you can justify it on all is all I'm getting at. MR. FEDER: All the system by its very nature is a peak hour backlog. At 3:00 a.m. I've got plenty of capacity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And by the way, I can't let the day go without complimenting or talking about Nick. In all the questions you've got here today, you can thank Nick for those. Go ahead, Mr. Bosi. MR. BOSI: Mr. Chairman, you do have one speaker. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. MR. BOSI: Ms. Janet Vasey. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Janet, you want to come up and speak? Do we need to swear her in or anything for AUIR? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No, you don't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. VASEY: Hello, Janet Vasey for the record. I had planned to tell you about what the Productivity Committee did at our meeting this month so that we could close the loop with Page 30 October 29,2009 you. Norm has alluded to a lot of the things. Not exactly the way we saw them, obviously. But basically on the road program -- well, let me just back up a second, Our concern, when we were in the workshop with you, is what the future funding looks like. And you know in FY '10, property values dropped only 11 percent, and it was a $30 million cut to property tax revenues. And we ended up having I think a 13 percent increase in property taxes for FY '10, So our vision for this was there's -- there was only -- really only roads and stormwater in the five-year program construction. Nobody else has any big pieces in here. And that's why we looked at transportation. So we feel like a lot of people are talking about maybe a 15 percent reduction in property tax values in FY , 11. Well, if it was 30 million for 11 percent drop, you know, we're talking in that ballpark for 15 percent too. So we have to look ahead. And we were concerned about being locked into a five-year program that we could not afford without property tax increases. So that was our view in what we were bringing to the discussion and to the Commission. Now, as far as the changes that were made on the road program, there were very minimal changes, Very minimal changes in the first two years, '11 and '12. I think $6 million. And you never got any of the analysis that we got. We had a whole one of these worksheets with all of the numbers based on our $8.5 million reduction each year, and we could see how the programs change. And basically in '11 projects, about $6 million of projects dropped out. But in '12,3.5 million came back. So we felt like for those first two years there was very little change for taking out 8.5 million in '11 and '12. But of course you will feel the impact. I mean, you can't take Page 3 1 October 29, 2009 that kind of money out without impact. But it's not in '11 and '12. It happens really in '13 when the project on Collier Boulevard from Golden Gate Boulevard to Green moves from '13 to '14. And then in '14 the Collier Boulevard from Golden Gate Canal to Green moves from '14 probably into '15. And then another one, the Santa Barbara Copper Leaf to Green moves from' 14 to the out years. That's the impact if you have 8.5 million every year of the four-year period. Now, I don't believe and I don't believe anyone in the Productivity Committee believes that that would be necessary to have that kind of a cut for the next four years. But we do really believe that there's an important issue in '11 and maybe even '12. So in our -- I think in the back of our minds we were thinking 8.5 would probably come back in in '13 and '14, which would buy back some of these roads. So what we were looking at when we looked at the road program was yes, it's a slippage, yes, there are issues, but there are funding problems that are very serious and we wanted the Commissioners to look at this option. And I know that's not from the purview that you look at it, but that's what we were trying to look at. So I wanted you to understand how that is. And we had -- you know, we had worksheets. And I was surprised, Norman said that it would affect the US 41/951 intersection. And there was no money taken out of that in the new numbers he gave us. So that's kind of the way we looked at the roads. And then we had asked for a look at what would happen if the millage rate was cut for stormwater from .15 mills to .10 mills, you know, one-third cut. And we got the paperwork on that. And I don't have it to compare to your change sheet on stormwater, but basically what happened was we said we couldn't really live with that whole cut. It would have been about $13 million. Page 32 October 29,2009 But Norman took $4 million out of the Big Cypress Basin grant program each of the years' 11 through '14, and he said there wasn't enough money -- I mean, there's too much uncertainty to leave that in the program. So we said okay, we're not going to take the full 13 million, we only recommended taking 9 million out. And basically what that does is it takes out some of the new programs that were put in for the first time in this AUIR. And we also recommended that they rework the L.A.S.I.P. program to try and achieve some savings. Commissioner Coyle himself thought, you know, there were some areas there. And we had a big discussion on L.A.S.I.P. in the workshop, so we thought maybe that could save some money. And then we wanted them to aggressively pursue the grants. Not the Big Cypress -- well, we wanted them to get the Big Cypress money back, but aggressively pursue other grants that this whole program was set up to attract. And then also try and get down to the .1 mills. So, you know, we're still kind of looking in that direction. And I did forget to tell you, on the roads we also made a recommendation that they look at if the program slippage that would occur by taking the 8.5 million out in each one of those years is unacceptable, we suggested looking at some bonding. They're projecting that impact fees -- no, I'm sorry, the gas tax money would be increasing in the program in some of the years. And so we said take a look and see if there's any opportunity for bonding to buy back some of these roads, you know, a little sooner than would be achieved if you took the 8.5. So I think that's -- I wanted you to understand what we were thinking about. And I'd be happy to answer any of your questions, in can. We'll be at the meeting on the -- next week for the AUIR presentation to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of Janet? Page 33 October 29,2009 Go ahead, Donna, and then Brad. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I thought that the county was pretty well bonded out and that we weren't able to do that. MS. VASEY: Well, that's why we were looking at the increase in the tax revenues for gas taxes. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just the increase in -- okay. MS. VASEY: Yeah. I can't remember who, it might have been -- oh, yeah, Jim Gibson on our committee is really the bonding guy, and he looked at some of the increases over the years that are projected. I think you can get a -- this is not my area, but he was talking about you could get a fairly substantial amount of money, like $300,000, in debt service for the bonding. And some of these impact fee -- some of the gas tax money was going up enough to cover some of that. So it was something to look into if it turns out that the 8.5 that we were suggesting couldn't be lived with. MR. FEDER: We bonded at the level of 23 million a year on gas tax. We are now down about 18. And our AUIR shows that we might get up to about 20. We are not in a position to re-bond. Although we are asking our finance, because we're bonded out to 2023, which is also the last year, unless it's re-upped in some manner, of the local option gas tax. But we are asking finance committee if there's any opportunity to bond. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Janet, since we do this every year, are you really worried about this year? In other words, three years ago we had a beautiful vista on the top of a bubble. Now -- you know, to avoid being shortsighted, what do you think? Are you worried about anything this year, or is this something when we look next year we'll know better what's going to happen to the economy, what these numbers are going to do? Page 34 October 29,2009 MS. VASEY: What do you mean by this year-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, in other words -- MR. VASEY: --FY'lO? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- we look at the AUIR for five years every year. So, you know, obviously we want to make sure the five-year works each year. But next year we'll have a better feel for some of the predictions. MS. VASEY: Right. And see, as you say, we redo it every year. And we're saying that, you know, we think the funding should be reduced for this AUIR, looking at the next year or two and what might happen and the fact that we don't want to lock into programs in the out years that we can't get out of just because of funding shortfalls. So we would redo it next year, and next year the situation might look better and some of these programs could move back in and we wouldn't need to take that kind of money out. But we're really kind of trying to protect the Commissioners' flexibility in, you know, taking a chunk of money if they need it so we can avoid a property tax increase again next year. So, you know, it's totally up to them. But this is our view of what should very seriously be looked at for not locking ourselves in on the AUIR and for, you know, going into the next budget year. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Norm, Janet's point on the bonding is interesting, because it brings up kind of another question. If you had the ability to establish a loan in the last two years of $50 million and you decide you didn't need it so you didn't take it, do you still have that ability to establish that loan? MR. FEDER: I'm not sure whether we've met the 13 percent, which got maxed out when we were offered two years ago, that 50 million. Because you've taken out more on ad valorem support where impact fees and other areas were taken out based on bonding, not able to be realized and general fund is supporting the payback on those as a Page 35 October 29,2009 loan. So I'm not sure if we're in that bonding position. But again, we didn't utilize it because we didn't want to end up in that same mode of having committed our impact fee schedule to a debt service payback when it was such a volatile source of revenue, as you can well see, from 70 million down to 13 million last year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, but in order to get by for a year at a time until we could feel the economy turning around and your impact fee schedule changing, wouldn't we want to look at bonding loaning out a year at a time, and we're talking 8.5 million and the debt service on that's going to be far less than 50 million? But if you had that line of credit available to utilize for those times, wouldn't that be a good idea? MR. FEDER: We have a couple of options here, depending on how the board wants to go with the recommendations. I think what needs to be clearly understood -- and look at our work program. You have no new initiatives, no construction projects in years 'II and '12. The savings that are being talked about would be realized by the 18 million that we're carrying forward to go to projects in four and five specifically, because this board and its cost feasible plans did not want to commit construction until we knew we had it, especially in the first three years that can be relied upon. So you don't have any construction phases in '11 and '12 and so the request for savings are coming out of the funding that would allow you to meet your concurrency needs in '13 and '14 and then hopefully in '15 with Golden Gate Boulevard, by the savings of additional dollars at the end of'14, along with the new $15 (sic) to be able to bring it in. So it does have an impact, a very significant impact if we pull it out as it's proposed. But it is true to say that in '11 and '12 you don't have a major impact on projects. You don't have it until you've taken it out and all of a sudden, like we did in the early 1900's -- excuse me, 1990's through 2000, when we basically didn't build it and they came.& Page 36 October 29,2009 And if anyone believes that it's not going to turn around, the question is when. But do we believe that yes, we have an issue and we agreed with Productivity Committee that probably we're looking at 15 percent reduction in ad valorem? And has transportation been and does it need to continue to be part of that solution? Yes. The question is to what degree you impact the program and the degree that's been asked has very, very significant aspects that the board's going to have to decide on those tradeoffs, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mike, since we can't take anything out of the five-year program using the reason that we have lack of revenue or increase in funds, we can take things out if we come to a lack of need of an element, correct? MR. COHEN: It's probably more proper for me to answer that with respect to the CIE. If you're going to take items out of the AUIR which would end up in the CIE, you're going to do an assessment of need to determine whether or not that improvement is still necessary to address deficiencies that exist. Because we're required by DCA to commit ongoing revenues to address those needs and deficiencies that exist. So we have to show progress towards addressing them or in some instances because the progress has been going along for a certain amount of time we have to get to the point of construction. MR. FEDER: And that's really the issue for you here at this party and to the Productivity Committee in many ways. What we've turned into -- and I understand why, I understand the times we're in, okay. But we've turned this into a budgeting discussion. I think you correctly asked when we get a little bit closer to that part of the process, can we make this decision as opposed to trying to make it now when the issue is one of where we are. Now, Janet's concern is that locks you in. I think that's a bit of an overstatement when it says absolute funding. That's not what the Page 37 October 29,2009 statute says, And we do this every year and we make adjustments as necessary. But we're trying to maintain real-time concurrency. What's interesting up in Tallahassee is that, at least Pelham, somewhat protecting it, they said that we still can maintain what might be a more aggressive concurrency program than is proposed for the state, which is 10 and IS-year concurrency, jfwe can show that we can financially afford to do so. Now, if we don't financially afford to do so, then we may be in long-term concurrency. And the interesting part about that is that my successor won't come upon a big backlog trying to figure out how to fund it because there's another piece of statute called a concurrency backlog authority that basically requires you to fund it. And guess what? What income streams do you have? Well, you're a wealthy county with a very low ad valorem rate. So just what we're trying to avoid we may create. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Janet, thank you very much. MS. VASEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate it. Are there any other speakers? Anybody in the audience wishing to speak on this AUIR transportation? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know you're not here for this, And I'm sorry that we probably had to bore you with a lot of this talk for the first hour, but we're getting beyond it. In fact, we've only been here for five minutes, according to that clock. MR. BOSI: There are no more registered speakers for this item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we need to entertain a motion. Page 38 October 29, 2009 Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion that we forward the 2009 county arterial and collector roads AUIR as presented in this revised version today. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Is there a discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's been some recommended changes to it that we discussed. So the version that we got today needs to be modified at least to those questions that we had. Donna had a graphical clarification, and I pointed out that the pages don't match. So I think we need to make those changes. And I would want to consider one other thing: This department had on its books for two years a $50 million loan, bond, letter, line of credit, whatever you want to call it. And with the pending problems that could occur next year, that should be something they ought to try to reestablish. Not necessarily take it down, but reestablish that ability to have that there in case it's needed. And so I would think that would be a good consideration as an alternative if the board decides that the cutting of 8.5 million isn't appropriate. That also lends to the question of Norm's discussion about concurrency. We have concurrency on paper a failure, and maybe at a peak time, but in reality it may not be. And by using that line of credit or potential loan or bond, if it's needed, it gives the board an alternative to offset, you know, any ad valorem increase. So if you don't mind amending your -- I could support your motion if you would amend it with the ability to ask that that be reestablished. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make that amendment. But I do have a question. Page 39 October 29,2009 Norm, that's some financing. I mean, in this environment can you assume that it's still there? I mean -- MR. FEDER: I'm not sure it is. We've got a maximum, and I think it's good that Jim Mudd established a 13 percent maximum to our debt capability. I'm not sure if that got realized as we handed back what was, I understood, the last 50 million that brought us up to that. So that would be one question. But I think if you make your motion, obviously the intent is for us to look at whether or not we have some options. We have shied away from both that 50 million when it was available and the issue of debt without an ability to know that we can fully pay. And so that's issues that need to be discussed. But I understand the nature of the question. And obviously if I'm trying to maintain real-time concurrency and I do need to pull ad valorem out, I need to find a way to do so, so I think that's what is being raised. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I'll accept that, Mark. I mean, do they know how to word that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think it's just worded well enough for the record that the alternatives of one of those ought to be sought to match what we used to have in 2007 and 2008. MR. BOSI: And basically say the recommendation from the Planning Commission was for this transportation services department to explore the reestablishment of the $50 million loan that was available as in '07 and '08. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's fine. I'm good. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I can accept that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray, did you have anymore? Okay, then you both accepted the changes that we have, the -- I guess the tweaking of the document to make it right. Is that a nod Page 40 October 29,2009 yes? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. And Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, is there any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor of the motion, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you very much. Norm, remember who caused you all these questions this mornmg. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, before we leave, Mike, in the packet I got, as we reviewed it, it was obvious there were more things. Attachment J was the last thing that was in my packet. So if there were charts and things that were referenced after that, would you send them to me? MR. BOSI: The other attachments that were contained in the original AUIR book, if they were not, the documentations that I sent you, those were only the documents that were changed. Everything Page 41 October 29,2009 else had remained the same. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the Mount Everest funding that was shown today, I don't have that so I'd like that. MR. BOSI: Okay. I'll obtain the chart from Norm and get it to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, And just for the record, I did ask for some additional backup material. And once Norm gets that collected, I don't know why the rest -- unless the Planning Commissioners don't want it, I sure want it. And if they would like it, you might want to poll them at the time. Does anybody else care to have that additional data? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I think should just be e-mailed to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, just e-mail it to everybody once that's available, if you could. I asked Norm for a couple items that they -- during the discussion. Item #4G CP-2007-5, LOGAN BOULEV ARD/IMMOKALEE ROAD MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT And with that, we will move on to what I think everybody is really here for, and it's the advertised public hearing for the Growth Management Plan Amendment. It's CP-2007-5, and it's for the corner of Logan and Immokalee Road, All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please -- let's do this group swearing in thing again. Please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of Planning Commission? Page 42 October 29,2009 Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I had a telephone conference a few weeks ago with Mr. Y ovanovich regarding this petition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I also spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich and Mr. Arnold a few weeks ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Same here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I too had the same con -- I don't know if they were the same conversations as yours. I did have conversations with Mr. Arnold and Mr. Y ovanovich. I also had conversations with Diane from -- Diane Ebert from Olde Cypress, and I think some e-mails with the Oakes Advisory Group, and that's the extent of it. Randy? MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, just a point of order. I notice the number of people that stood on up, and they're quite in excess of the number of speaker slips that I have, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't need the speaker slips. They can -- everybody can speak. And as we go -- we'll start with the speaker slips. Once we finish those, I'll just ask the audience to come up, those that want to speak, one at a time and we'll call you up. MR. COHEN: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning Department, Planning Manager. Mr. Chairman, I understand what you just said, but I would say that it's helpful to staff and the court reporter if you would have the speakers fill out a slip, because we need their name and address. It's helpful for the court reporter, but it's also helpful for staff because we need to provide that information to the state with our submittal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, every speaker that comes up, Page 43 October 29, 2009 especially during GP A amendments, they're required to tell us their name and their address in the beginning of their discussion. So you're getting it on record both in transcript from the court reporter and in video. If you have the paper, that's fine, but I will not, let's say, deny the public the right to speak regardless whether they filled out a piece of paper or not. So with that, we will move forward and Mr. Y ovanovich, it's -- whoever's making your presentation from your side. You usually like to make those, so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich, on behalf of the petitioner. Also with me today is Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor & Associates, Chuck Mohlke with Frazier and Mohlke, and Reed Jarvi with the Omega Consulting Group. I'm going to start with what was the original petition. Wow, I think just out of sheer luck I got that right. The original request and information you have in your packet was to establish the Logan/Immokalee mixed use sub-district on approximately 41 acres and requesting 260,000 square feet of C-l through C-4 type uses. At our neighborhood information meeting on September 10th, 2009, there was a mixture of opinions regarding the project that we presented. Some residents objected to retail -- any retail at all. One square foot they felt was not necessary. Some residents supported the full request, and some residents supported retail but did not support the entire 41 acres and 260,000 square feet. After we held our neighborhood information meeting we met with our client to discuss the results of the neighborhood information meeting and then subsequently met with our client to discuss the results of the staff report, which we received around October 1 st, 2009. Page 44 October 29,2009 Based upon the results of the neighborhood information meeting and the staff report, we decided to reduce the request to the 18 acres owned by Mr. -- well, it's owned by Dan Peck, the beneficiary of that trust is Mr. Bill Longhi (phonetic), and to reduce the request to an 80,000 square feet retail center and 40,000 square feet of office. And I'll put that up. And I'll briefly take you through what that did in relation to concerns we heard from the residents of Saturnia Lakes, which is really our immediate neighbors. And as you can see now, we have very little -- we just have a corner of our parcel -- a corner of our parcel actually will now touch Saturnia Lakes, where previously the project went all the way down to here, so you had this entire cul-de-sac and this entire cul-de-sac actually fronting on the project. We reduced the request. And Wayne will take you through some exhibits to show you that in actuality none of the residents within Saturnia Lakes will be within 300 feet of the proposed development on the project. And in fact, this distance is far greater than 300 feet when you're talking about this particular cul-de-sac. And we did that in response to several people at the first neighborhood information meeting saying you're too close to us, we'll be overlooking your project. So we scaled that back and thus scaled back the square footage request as well. Between our scheduled hearing last week and the meeting today, we held another neighborhood information meeting to discuss the changed project. I will tell you that those who were opposed to retail overall, that didn't change, they still want zero. So we were not able to persuade people who were fundamentally opposed to retail to now jump on board with the proposed reduction. There were people who did speak in favor of the reduced request. And we tried to address any concerns that neighbors raised as questions. We had people -- people say they were concerned about Page 45 October 29,2009 uses, what uses were going to be on the property, and we asked well, what uses don't you want, so I can make sure I list those as prohibited uses, The only information we got was basically a gas station. I'm sure there were other uses, but we tried to elicit through the neighborhood information meeting process what other types of uses would they think are inappropriate on this particular piece of property. A lot of people, I think when we showed them how far away we were from the project, it wasn't so bad. We showed them -- and Wayne will take you through -- the 80,000 square feet retail would be up near the corner near Immokalee Road and then the office would be back on the southern portion of the project. One of the concerns was will you have two stories of office. Since that neighborhood information meeting we've talked to our client, we can agree that all structures on the site will be single story. We have 18 acres to put 120,000 square feet on, so we can easily accommodate that request to have just single-story uses on the site, including the office, which we would submit to you is fairly compatible with single-family homes in the area. We heard comments regarding the vacancy rate of existing retail. And interestingly enough, one of the people in the meeting was actually in the commercial real estate business and provided me a report that he had received from CB Richard Ellis regarding the current status and projected status of retail and office over the next two or three years. Now, keep in mind that best case scenario, if we get comprehensive plan amendment approval about this time next year, maybe summer of next year, that would be 2010. We then do our PUD on top of that will take about a year, that puts us basically summer of 20 11, then you've got to do your site development plan and build it safely, that will be another year. So basically best case scenario, we wouldn't be open and Page 46 October 29, 2009 operating for business until the summer of2012, which is basically three years from now. That's the best case scenario. We don't really expect the best case scenario to happen. We're not going to immediately put more inventory of retail and office into the system today. But what the report provided to me shows is that today there's a vacancy rate in retail of seven and a half percent. So they -- your hope for is to get to 95 percent occupancy, and we're at basically 92 and a half percent occupancy right now. Now, it looks a lot worse because there are some centers out there that are way off on their occupancy and there are several centers out there that are basically at 100 percent occupy. And it really is a center-by-center analysis. I mean, if you look at the Greentree Shopping Center, I think it's pretty much at 100 percent occupancy. But if you look at some of these non-anchored centers that are not doing so well, and they're probably at a great then 50 percent, or around a 50 percent occupancy. So the perception out there is worse than the reality. And plus you have some of the nationals that went out in the last year. You lost The Expo and Linens 'N Things in that center on Immokalee Road and US 41. So there's a perception out there that there's really more vacancies than the reality is. And those aren't numbers that I came up with, those are numbers that were provided to me, it was from somebody that was sitting in the audience who was basically saying I think the people in the audience don't really understand, it's not as bad as people think it is. Now, office vacancy's higher. It's about 12 percent right now. Probably will go up a little bit. But nobody's building any office right now, so that will get absorbed. And again, we're not going to be coming on line any time soon for that. Now, Chuck Mohlke will take you through in much great detail the supply and demand analysis and our disagreement with staff on Page 47 October 29,2009 how they calculate really the supply side. I don't think we're so far off on the demand side, but on the supply side we think that staff is not analyzing the supply appropriately, And Chuck will take you through greater detail. I will note that staff took some shots at our market analysis, and in particular they reference on Page 4 that we failed to include commercial that's in Mirasol. I'm fairly certain, since I did Mirasol, there is no commercial in Mirasol. So I think that staff was considering that exists in Mirasol in their recommendation. They were in error in doing that. They also say on Page 10 that we failed to account for the impact on our market area of commercial that will be located in rural villages in the RLSA. Well, we're three miles from the urban boundary. I do not understand, and maybe it's just me, how any commercial that may somehow find its way into a rural village will impact our market study area, but we were criticized for not analyzing it, and I would like staff to tell us how that would affect the supply side. And I'm really confused about how stuff that's out in the RLSA will affect our market analysis. So maybe staff didn't factor those into their decision, but they sure did -- they did criticize us for not putting that in our analysis. Wayne will also take you through what's kind of the standard distance between activity centers that's on the Future Land Use Map. And generally you'll see that activity centers are two miles apart. Some are closer, some are slightly further apart. But in generalities you'll see that your activity centers in your Future Land Use Map in the urban center have activity centers about two miles apart. And there's a provision in the Future Land Use Element that if-- you can request another activity center, as long as there's not another activity center within two miles. We're not asking for an activity center, Your typical activity centers are four quadrants, 40 acres apiece, totaling 160 acres. We're Page 48 October 29, 2009 asking for something much smaller. We're asking for a neighborhood oriented center of 18 acres, which would be one-eighth the size of an activity center. Weare at the intersection of an arterial, which is Immokalee Road enter-collector (sic), which is Logan. And there is no retail on Logan essentially from Bonita Beach Road south until you get to I believe probably Golden Gate City. Because Logan is actually an extension of Santa Barbara. So for quite a north-south segment there are no -- there's no commercial opportunity. And I would say that a similar situation occurred on Livingston Road, there was no commercial under the compo plan that was on Livingston Road, no activity centers. But over time the Planning Commission did approve some commercial opportunities on Livingston Road. You have Pine Ridge Road as an example and also you have Vanderbilt Beach Road as an example, where there's commercial on Livingston Road. Not in all four quadrants, but in a quadrant next to residential. So it's not unheard of to do that. Because again, there was no retail really on all the north-south Livingston Road. We think that, and you'll hear in much greater detail, that there is demand for what we're asking for. The demand will be there over time. Again, we can't look at today's snapshot, but today's snapshot is not as bad as everybody thinks it is. In the future we hope, and if it doesn't come back we're all in trouble, but the economy will come back and the vacancies will be absorbed and there'll be need for new space. I'm going to turn it over to Wayne to take you through some of the planning aspects of our project as well as some of the conceptual plans we showed the community to address compatibility issues. And I think there was a lot of compatibility issues related to the neighborhood information meeting that we needed to address through the revised comprehensive plan process. Page 49 October 29,2009 And with that, I'll turn it over to Wayne, unless you have questions about anything that I've said to this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tons of questions, Richard, but I guess it's going to wait 15 minutes and we're going to wait to hear Wayne too. So we'll take a break till 10: 10; by that clock it will be 9: 10, IS-minute break for the court reporter. (Recess.) MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And through the efforts of Kady, she came in and tried to fix the clock, took it down from the wall, monkeyed with it and it didn't get fixed. But Kady, thank you for trying. We'll have to just remember to add an hour, So, Wayne, you're up and go right ahead. MR. ARNOLD: I'm Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor, and I will be following up where Rich left off. I'll just leave the graphic up there right now. But as Rich alluded to, we have a corridor that's a very long corridor. And you're going to hear Chuck Mohlke talk to you about our market area in a little more detail. But if you look at the I8-acre boundary that remains, we have one corner where we touch Saturnia Lakes. The other quadrants, we have the Oakes neighborhood to the west across Logan extension, and then we have to the northwest we have Longshore Lakes, and to the northeast we have Olde Cypress. There is no other commercial planned or permissible on those other three quadrants of this intersection. You have what's in the Golden Gate Estates area master plan to the west, and that would have to go through a comprehensive plan amendment to obtain that. You would have to likewise amend the comprehensive plan to have any commercial allowed at Longshore, which I think is pretty infeasible considering you have rooftops there, and then at Olde Cypress again. Page 50 October 29,2009 So the process of having commercial and this leading to more commercialization I think is probably not an accurate characterization for this particular site because of its configuration. To the south, what was formerly in this property, as many of you know, it's a landscape nursery and it's a landscape maintenance business operation. That property is zoned agriculture and it will continue to operate into the foreseeable future. This is a copy of your planned unit development map that the county has. And I've identified our 18-acre site. The areas in yellow are the residential. You see another pattern of yellow, which is the Estates. And then you have the tan colors which show commercial zonmg. And you'll see, I think the map exhibit doesn't correctly reflect the new Mirasol zoning, but I don't think we have commercial in Mirasol, as Rich said. The most dominant feature that you have here are the two activity centers. The one on the west at I-75 is an interchange activity center and those are meant to be highly intensive and they're really attractors for regional uses. Some of them allow industrial uses. This one does not have industrial uses in it. But to the far east side of that exhibit it's Collier Boulevard, and you have commercial obviously at that intersection. But when you look at the spacing, we're about a mile and a quarter back to the interchange activity center to our west, and we're almost two miles to the activity center to the east. And as Rich said, your comprehensive plan indicates that our activity center spacing should be about two miles. And in this case we are almost two miles from an activity center, but we're asking for far less commercial than you could find in a typical activity center. But I think this graphic identifies that you don't have a commercialized corridor on Immokalee Road, and you certainly don't have a commercialized corridor for Logan Boulevard, which now is a Page 51 October 29, 2009 collector road that goes and extends all the way down to Rattlesnake Hammock Road, soon to be open segment, and is designed to be a road that will extend into Bonita Springs into Lee County into the future. One of the things that we did, we held the second neighborhood informational meeting. It was an informal meeting that we held between the last scheduled hearing and today. And we wanted to discuss the proposed changes and reduction in intensity with those neighbors to find out how that was received. And as Rich said, I don't think there's a clear answer. It was a pretty diverse group of people. We had many residents from Saturnia Lakes, obviously, our nearest neighbors, but we also had residents who lived in the Oakes neighborhood to the west and we also had residents from Olde Cypress who were there as well. I think it would be unfair to say that there was large opposition to the project. I had many residents come up to me after the meeting and talk about the need for certain types of uses here, especially things that could be more daily use type things. And that would include things like grocery store, restaurants, banks, things that they didn't need to drive back through the interstate to get to, and something more convenient for them and appropriately sized for them. One of the things that we heard from the neighbors was the intensity. 260,000 square feet sounded like a lot. And I think we confused a lot of people with the inclusion of the agricultural component, which was really meant to deal with the existing agricultural operations that were now to our southern boundary. But nonetheless, I had our landscape architect, we sat down and tried to look at some concepts for the revised boundary and how we could look at 80,000 square feet of retail and an office component and make that the most compatible we could with the residential neighbor we have at Saturnia Lakes. And I walked through those three examples at the informal Page 52 October 29,2009 meeting we had earlier this week, and I'll take you through those, if I could have a few minutes to do that. This one we had called concept A. And what you see is Immokalee Road to -- at the top of the page. You have Logan Boulevard to the west. And the tan type structures are what we would envision to be retail oriented uses that are primarily at and focused on the intersection. And then to the south we have water management preserve area that we're required to have by code and then a small office component. And you can see -- if David can pull it back a little further. I've identified -- outlined the existing structures in Saturnia. You can start to see those and see the relationship we have to them. And that's about 300 feet from the nearest unit to the office component that I'm showing on that. We're showing access over to Logan Boulevard. There's an existing ingress/egress easement that extends over to Logan, and we're also identifying right-inlright-out access on Immokalee Road. Here's a second concept that we presented called concept B. And again, the same idea. We have our retail oriented to Immokalee Road and we have offices to the south. But this one we've reshaped the water management area and put more preserve between us and our neighbors at Saturnia Lakes, again keeping access to both Logan and Immokalee Road. I think it's an arrangement that to me makes good land planning sense. It certainly reduces the intensity as we move closer to our neighbors. And certainly by keeping the preserve there, I think that makes it very compatible with Saturnia. The third example we presented was one that I think represents probably a little bit more traditional look at retail type development where you would end up with several tenant type spaces, But it again presents the focus to Immokalee Road and the intersection. On this one we've divided our water management up into two areas so we can Page 53 October 29, 2009 put a focal point at Immokalee Road. And we can also can keep preserve and water management again closer to the neighbors at Saturnia Lakes. All of these, we presented the office primarily as a separate office component to help make that transition as we move south to our residential neighbors. I think that -- what I believe is that this site does not set up well and would never be utilized for low density residential development. I know that one of the first zoning actions that I worked on private consultant after I left the county was Saturnia Lakes. It's known as the Rigas PUD. And it was impossible for then GL Homes to assemble the lands that went up to this future intersection. You know, had that been incorporated into a master plan community of a couple hundred acres, you change the complexion of how you would design that and you can buffer yourself from those impacts. But left with an 18-acre parcel at this intersection, we don't have that same opportunity to make a project work at three or four units per acre, which is a density that's probable in this particular area, given the relationship we have to the Estates to the west and the master planned communities to the north. But we think this is an appropriate location for commercial. Certainly we've downsized the commercial to a point where it does become more of a neighborhood oriented type retail opportunity at 80,000 square feet. We have enough that it can be a viable commercial. We also have an office component that makes sense. We have a client who's been willing to make concessions in this regard. And as Rich said, our -- he's also authorized us to limit heights to one story, So I think with that in mind compatibility isn't an issue for this particular property. And I think it makes sense for commercial land uses. I think that's demonstrated in Mr. Mohlke's analysis where he looked at demand. And when you look at the geographic trade area Page 54 October 29,2009 that he established, it's one that's different than the county staff. And I'll let him describe why that is. But when you look at this roadway corridor that literally it's five miles down to Green Boulevard where you have your first opportunity for commercial as you travel on Logan Boulevard. And obviously Logan Boulevard was designed to carry that of traffic. The focus was to get traffic off of Oakes Boulevard to the west, thereby removing the signal to discourage people from using that road. And I think you'll find that anybody who lives in Oakes neighborhood will probably tell you their traffic has gone down. And the focus should be on Logan Boulevard, which is designed to be a future four-lane road, to carry that traffic. And as I mentioned earlier, that road is designed to go to Lee County, it's designed to go all the way south and is under construction right now to Rattlesnake Hammock Road. I'll answer any questions you may have about our planning efforts or our neighborhood. Rich, in didn't leave anything out, we can move on to Mr. Mohlke, if nobody has questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the Planning Commission have any questions before we hear from Mr. Mohlke, or we can wait till afterwards? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Would you put that first slide up on the board, please. MR. ARNOLD: The PUD exhibit? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. Now, starting left at the large activity center off of Immokalee Road, if you move this along the right toward the east, what is the next little brown place there? Is that the commercial component? MR. ARNOLD: That is what's known as the -- I think it's Quail II. And there's an office building there and I believe that's also got the Page 55 October 29,2009 gas station. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think there's some retail in with the office. Or there is a strip center there that's got retail in it as well. (Audible comments from audience.) MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, it's small. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys, everybody that talks got to be on a mic. You'll all get your turn. So just let the guy on the mic respond, if you could. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But that is a component that is commercial; is that correct? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: And then you move over to where the site is, and that's what you're proposing to be commercial now? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: As you move further east along there, there's another brown spot. Is that commercial also? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And then you move further east and there's a large spot. Is that commercial? MR. ARNOLD: That is the activity center at Collier Boulevard and Immokalee Road. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So in that stretch of Immokalee Road there, those are all commercial centers. Now then, those commercial centers are nearer each other than they are in other places in the county. MR. ARNOLD: I don't know that I would agree with the statement that they're closer than they are in other places in the county, because -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, the activity centers are generally two to four miles apart, aren't they? MR. ARNOLD: Two-- Page 56 October 29,2009 COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Through the county on an average? MR. ARNOLD: Roughly two miles on center. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But these here are no more than maybe .7 mile difference separation. MR. ARNOLD: Right. But I think the difference is those are very small-scale commercial, primarily office on the one closest to I-75. And then you have the other one that's closer to Olde Cypress, and that is a mixture of -- it's got I think indoor self-storage and it has a gas station/convenience component and some retail. But they're not part of activity centers, nor are they sized to be. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No, I agree that the area is small, but the locations are many. That's what my point is. There's many locations on that stretch of street that have commercial, even though the areas might be small. Now, let me ask you another question about the site, in could. Is there access off of Logan road onto the site? MR. ARNOLD: Yes, we have an access easement that extends to Logan Boulevard. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Is that an easement? MR. ARNOLD: It is. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: It's not the entrance that is there for the nursery now? MR. ARNOLD: No, sir. That entrance is further south. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Why did you select the easement rather than the existing entrance? MR. ARNOLD: Well, the existing entrance to the landscape nursery was within our boundary previously, but when we retracted the boundary of our request to have the 18 acres, we don't control that property to the south. But there is another ingress/egress easement that extends to Logan at the southern portion of our project. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: When was that easement Page 57 October 29,2009 executed? MR. ARNOLD: I don't know; some time ago. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Kolflat, it's been of record for, gosh, many, many, many years. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: All right, it's been many years, though. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, it's been there. That was an access easement that exists across all of those properties on their southern boundary and the northern boundary all the way across, COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. That's all the questions I had, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody -- Mr. Murray, then Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wayne, what would distinguish this project from a strip mall? What is it that you propose that would be so significant that would not -- I mean, that last rendering showed, just looked to me like it could be, if it were extended out straight, a strip mall. What is it that would be so different here? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think the distinction generally would come about at the time that we would rezone the property, and we would then identify a master plan. I mean, these were three concepts. They're hand-drawn sketches showing how we can develop the 80,000 square feet of retail and 40,000 square feet of office and different configurations. I know that just responding to the comments that I heard, the neighbors would support things that they can use on a daily basis, things like the restaurants. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, when you presented the other day for the Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson, you guys talked about an anchor store and a CO that would have to be -- do you have any kind oflike offering on this one? I mean, all of the reading that was done here was associated with this humongous thing, and now Page 58 October 29, 2009 we're talking about something just zoom. And I want to understand where we're going with the changes. MR. ARNOLD: Fair enough. I think if you look at this exhibit, for instance, that's up there and you look back at I-75, the focus at I-75 has clearly been regional commercial. I mean, you have the supers of the world. You have Super Target and you have Super Wal-Mart. You have other regional commercial uses; you have Hodges University, for instance. I mean, that activity center, except for the Strand -- which is 100 percent occupied, by the way. You have a grocery-anchored shopping center. You have another grocery-anchored shopping center out at Collier Boulevard and Immokalee Road. But you don't have the true activity center where you can have those other uses other than regional uses here. And I guess this doesn't have to be a traditional strip center, if you will. I don't know that without an anchor tenant you're going to get financing these days. So it will. I don't think Rich and I are in a position to tell you that as we bet the farm on that project you referenced with a grocery store anchor, I don't think we can certainly make those kinds of commitments today. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I didn't really expect that you could, but I'm trying to rationalize. I mean, we'll hear from staff and we'll hear from the public, but I'm trying to rationalize what it is that you folks responded to, having heard the public, and what it is that you are translating for us to tell us that they think that they want or feel that they want or want. MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think we offered -- you know, I think that you'll probably hear from one of the speakers that the C-l through C-4, when you look at how many pages of the Land Development Code that is, it's over a dozen pages of uses. Well, a lot of those uses in C-l through C-4 are duplicate uses, they're carried forward in each of those zoning districts. So I think the question is, if it's the C-4 component that makes Page 59 October 29,2009 people concerned, what are those uses? And I at the neighborhood meeting said one of those uses that you can have in C-4 is a car dealership. Does anybody here think that that's an appropriate location for a car dealership? I don't think there was a clear answer, but there was a lot of rumbling in the crowd. And, I mean, it's certainly a use we don't intend to put there. And like Rich said, gas station was one that was mentioned specifically. And to the extent we can prohibit uses, as you have done in other of these sub-districts, we can certainly try to get to that list. But if the dominant answer from some of the residents who aren't even your nearest neighbors is no retail, we have too much, then that's a hard part and a hard position to negotiate from. But I do think that we're certainly willing to place reasonable restrictions on the property to assure the immediate neighbors that they're going to get a quality designed project and one that's well buffered and compatible with them. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sure if it goes forward we would be delighted to place some restrictions on the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Wayne, could you put the diagram up of the property that shows the ingress and egress, please? Immokalee and Logan. MR. ARNOLD: Any of them work? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah. Okay, obviously the one on Immokalee is going to be right in/right out. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. Now, let's talk about this easement down there on -- what, is it just called access easement? MR. ARNOLD: Um-hum. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And that's where you're going to be entering? Page 60 October 29, 2009 MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. What kind of -- will that be a full right-in left? MR. ARNOLD: That segment -- yes, it would be. Because that segment of road currently is two-lane. And I'd have to let our traffic consultant answer what happens in the event that it becomes a four-lane road segment, but right now that would be full movements on a two-lane road. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right, I got that. My problem was when it turns to a four-lane. How deep is the prop -- what's the distance from that 30-foot access easement to Immokalee Road? MR. ARNOLD: I believe it's about 900 feet, plus or minus. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So it's under a quarter mile. MR. ARNOLD: Correct. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So once it goes four-lane, I mean, you aren't going to be able to even go to Island Walk, back to-- you know. That's my -- that's my issue with it is I don't know how you're going to get home. I don't know how people are -- MR. ARNOLD: Like I said, I don't know the answer to that question. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Worst thing that could happen is that you're doing right in/right outs, U-turns every which way. And that's not a good -- that was my biggest issue was -- MR. ARNOLD: Well, unfortunately that's been the nature of how we have dealt with transportation access issues throughout the county. It's become the norm to deal with those as right turn only and U-turn movements. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, Pine Ridge and Livingston. I mean, you go into breakfast there, try to go north -- I mean try to go south from there, it's impossible. MR. ARNOLD: And I understand, I utilize that shopping area as well. And I deal with that access issue. And it's just the nature of the Page 61 October 29,2009 beast. I don't know too many -- unless you get a traffic signal, you're not going to be assured of full access. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You can't on this site because it's too close. So, I mean, fix that somehow. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant before we go to the market issue? Then we'll come back to the applicant again. Wayne, as a follow-up to Mr. Wolfley's questions, 30- foot access easement. I didn't see language in the documents you supplied to talk to us or tell us what that 30-foot access easement, how it's written. The reason that's important is because you've got issues like utilities and drainage. And 30-foot, you're going to have two lO-foot lanes as the narrowest you could possibly put in. On each side you're going to have gutter either -- if it's a valley gutter it's two feet on each side, so that's 24 feet out of 30. It leaves you six feet to fit your drainage elements and anything else in, plus any signage that you'd have to recognize the facility out in Logan. Have you taken all that into consideration in your design of that access? MR. ARNOLD: We have. I mean, we have not designed the access per se, but we understand that we probably will have limitation on signage, That's going to be a challenge, we know that. We believe we'll be dealing with some of those issues at the time of zoning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And based on only two lanes, it would be a right in/right out, I would assume. You couldn't fit a left turn lane in. Otherwise you'd be blocking your people wanting to make a right. Is that what you're anticipating? MR. ARNOLD: I'm not sure we would have to have a dedicated left turn lane. I don't know that yet, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just curious if you -- how far you've thought that out. Thank you. Chuck, welcome. Page 62 October 29, 2009 MR. MOHLKE: Mr. Chairman and members, thank you. For the record, my name is Chuck Mohlke, and I'm here representing my firm, Frazier and Mohlke. We had the privilege of conducting what I will regard as one of the more challenging responsibilities that we've had recently in terms of generating a profile of the community that can represent fairly the opportunities for a commercial enterprise at this intersection. Let me share with you briefly what those challenges were as we tried to address them. Us bean counters have a responsibility of determining what to count and what not to count. And in this particular case we chose, as the Section 1 of the study will reveal, to address the issue of how many persons we need to account for in respect to the areas surrounding this particular site. And also how do we address the issue of what is typically referred to here as the seasonal population. As you know, from reading the material that's in there, the basis for many of our conclusions were census information that was provided in census tabulation area, as it's called, by those folks, 34119, which we all know is the zip code for this particular area. It tells us how many structures, it tells us how many permanent persons in the population, it tells us the household size. And when you look at that profile, you're confronted with the fact that there are many more structures than are occupied by permanent residents. And you're then confronted with the issue of do you introduce into the analysis what many people refer to as the functional population, those folks who are here six months or less, or technically domiciled somewhere else but who are part usually in these well designed and livable gated communities that surround this particular site. In some manner you have to account for them. Are they seasonal? Apparently so. But we really don't know what their pattern of residence is and won't know that until about 18 months from now when the census to be conducted six months from now -- Page 63 October 29,2009 (Microphone interference.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's take a couple minutes and stop the recording while we figure out what's wrong. Break for a minute or two. (Recess.) MR. COHEN: Mics are back on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was the county attorney's fault. MR. COHEN: That was the timer going off, letting Chuck know that his time was up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, as soon as Kady gets back across the hall, we'll get back on the record. So let's give her a minute or two -- or a second or two. Okay, everyone, let's go back on record. We found the mystery noise, whatever it was. And Chuck, sorry for the interruption. MR. MOHLKE: Not at all, Mr. Chairman, this reminds me a little bit of an extemporaneous speaking contest that I was in in high school in which the recess bell rang right in the middle of my remarks, and I just paused briefly and as soon as the bell stopped started again. And the judges in that favored that approach, apparently, and I was accused of one of my fellow contestants of timing this so that I would appear at the time of the recess bell and give me some sort of interim advantage. I hope it gives me an interim advantage with you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The story will, anyway. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Good story, thank you. MR. MOHLKE: Well, it just occurred to me, that happened 55 years ago. So my memory is, shall we say, durable on issues like that. Mr. Chairman and members, in dealing with some of these challenges, we chose to take two approaches. We knew that we had to account appropriately and in detail. And that's why Mr. Kolflat's questions interested me. And if you choose later in the discussion to Page 64 October 29,2009 know exactly what's on each one of those parcels, the square feet, the acreage and many of the uses, we could provide that information. Probably not appropriate to introduce it now, but we could at any time that you choose, including a density calculation in which we compare square feet per acre and have that calculation included in some material which we shared with Mr. Schmitt and with Mr. Weeks. We chose, because of the unique character of this site, to take account of the fact that there is about a 1.9 center mile road length between the edge of the site and Vanderbilt Beach Road extension that has exit points only for the future at Saturnia Lakes and currently, not an egress -- an egress point only at Island Walk. And then to ask ourselves the question, can we fairly extend that further to include parcels of land south of Vanderbilt Beach Road. We chose to include them. And as you can tell from the material which is provided in the market study, we tried to count them only as secondary trade areas and not as fundamental to the analysis as the area immediately surrounding. We had to deal with the issue of access points. Many of the related communities do not access directly near this site, but we have to account for them. And the staff in a very forthcoming way dealt in detail using the surrounding lands analysis, which they put into the staff report, to tell you at some considerable length what existed between Collier Boulevard/951 and the interstate. They however did, in an abundance of caution, I think, provided a radial three-mile analysis, which included many developed, but also some undeveloped properties, which are west of the interstate. It struck us that that was a comparison that was instructive but ought not to be crucial in any decision that you make as to whether or not that is fairly competitive with an enterprise or enterprises that might be located at this particular subject property that we are talking about. We believe that when you account for the regular and what we Page 65 October 29,2009 call the functional population, including seasonal residents, that the resident population of the area, both the primary and the secondary market area, somewhat exceeds 26,000 persons. To make a determination about whether or not that number of persons could equate to a per square foot analysis of what could be permitted at this site or in sites that surround it, we came up with a calculation under the old analysis, when we were looking at the possibility of a community shopping center, of something in excess of 222,000 square feet. That recalculation is yet to be. And we stand ready to assist this Planning Commission and the staff in adapting the report that you have before you for that purpose. We have added features to a summary of the staff report, which we thought well done and appropriate to the information needs of the Planning Commission. Some very detailed look at their identified areas and surrounding lands that have commercial enterprises located in them. You've seen their calculations as to mileage. We agree with all of those calculations. And actually, we came up with a number of acres and square feet of commercial that exceeded the analysis that the staff provided. And that material is available to Mr. Weeks and Mr. Schmitt. And Mr. Chairman, I could give that to you now, if you wanted to circulate it. But we thought it would not be fair to suddenly impose upon the Planning Commission brand new analyses that you have had but a modest chance to look at, if any. And we thought it appropriate first to give that to the professional staff so that they might then make their own assessment. What their recommendation upon looking at that material will be to you, I don't know. Let me add one thing that we did add to the analysis because of the enhanced role of office space at this particular site. And we could discuss this in whatever detail you, Mr. Chairman, and your members decide to. Page 66 October 29, 2009 But if we were to take a typical example of the way in which a calculation of need is made, you'd look at what is readily available from the property appraiser for the year 2008 that would tell you that in Collier County there are 435 acres devoted to office space. And that office space occupies somewhat in excess of 4,900,000 square feet. If you divide that out against the population, you'll get first of all an acreage calculation on land zoned for office of about 11,000 square feet per acre. But the more important consideration is the population. If you divide the population for 1980 (sic) of something in excess of 332,000 persons against the 4,900,000 square feet, you come up with a per capita average of 14.73 square feet per person. That would equate in this market area to something in excess of 332,000 square feet of office. In the area that -- best of our ability, and we stand to be corrected by professional staff, there is only 8.55 percent of that represented in the trade area that we have proposed to you. Now, we could do while I'm standing here endless examples of this kind of comparison of population to existing need, but I don't know that that's in the interest of the Planning Commission or the public, But we're prepared to do that, if you direct us to. Mr. Chairman, I think I probably exhausted my time. I don't think the recess bell is going to ring again, but I'm ready for it if it does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a good way to look at it. We never thought of it as a recess bell, but good point. Are there any questions from the marketing perspective at this time of Mr. Mohlke? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I do have questions, but I'd ra-- more in line of trying to understand why staff saw your document in the way they did. So I'm going to really defer my questions to be Page 67 October 29,2009 more effective when we get our chance to talk with staff. MR. MOHLKE: Mr. Chairman, I thank you and members. We'll be available for whenever you choose to call on us again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant's team? I'm assuming, Richard, you've call all your team members you want to speak at this point? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. And we have Reed here to answer transportation questions, if you might have some of those. I would just point out to what Mr. Wolfley brought up about having full access. I think under the current transportation standards as far as what would qualify as access, I'm not sure that any of the activity centers now would qualify to have a full access, because I think you have to be at least a half a mile away. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I thought it was a quarter. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think it's a half a mile for full -- half a mile for signal. It's a half a mile to get a signalized access point. And I don't think they'll give you any if you're on a -- and most of these roads are all six lanes now, so I'm not sure you can even get an un-signalized access point on -- a full opening on a six-lane road anymore. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. Well, then along those lines, Rich, what are your plans? How do you plan for someone to get to Island Walk from here? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we're-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Not to but from here to Island Walk. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know that any future project, unless you're going to buy a half of a mile worth of frontage on any future activity center that you're going to be able to do that. We're going to be stuck with the norm being U-turns. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I thought it was 1,320 feet. Page 68 October 29,2009 Because we dealt with -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: On a four-lane we could, But on six we won't. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: We dealt with this on a development just south on Collier Boulevard. But I don't want to get into that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, right. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And that whole issue was -- I had that same issue there, and it exists today. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we may have to work with our neighbor to the south -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: South to get -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- to get an access easement to go further south when that situation comes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Would be a little bit over 1,800. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And we wouldn't be technically right on the number, but we'd be pretty close, I believe, on the -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I don't think a six-lane is in the -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right, I think -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- 10 or 20-year plan, I don't know. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, quarter mile for a four-lane, so I think it's roughly 1,300 feet. So we'd have to work with our neighbor to the south. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Exac -- that was going to be my point. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Rich, this easement thing, it runs all the way behind this property, it runs behind the piece of property that you're dropping from this application? Page 69 October 29,2009 MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it enters that other property to the east of that; is that right? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It goes across from a west to east. From -- it goes across the little triangular piece, then goes across our boundary of our property, and then to the property to our east and the property to the east of that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the property to your east, is that by the same ownership or is that another owner who's dropping out of the application? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, it's another owner who's dropping out of the application. What happened was is the eight acres to our immediate east and the 15 acres which is the nursery and landscape business are owned by the same people. Not titled the same way, but owned by the same people. So they've dropped out of the application. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, before we go to staff, are there any questions of the applicant any further at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, we'll take the staff report. David, that means you or Randy or whoever you want, Corby? MR. WEEKS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure if we have a staff presentation. Ours is based on the original submittal. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right. MR. WEEKS: And the petition has changed significantly today. I won't say staff was unaware of the change through verbal communications and including Corby's attendance at the informal NIM that was held Monday evening of this week, staff became aware of the verbal intent to make a change. But we have not received any application materials, we've not received data and analysis. And I know Rich has a response to some of what I'm saying, but Page 70 October 29,2009 the fact is we don't have the changed materials. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is the staff report, Richard. So go ahead, David. MR. WEEKS: We did receive Mr. Mohlke's response to the staff report market study portion this morning, but I submit that that's not adequate time for us to review and digest that. The short of it is though staff has had because of the verbal communications some time to prepare, I think it would be appropriate to continue this and would suggest to the November 19th hearing. That would give staff time to receive the materials from the petitioner, review those and then write a new staff report and present it to this body. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Weare going to go through with our questions as we typically do and hear from the public, and we'll take all of your recommendations into consideration, and that includes the recommendation, if one is to consider, and we'll just see how far it goes by the end of the meeting. But Randy? MR. COHEN: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I also wanted to add, I know Mr. Y ovanovich, he discussed some data and analysis that was presented last week, which we would like to take a look at as well too in conjunction with this particular petition, as well as some vacancy rates. Because we haven't -- you know, it was mentioned but we haven't seen that data or analysis. Also, I think it's probably appropriate for the County Attorney's Office to review the access easement that was discussed here as well too to ascertain whether or not it's for ingress and egress as well as public utilities as well, just to make sure that we cover all our bases. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, you want to move forward? MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioners, given the situation where we have new information being presented to us only at the beginning of this hearing Page 71 October 29, 2009 and the significant changes being made to the application, I don't find it useful to make a presentation at this time. So if you've got questions on the portions of the staff report that might still be applicable, I'd accept and answer those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Corby, how many reports or how many presentations from the agent did you get relative to this subject? I mean, how long have you been studying it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When did the application first become submitted and how many times have you responded going back and forth with the applicant, I think that's -- MR. SCHMIDT: Yes, I believe -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Well, I'd like to know the intensity of the interchange. MR. SCHMIDT: Yes, there were at least three rounds of sufficiency in which both the traffic impact study and the market conditions study were found insufficient for one reason or another. And as time grew tight, even though some of those insufficiencies still remained, there was no time left and we had to move on to substantive review. So at least three. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of staff? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me just ask. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Corby, has staff done not any applications specific, but have they done any analysis of what uses should occur on this corner? MR. SCHMIDT: Insofar as the uses that are already permitted there by both planning and zoning, certainly. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And what are they? They're agricultural, right? I mean, the question I'm asking is what we do here Page 72 October 29, 2009 is do gatekeeper zoning where the applicant wants to do something, but is there any kind of planning within the department that analyzes these corners prior to an applicant -- MR. SCHMIDT: Analysis that analyzes corners prior to applications? I don't believe so. We have hundreds of corners and we'd be spending our time doing that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we don't have planning studies as future uses until an applicant arrives at the gate and we decide to let them go or not. MR. SCHMIDT: That's a different question. MR. WEEKS: The short answer is no, we don't. We're not studying intersections for land uses by our department. The opportunity to do so would be through an EAR process, but even that is typically not to that detailed level. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But in response to Brad's question, though, you did do that at the time we initiated our comprehensive plan for Collier County. That's how we originated with our activity centers and how we decided to place them. The reason I know that, I was involved in it back then, so -- MR. WEEKS: Certainly back with the original establishment of the adoption of the plan in 1989, the time period leading up to that. During the 1996 EAR, evaluation and appraisal report process, the opportunity was there. Again, I would not say that staff or the public went to the level of detail of looking at each intersection or each major intersection throughout the urbanized area, but the opportunity at least was there for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I just didn't want the impression to be that we never thought of a master plan in the community. We have. It just isn't done on a regular continuing basis. It was done initially, and then we've been living with it since, so -- MR. SCHMIDT: And certainly, Mr. Chair-- Page 73 October 29,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat -- oh. MR. SCHMIDT: -- if I may continue that thought, I was asked about this specific location and the uses already permitted either by our comprehensive plan or by the zoning. And that's part of your staff report, but I will answer. The land use designation allows for the residential development of the site, a variety of community facility uses: Recreation and open spaces, institutional uses such as child care facilities, churches, other places of worship, assisted living facilities, adult care facilities, nursing homes, other senior living facilities, social and fraternal organizations, public and private schools, a variety of agricultural uses and essential services. So there's no lack of viable uses for the piece of property. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But it's zoned agricultural and those are uses within the agricultural zone; is that right? MR. SCHMIDT: That is. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. MR. WEEKS: Excuse me, some of those uses that Corby identified would be allowed under the agricultural zoning by right or by conditional use. Most particularly in mentioning residential development, that would require a rezone -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. WEEKS: -- to allow higher density. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, but this is a hearing on growth management, is it not? It's not a hearing on PUD. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of staff? Page 74 October 29,2009 (No response,) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, I need to understand some of the comments you made in your original staff report on Page 8. You have a paragraph titled defining a support area for analysis. And your staff -- it says staff notes that the geography of the support area is not the typical radial measurement, nor is it the road mileage distance mirroring expected traffic patterns. It is a support area approximately seven miles long by approximately 2.5 miles wide. How did you come to that conclusion? I've got -- I mean, I may have been looking, we got so many documents. This is the document that I thought was the support area document. This is apparently not? MR. SCHMIDT: One of the colors on that image does show you the support area as presented by the applicants, yes. The study that the staff performed was really two-tiered. Because we often see radial studies, it's typical that we see gravity studies. We see road distances used as bases for your market areas. We saw none these. But we thought it was useful to show you at least the large three-mile diameter -- or I'm sorry, radius -- around the subject property that was typical. And that's your yellow circle on that diagram or your image. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you put this on the overhead. MR. SCHMIDT: I can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I'd like you to show us what the applicant's market area was and what you were trying to say in that statement you made. There you go, Now, the circle I guess then is staffs; is that correct? MR. SCHMIDT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where is the applicant's? What is the applicant's -- I think I know what you're going to tell us, but I'd like you to define it for the record. MR. SCHMIDT: With the exception of some existing Page 75 October 29,2009 commercial colors or communities being highlighted, it's that light green-colored market area, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the applicant believes the market area goes from looks like the north Collier line all the way down to Pine Ridge Road. And that's the two and a half mile by seven mile longitudinal reference you made up and down? MR, SCHMIDT: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And typically staff uses a circular radius like you've shown on here for yours? Is that how it should have been analyzed from your perspective? MR. SCHMIDT: Technically staff doesn't use any of those, but what we're used to seeing from market analysts or other professionals, our radial measurements are something more similar, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any reason why it's better to go with a radial analysis over the applicant's analysis? And again, I understand the answer, what you're probably going to say, but I'd like to get it on record as to why you saw it this way. Because I read your report and it wasn't as clear. Do you feel the circle is a better depiction of the market and the commercial needs in the area or lack of needs in the area than the one that they had presented or used? MR. SCHMIDT: We don't necessarily agree that their choice of a market area is better than ours, but I couldn't say for sure that ours is better than theirs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, you seem to prefer one over the other. And I was looking for your reasons for preference, that's all. Does anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yeah, I just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- have one on that one. Maybe you know, Corby, maybe I know, we'll find out. Page 76 October 29,2009 My understanding of large corporations who are in the business of doing these things typically use the radius as a form just because it talks about travel distances. It's a capture rate, so to speak. And isn't that what is more like tradition than anything else? MR. SCHMIDT: Well, it's traditional because it best represents a market area generally. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Probabilities, yeah, and that's it. And I find that the -- it's kind of interesting the market approach that goes all the way down to Pine Ridge. That stretches in my mind. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Corby, on Page 10 you have a second paragraph on there that reads, of particular interest is the study's use of data on Tables 3.2. and 3.03, which includes TAZs located outside the proposed sub-district support area. Of the more than 240 acres listed, only 80 acres lie inside the support area. Can you explain that? MR. SCHMIDT: I can somewhat. But because much of our information in the market study that was examined by staff was mismatched or different subsets of one another and not apples to apples as we usually see. This was a situation where they were showing us information from one study area or selection and not representing it as the subset we were looking at. Here is something that they've included additional acreage outside their own study area, and we don't know if there was a necessity or intent there or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In this study area that you have on the screen, at the intersection of Immokalee Road and 951 there's a large activity center. But from the indications -- from the indications you're giving, they wouldn't have considered that in their analysis because it's outside that green area; is that a fair statement? MR. SCHMIDT: That's correct. They selected their market area without that portion of it involved. Page 77 October 29,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let me make sure I don't have any other questions of staff. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But that activity center is still existent there, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. My next questions would be of transportation. So anybody else have any questions of Corby before he departs momentarily? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you very much, Corby. MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Richard, I know that by your mannerisms you're anxious. You'll have to wait. And as soon as we finish with staff, you can have a moment to discuss whatever it is you want to do. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, if I could just quickly put on the record that the exhibit on the visualizer is from the -- it's an attachment to the staff report which is in your binders. I just want to get that on the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hi, John. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Good morning. John Podczerwinsky, Transportation, for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you had time to review enough of either what we had been presented with or the previous one to know where your department's position would be on access to Immokalee Road from this property? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: No, we have not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that was my main concern. Okay. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: But the information you had received before and have analyzed led you to a conclusion, did it not? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, it did. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: What was that conclusion? Page 78 October 29, 2009 MR. PODCZERWINSKY: The previous conclusion was that we did not favor access on Immokalee Road. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is -- by not favoring access, is that the same as having the ability to deny access? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Not in particular, no. We were going to recommend against it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And your reasons for recommending against it? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Distance to the intersection and the impacts on the functional operation of the intersection were part of the reasoning for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the best they could hope for if it was in would be right in/right out? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes. Now, when I read the staff report, this following appeared in there: Adjacent roadway network will not be able to accommodate traffic that will be provided by the proj ect. Do you recall that? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Was that from transportation's statement, sir? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: That was from the staff report, our staff report. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I don't recall it offhand, but-- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Could you verify that? Because I believe it was from the transportation probably originally, but it was quoted in the staff report. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I can check on it. MR. COHEN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: It was a rather unequivocal Page 79 October 29, 2009 statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page are you on, Tor? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Commissioner Kolflat, it may be in relation to the current status of Immokalee Road, which is under a policy constrain at the moment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's get this page, we can put it on the screen, then you can take a quick look at it and resolve it real fast. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Sure. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Page 12? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Someone's saying page -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Corby, can you help me on this? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Corby. Can he help me locate this in the staff report. MR. WEEKS: Is this it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 12. You may find it on Page 12, Tor. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It's page 12, number one in bold, transportation planners. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Page 12, up at the top under one. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Mr. Kolflat, yes, that is our language, transportation's language, COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And that was your recommendation? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of transportation at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: John, I noticed you've changed a bit since we've seen you last. Congratulations. The key to it is not to Page 80 October 29,2009 shave so much and trim it so much, but let it grow out much thicker. MR. PODCZERWINSKY: Thank you, sir, I'll keep that in mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions of staff at this time? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, transportation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, sorry, gentlemen, more. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Do you have any suggestions for their ingress and egress? MR. PODCZERWINSKY: At this point, no. We need to analyze this a little bit further -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Flyover. I'm sure they'd be happy to give you a fly over. All right, thanks. MR, PODCZERWINSKY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Richard, if you wanted to jump up and say something real quick before we go to the public to -- you were all anxious there for a minute. I don't mean to cut you offbut everybody gets their turn, so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I do have to address a comment that was made about the lateness of the change. And I think David will confirm that I did call David probably well over a month ago and said, David, I would like to modify the request to reduce the acreage and the square footage we're requesting and provide the modified request. And I was told that if I did that I would be taken out of this cycle, placed into the next cycle and I would -- my client would be allowed to pay another application fee. And I said, but what happens if I make the change at the Planning Commission? He said, that can happen. So it wasn't because I didn't want to give staff the information ahead of time to give them an opportunity to analyze it. What I would request is that -- I don't have an objection to going Page 81 October 29,2009 to November 19th. But I do request that staff review the information, and we're prepared to give it to them immediately, and we have given them the revised traffic analysis. We will give them the revised market study that will simply reduce the square footage, because we analyzed much more square footage than we're now requesting. I will give them the access easement. All I simply request is that they actually review it, interact with us as to what further questions they mayor may not have with that prior to writing a staff report so we can discuss professionally any other revisions or concerns that they may have. And we would be happy to move to November 19th, ifit will give the Planning Commission the benefit of the staff analysis. And again, it's not because we didn't want to give them the information ahead of time. We were prepared to give it, in fact have given it and were told it will not be reviewed. Specially the traffic we were told it will not be reviewed because of it not being provided sooner. So that's my request. Hear the public, they're here, or ask them to come back, either way, But I would request that since staff is now saying they haven't had a chance to analyze it and they're requesting a continuance to November 19th to do so, we would agree to that continuance. I think it's fair to us and I think it's fair to staff and I think it's fair to the public to have that analysis done. But I didn't like the way it was portrayed as if we just simply sprung it on staff. And maybe I'm the only one that took it that way, but it just seemed -- it seemed to be -- that's the way I took it, as if we didn't try. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First of all, we're going to go through the day like we had planned. We're going to hear the public and hearing everything everybody says. At the end of that, we may decide that we have a position or not or we may decide that a continuance is the best idea. But we're going Page 82 October 29,2009 to wait and hear that first. But in regard to the possibility of a continuance, David or Randy or Joe, if anybody wouldn't mind e-mailing Ray Bellows and trying to find out from him how booked up November 19th is already so that we know what we've got dealing with us, Okay, Mr. Schmidt will take care of it. And then at the end of all of our discussions today we'll have a discussion about whether or not it even needs to go that far. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And if you'll allow me briefly to let Reed come up on the transportation issues? Or do you want to wait until after the public -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'd rather the public heard everything that your group has to say as well so that when they come up and speak to us they have all that into consideration as well. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, because I would like Reed to come up and tell you what his analysis is, now that it's 80,000 square feet of retail and 40,000 square feet of office, and the functionality of the intersection and functionality of Immokalee Road. I think that would be beneficial. Now, staff obviously will not have had an opportunity to review Reed's information, but at least you'll have the benefit of his analysis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. And we'll hear Reed then in just a moment. I want to ask David one question. Because something you said, I'm not sure it coincides with what David had intended. And since he's busy talking to Corby, maybe Randy can answer me. And Randy's not even there. I thought he -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: He's on the phone. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: He's on the phone on the floor. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: He's on the floor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, he is? Boy, he sure gets small quickly. Page 83 October 29,2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He's ducking your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN : You had previously I thought made a suggestion that if we wanted to consider this you would try your best if it was continued to November 19th to review it. I didn't -- is that a request of your department or is that just something you're suggesting if we want to see this -- if we think there's some reason to consider this? MR. WEEKS: If you want to entertain the changes that have been presented today, we would -- staff would request a continuance to give us time to evaluate it. Which would be very limited. We're talking about five or six work days to evaluate this and write a new staff report, revised staff report, and provide it to you. If you don't wish to entertain these changes, then we stand by our existing staff report and recommendation. And also, just to quickly respond to Richard's comment, not to get the back and forth but just to say as far as the working with the applicant, again because there's only about six days before we would need to get staff report out to you, that does not leave us time to work back and forth. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MR. WEEKS: Regrettably. Because we -- staff doesn't disagree that there is a benefit of having that dialogue, but you need to have this a week or more in advance, November 11 th is a holiday, we're just tight on time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I kind of anticipated that would be the outcome anyway, so -- MR. COHEN: But Mr. Chairman, at the same time, we would commit to obviously meeting with them initially right afterwards to ensure that we've got the totality of what they're submitting, you know, and that we would be reviewing it accordingly. Page 84 October 29,2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And then Reed wanted to come up? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. That's what I was asking -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Your presentation was previously finished. Let's just keep this to the point and we'll go on after that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm just going to call Reed up, that's all I was simply going to do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir, Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Is this not a question also whether there's sufficient information that already has been submitted to make a decision? And perhaps the information we have is sufficient to make a decision. That's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that's what-- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: -- no need to stretch this out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the discussion we can have when we get done hearing the public. We can have all those discussions, Mr. Kolflat, absolutely. Okay, Reed, go right ahead. MR. JARVI: My name is Reed Jarvi. I'm a professional engineer with Omega Consulting Group. I did the second and third -- or I guess it's the third and fourth traffic impact statements for this project, being the one previous was the 260,000, the 41-acre parcel and then a more recent one beginning of October for the new program of 80,000 of retail and 40,000 office. And just to highlight that, we responded in our TIS to the comments from the staff in this new program, and I'll just highlight those, as the main issue seems to be Immokalee Road at the intersection, as John said, that is a policy constrained road, I think. Is that the right words? Policy constrained in that we are required to look at it as a four-lane road, which was previous to the six-lane Page 85 October 29,2009 construction, which is -- and then the now eight-lane construction that's currently under construction. So with that data today, this segment of the road is over capacity. And with our project -- with this project it would be further over capacity. However, that segment of roadway, the I - 7 5 interchange area which is going to eight-lane and will have some kind of modified six or eight-lane capacity in the future, that is scheduled for completion the end of this year, first of next year. So it's soon, well before this project could ever possibly put any traffic on the road. With that said, I've discussed the potential capacities with Mike Green at transportation planning, and using his numbers or using the numbers that were there previous to the -- excuse me, the capacity numbers previous to the policy constraint, that segment of Immokalee Road does function within standards, or will function within standards, projected to function standards, with or without this project. So Immokalee Road does not seem to be the answer -- does not seem to be an issue from a concurrency standpoint in the near future. Currently, yes. Near future, no. We've also looked at the intersection that was mentioned that -- with all the U-turns at the intersection. I have done the analysis looking at 2015 as a threshold year, and used only the only in access on Logan Boulevard being that anything that would go east would have -- excuse me, everything would have to come out of Logan Boulevard, go north and do either a right turn, left turn or U-turn, and some northbound. With that in mind and putting in the projected number from today, we did a count about two weeks ago, three weeks ago, projected that to peak season as we normally do, projected it to 2015 as we normally do, put in the vested trips that are already out there, put in our project trips. It does work within level of service standards. That's the intersection using all the U-turns at that intersection; so Page 86 October 29,2009 northbound to southbound U-turns. Assuming there is no left out of the project. Also assumes there's no access on Immokalee Road, which is, you know, the most conservative situation. As John said, they are not saying necessarily no to an Immokalee Road access, it's just not their preference at this time. My estimation is having a right in/right out on Immokalee Road would probably benefit this project and the traffic circulation in that area. The last thing we did look at, there was a statement that was highlighted here, I think it was Page 12, that talked about the project doesn't meet the standards with -- and I'm paraphrasing -- vested project in zoned trips. As you may remember when we've gone through the TIS guidelines several years ago, there was nothing about zoned trips. It is impossible to know what the zoned trips would be. We do a growth rate, we do the AUIR trip bank, the vested trips, yes. We don't do zone trips. However, I did talk to staff about a long-range forecast, 2013, and they have -- the most recent numbers are from the interchange justification report at the I-75 intersection -- or excuse me, potential interchange. They gave me numbers for that for 2025 and 2035, which we equated to 2030 looking at long-range projections. It still doesn't meet the -- what is assumed to be the standards of Immokalee Road in the future. So in a nutshell it appears with this new project, all the projections I've done show that it does fall within what we think the future standards of Immokalee Road will be. And that ends my presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you started I knew that you would not be agreeing with staff, so thank you for your discussion. Go ahead, Mr. Murray. Page 87 October 29,2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Reed, irrespective of whether you have sufficient availability on the roadway, on the Immokalee entrance is there room for a de-cel. lane? MR. JARVI: Yeah, I don't have the exact frontage in front of me, but I think it's about 700 feet, if I remember right, on Immokalee Road. A typical de-cel. lane would be, for 45 miles an hour is 185 feet, I think. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Because I can't imagine with a 45 mile an hour road that you'd be inviting traffic at 90-degree angle turns in there. That certainly wouldn't be something. MR. JARVI: It's six or 700 feet. So there is adequate room to put a turn lane. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So the property that we're talking about that we were shown would also probably have to be given up in order to facilitate that. But that's another matter. Logan, assuming you cannot make a left out of that easement over into Logan, you spoke of U-turns. And I don't know, sure it can be qualified, but do they do U-turns at major intersections? MR. JARVI: Yes, sir. In fact, the -- as we talked just briefly about, most any major intersection has U-turns at it right now. There are some that actually prevent U-turns. There are some -- and that's because of the phasing of the signals. But almost every intersection in the urban area has U-turns. And with the access management plan we have now in place, as Rich alluded to briefly, it almost requires U-turns. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Really? MR. JARVI: Because as we said, the intersection spacing with the access management plan, because the speed limits are deemed to be high speed, the division is 45 miles an hour, and almost all of our six-lane roads are 45 mile an hour speed limits. So that's deemed to be high speed. That intersection spacing for a six-lane road is for signals half a mile. For a full access it's a quarter mile. However, realistically Page 88 October 29,2009 you can't do a full access on a six-lane road, or you shouldn't, because it's an issue. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right, I appreciate your answer, but I'm having a hard time appreciating how this project could even capture -- adequately capture any traffic going eastbound on Immokalee or people coming up from the area that was shown as the market area, in effect without being trapped in traffic situations that probably would require some significant changes to the intersection to allow all those U-turns. MR. JARVI: The intersection currently has two northbound left turn lanes, and the left most of the left turn lanes would be the U-turn could be a left. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wait a minute, orient me correctly. Which intersection -- which road on the intersection? MR. JARVI: Logan Boulevard. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. JARVI: The northbound approach on Logan has -- was constructed when they recently did Logan and Immokalee Road for an ultimate configuration, which has two northbound left-turn lanes, two through lanes and a right-turn lane, So it's an ultimate configuration for that intersection. In fact, maybe something that wasn't brought out, Logan Boulevard in general in this area is a two-lane road, but the intersection is set -- is done for four lanes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But I'm confused, because there is no light there, right? MR. JARVI: No, there is a signal there. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There is a signal. I'm not obviously seeing that. MR. JARVI: It's fairly new. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. JARVI: But there is a signal there now, and it does Page 89 October 29,2009 accommodate U-turns currently. In our situation we would anticipate more than likely there could be left turn out of this access, but when there's a four-lane configuration, there more likely will not be left turn out because the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I hear you. And maybe if I get to talk to John again, I'm going to ask him whether or not they intend to permit a continuation of U-turns at an intersection which is going to be intense with all the people going home and after work and so forth. But maybe it's moot, I don't know, I'm going to find out. MR. JARVI: When we did our count, I don't have it in front of me, but there were a few U-turns at that intersection. I think it was more the east-west direction than north-south, but there were a few U-turns, not many. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now I'd like to go to public speakers, unless there's any other questions from the Planning Commission. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. David, do you want -- Randy, do you want to call public speakers. And then anybody that hasn't submitted a slip, we will still ask you to come up. Please identify yourself and state your address for the record, including your zip code. That way if any mailings have to be sent out, we have it on record. And we ask that you try to limit your discussion to five minutes, but that's not a hard fast rule. Just if you're not repetitive that's the best thing we can ask for. MR. COHEN: JoAnne Day, followed by Gary Lusher. MS. DAY: Hello. I'll try and be brief. My name is JoAnne Day. I live on Khasia Point in Saturnia Lakes. First I think it's disingenuous for the developers to say that most are in favor of this project. I've been to both of the community Page 90 October 29,2009 meetings. I have seen one person who is in favor of it locally, and one who comes in and speaks for the developer. So that to me -- unless I'm unaware of somebody else, I don't know, maybe I was sleeping. So anyway, first of all, when you -- I'm not telling you anything you don't know. When you look at the photos, when you look at the aerials, you see Olde Cypress, Longshore Lakes, Saturnia Lakes, the new Saturnia Falls, which is right across the nice green area, they're all residential. Logan, down Logan, all residential, no commercial. This developer must prove a need for a change in the development area. There is no need for commercial and retail space here, not in the middle of thousands of residential homes. There's already an abundance of empty store fronts locally. Within a quarter of a mile there's empty store fronts; across from Gulf Coast High School there's empty store fronts, down Immokalee there's empty store fronts. It's unbelievable, as you well know. I'm not telling anybody anything they don't know. And Target as well. So what we have are two large areas, commercial areas, on either end. We have the Target area and then we have the Immokalee and Collier area that are large commercial areas with also large areas for growth, So those are there as well. Then we have what you all were just discussing which is the traffic pattern at Logan and Immokalee. And I would love people to come at rush hour and try and take a U-turn, follow the traffic up north coming to go to 75. It will-- it's getting worse, It will become a nightmare. When you see people trying to cross that road to get into say a Lowe's or a Home Depot or a gas station, it will become a real nightmare for a traffic pattern, there is no question. I mean, it's asking for problems that we don't need at this point. I mean, there's just plenty of other areas that are more easily accessible to have. Plus the idea of tractor trailers coming into that small area doing U-turns where they cannot do them will be a very interesting exercise. I'll be anxious to see them. Page 91 October 29,2009 So anyway, we also believe and are concerned in our community that the commercial space can become an attractive nuisance for the high school, which is very close by, the students walk, and the elementary school, which is right next to the high school there. So, you know, we have a lot of school age children that walk right around the corner there. And if we put in some commercial properties that we -- could be an attractive nuisance, we could have some problems there as well, everybody knows that. Anyway, it's my opinion, as well as many of my neighbors, that this project does not belong here. We agree with staff recommendation that it really belongs elsewhere. We hope that you agree as well, and we thank you for time and effort. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, please? MR. COHEN: Gary Lusher, followed by Mary Jane Cary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Cherie', we doing okay here? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, thank you. MR. LUSHER: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, for the record, my name's Gary Lusher. I'm a resident of Olde Cypress, I live at 3080 Terramar Drive in Olde Cypress. The zip code is 34119, I'm here today on behalf of the Olde Cypress Master Property Owners Association board of directors. I serve on that board. And I would like to enter into the record a correspondence that we drafted for Mr. Schmidt with the comprehensive planning department related to this petition. And I'll read it to be very succinct. On behalf of the Olde Cypress Master Property Owners Association, please accept this letter as notification of our objection to the amendment of the Collier County Growth Management Plan to remove the property urban residential sub-district designation to establish the Logan/Immokalee mixed use sub-district. Our intent is not to impede commercial development on Immokalee Road. But we feel that there are more than adequate Page 92 October 29,2009 established commercial sites and opportunities available both east and west of the property under consideration that should accommodate commercial expansion for many years into the future. We have also taken into consideration several additional factors that may become issues, should the petition be approved, which are as follows: A commercial development entry to the property just east of the Logan BoulevardlImmokalee Road intersection will affect the traffic flow through the intersection, The need for a turn lane will also add to this specific problem. The existing developments to the north and east of the property were developed with specific intent to maintain a gated residential community signature and esthetic appearance. This was intended to maintain value, desirability and attractiveness of the respective communities. As a community, Olde Cypress is uncomfortable with the unknown commercial interest complementing what now exists. The renderings provided by the agents for the petitioner at the information meeting held on October 26th show retail and office space that was substantially blocked from view from both Logan Boulevard and Immokalee Road. Although only an opinion, it would appear that retail establishments would have little use for space without maximum visibility to the public. Agents for the petitioner named at least two projects in Collier County where mixed use sub-districts have been established. A brief examination of those will reveal the presence of significant commercial activities in the immediate proximity prior to the change of designation. There is none at this location. Agents for the petitioner related that independent study revealed the highest and best use for the property as commercial. Although this results in more taxable value, it does nothing to preserve the general scheme of the established residential communities. Future traffic demands related to the four-lane expansion of Page 93 October 29,2009 Logan Boulevard and the continuation of Logan Boulevard north of Immokalee Road to Bonita Beach Road also is of concern based on increased traffic and egress issues for southbound travel from Olde Cypress and any additional communities north of Olde Cypress. Presently two large residential developments are planned, Thank you in advance for your consideration, and please contact our association president, should you have additional questions. Thank you very much for your time and attention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. COHEN: Mary Jane Cary, followed by WalterCary. MS. CARY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Mary Jane Cary. I'm a small business owner and a property owner in Saturnia Lakes PUD. I live at 2073 Painted Palm Drive, Naples, Florida, 34119. In order to understand an issue, I like to gather the facts from all the parties involved and make observations. So for this project I need facts from the developers, as well as from Collier County. So what data have I found? From the developers, I gathered an April, 2007 aerial map with the original40-acre proposed project. Well, I was out of town for the first neighborhood information meeting but attended the second one October 26th, where I saw an aerial map of the proposed 18-acre proj ect. I saw three proposed conceptual designs, even though the developer said, quote, the client hasn't seen them, unquote. Regarding building heights, I heard the developer say, quote, nothing would be taller than two-story, unquote. I also heard the developer say that the county's commercial planning projections are wrong, but were any facts, analyses or reports provided? No. Was any traffic analysis or reports provided? No. My husband requested a copy of the revised traffic analysis from Page 94 October 29,2009 the developer. Have we received it yet? No. Now, this morning I did hear some new information. But I'm hoping that some facts and analyses and reports will become more available. Moving on. What kind of county data have I found? From Collier County I found zoning maps, land use maps, ownership records. I found the current Land Development Code with its descriptions and permitted uses for agricultural and Estates districts, PUDs and C-l through C-4 commercial zones. I found Exhibit A for the proposed BCC ordinance, along with the county's planning staff analysis report for the original 40-acre project. And I started to notice that the staff analysis report matches some of my observations. I live surrounded by Estates and single-family homes, There are commercial centers within one to two miles at the I-75 and the Collier Boulevard intersections, and traffic in those areas seems to flow in, out and through those areas, you know, as kind of as if it were planned. These areas have several empty store fronts and there are also open undeveloped areas in those centers for future use, There are two smaller commercial districts within a half to three quarters -- or two-thirds of a mile at Quail Creek and Olde Cypress. These smaller districts have even more empty store fronts. And they have some additional open space for future use. And look at the parking lots of all these commercial centers. They're a third full, which means they're two-thirds empty. So maybe the county staff conclusion that we have three times the commercial space we need in the area now seems kind of reasonable? In fact, given the amount of own space awaiting future development in all of these existing centers, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that the needs ofthe current and projected population in this area through even probably 2030 can probably be Page 95 October 29,2009 met through the continuation of the existing Collier County Growth Management Plan. So where is the compelling argument in favor of modifying the zoning of this property? Has anybody seen any compelling data in the developer's analysis or reports? Because I really haven't seen any in the county's data, analysis or reports. So at this point I'm willing to abide by the recommendations contained in the staff report submitted to this commission for the October 19th, 2009 meeting. For under these circumstances, I'd rather walk or drive just a little bit further like I'm doing right now east or west on Immokalee Road or to points even further away from my home than live with a constant reminder of another developer's unsubstantiated dream. Thank you for your consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And just before the next speaker I want to make a note to the Planning Commission. We're going to be up for a break or for lunch in about five or 10 minutes. I'll ask you all when we get to that point if we want to continue through and finish this, because I think we can, rather than take a lunch break today, but at least we'll have to gave Cherie' a break at about 11 -- well, that clock says 10:45, but -- so until then we'll continue with the public. Next speaker, please. MR. COHEN: Walter Cary, followed by Sally Kirk. MR. CAR Y: Good morning, almost to be good afternoon. I'm Walt Cary. I live in Saturnia Lakes on Painted Palm Drive, I have talked to several of my neighbors in the last few days about this planned project, and most of them have stated exactly what the prior speakers have stated, that they feel that there's enough commercial endeavors within our ability to drive in a short time that another commercial site is not really needed. And I go along with that. A commercial site would add a Page 96 October 29, 2009 considerable amount of more nighttime lighting in the area that's reflected up. It would damage our quality of life. We all like to sit out around our nice beautiful lake we have, watch the stars and just enjoy the nighttime. So I would ask this commission to not approve the rezoning of this area to allow another commercial site. I believe we have enough in the area, and I don't mind driving a little extra distance. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. COHEN: Sally Kirk. And I guess it would be after the break Janet Vasey. MS. KIRK: Good morning. I'm Sally Kirk. I'm the president of Longshore Lake Foundation. I live at 11180 Phoenix Way, Naples, 34119. I can't say much more than alreadys been said much more eloquently than I probably could. And I only ask that you do not recommend approval of this change to the Growth Management Plan. We talk about the commercial areas that are currently vacant along our corridor, and I think that speaks for itself. And we too are concerned about the additional traffic in the area, particularly the V-turns. I personally have been almost hit right there at Logan Boulevard and Immokalee Road when making a V-turn, as is the case at Valewood and Immokalee Road where you have to make a V-turn in order to go west onto Immokalee Road. So that's always a concern to myself and my neighbors. That's pretty much all I have to say. Because as I said, it's already been said in a much better manner. So I thank you for your time and have a good day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, could the speaker clarify whether or not she was speaking on behalf of herself or her organization. Page 97 October 29,2009 MS. KIRK: No, I'm speaking on behalf of Longshore Lake Foundation. I'm the president of that organization. MR. COHEN: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Next speaker? I think Ms. Vasey's up, and then probably go for a break after that. MS. VASEY: Janet Vasey for the record, 4398 Longshore Way North. And the zip code is 34119. I'm an 18-year resident of Longshore Lake, and I'm really frustrated at having to try and comment on a plan that has changed for us today. We were unaware of some of the earlier meetings and so didn't even know that it was dropping from 41 acres to 18. But some of my concerns are still valid, I think. I agree that this -- what is happening here as a commercial area is being dropped into a place where we've got residential all around, and I don't think that that reflects good planning. I think you should leave that area residential and not put any commercial in there. The issue of population. The staff had I thought a very excellent point when they were looking at over-commercialization. And they said, and I'm quoting, that we don't need more than two times the commercial space necessary to serve the estimated population in 2030. And even with the downsized commercial property that they're talking about now, I would think that that statement may be not to the same degree, but it would still apply, we don't need more commercial than we need and the population can support. And as to traffic, I was very concerned about the traffic analysis based on the 41 acres, because when that section of road from the interstate -- on Immokalee from the interstate to Logan was only four-Ianed, it was a nightmare, just a nightmare with all the population coming from the east going west. And then when it was -- it's now six-Ianed. If you put in more traffic than the road can handle, it-- that's not a place you ever want to live. You can't even get out of your Page 98 October 29,2009 development. And it's frustrating for all the other people east of us trying to get through backed up. So I would say that if you're going to wait and get a new traffic analysis based on the new redesign, please don't approve anything that transportation says that can't be supported by Immokalee Road. One thing that Wayne mentioned that I'd just like to address, he said that the interchange activity center is for regional uses. I'd just like to say that we don't know it as regional uses, we know it as that's our local store. And there's lots of stores. That interchange intersection has Wal-Mart, Publix, Target and all the other associated stores that go with it. And that's our local. And we're fine with it. It works fine, it's not far away, and I can't see that we have any need for anything more now or it wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't needed well into the future, we wouldn't need anything more. So thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. And with that, I'd like to ask the Planning Commission, I think it's best if we just skip lunch, work through this. Because we can probably finish up before 1 :00. And then we'll just take a 15-minute break. By our time we'll come back at noon, by that clock we'll come back at 11 :00. (Recess?) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're on record, everyone, just to let you know. We're talking. Planning Commission is not going to break for lunch, we're going to continue through. And do we have anymore registered speakers, Randy? MR. COHEN: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Gene Mayberry, followed by I believe it's Tim Witherite. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Mayberry, if you'll come up and use one of the mics. Or Mr., I'm sorry. MR. MAYBERRY: Good afternoon, gentlemen -- good mornmg. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to say and ladies. Page 99 October 29,2009 MR. MAYBERRY: And ladies. I apologize. My name is Gene Mayberry. I live at 7424 Treeline Drive, in Olde Cypress, Naples. Zip code, 34119. I abut that vacant area that you see there that you gentlemen, ladies, previously recognized as Vita Toscana. And as you recall, you addressed that subject about a year ago. The developer abandoned that, left it in very deplorable condition. And thanks to your support, that property was leveled and has been seeded. And we extend a special thank you for your support in that regard. In respect to today's petition, we do not need another prospective abandoned site. And as has been remarked this morning, you go about a mile west and there's a commercial site that is probably about 50 percent developed. The 50 percent that is developed is probably about 50 percent empty. And you go down towards 75 that's been remarked to, the Target Store, that property is somewhere probably between 30 and 40 percent developed, if that. The 30 or 40 percent that's developed, there's about five empty buildings in that project. The land around it is barren with weeds and dirt. That also brings me back to the other commercial site that I alluded to a little bit earlier. There are vacant lots in there with pipes sticking out of the ground where developers have abandoned the project for lack of demand. You go east about another mile, and adjacent from the high school is another 20-acre commercial site. Again, it's probably about the same condition as the other sites, only about 30 or 50 percent developed. Vacant stores, vacant windows, signage with lots available to be developed. You go down to the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Immokalee and there's an area down there that's probably about 40 acres, 30 to 40 acres; rocks, sand and there's one loan CVS that's Page 100 October 29,2009 spawning from the ground. Gentlemen, North Naples is almost starting to look like a modem Detroit. We have a lot of abandoned lots and, as you can see, space that is not being marketed. All these abandoned empty commercial projects are a blight to our communities. And it does not project well for prospective buyers coming into the community; that is, there does not appear to be growth, there appears to be abandonment. We do not need another developer to, pardon me, you know, take abuse of the earth, leave it abandoned and further poke another stick into our eye. It is not sound policy to continue this unabated commercial stripping of land without adequate justification for merits of the project. And I think we all -- well, not all, there's some certainly -- but the majority of us today do not feel that this project has adequate justification to proceed forward. I think at the point in time that the developer could demonstrate that there was a need for the project, perhaps we'd be agreeable to hearing that product plan. But as of today, we do not see a product that warrants consideration of this petition moving forward. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. COHEN: Tim Witherite, followed by Diane Ebert. MR. WITHERITE: Good morning, Chairman, Commissioners. Appreciate the time to talk. I'm Tim Witherite, 6060 Shady Oaks Lane, in the Oakes Boulevard neighborhood to the west of this project. I'm the president of the Oakes Estates Advisory Board. We're a voluntary neighborhood organization, we represent the interests of the neighborhood there on Oakes Boulevard. We're a long-established neighborhood. We've been there since I believe the late Sixties. We were platted a long time ago, along with Golden Gate. So we've been Page 10 1 October 29,2009 there long before anybody else was around us. Our stance on this right now is going to remain neutral, okay, and it's for a couple of reasons. Originally we were very concerned with the original design and shape of this property or proposed development. As it stands right now, we're going to remain neutral because of the down-sizing. If it stays as proposed right now, the downsized version of it, we will remain as neutral on it, because it does not have any direct effect on our neighborhood. We have the property separating us from our neighborhood there. So there would be no profound direct effect on us at this time. We do share the concerns of our neighbors and the other developments, though, for, you know, traffic and abundance of commercial up in that area. There's, you know, some obvious problems there. But officially we will remain neutral at this time. Now, I say that at this time. However, there's a couple of things we want brought forward on the record. If the property to the south, the Colin Walker property, the nursery, the landscaping area, if that should for any reason come back into this proposed project, or should it be proposed into another development in the future, which is all very likely, we do have a couple of grave concerns for our neighborhood. And one would be the protection of east end of Hidden Oaks Lane, there you can see on the map. When Logan Boulevard was extended through there, our neighborhood was pretty well protected by the -- because if you know our neighborhood, it's pretty heavily forested, so we have a lot of landscaping between us and the road. The one exception was Hidden Oaks. For some reason, just the way it worked out, it was very well cleared out and those homes are sitting right there exposed to Logan Boulevard. Should the property on the other side become developed, that's where our concern was, is that we would want to see some sort of Page 102 October 29, 2009 barrier put across through there to protect those homes so they aren't sitting in their houses looking across the street at who knows, shops, centers, office building, we don't know, okay. The other concern we would have in the future too is -- and this is an ongoing concern we've had for many years, I think some of you are probably aware of it, is that we absolutely are steadfast against any of our streets being ever connected to Logan Boulevard. We have a gentleman's agreement with the county on that that won't happen but it's just that, gentleman's agreement. So we just want to make sure, we want that on the record. Should the southern end of this come back into this proposal or any future proposals, then we will object to that, unless we have some, you know, considerations given to our neighborhood. All right, thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, appreciate it. Next speaker? MR. COHEN: It's Diane Ebert, followed by either any unregistered speakers or Corby Schmidt reading into the record a couple e-mails. MS. EBERT: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Diane Ebert, 2898 Lone Pine Lane, in Olde Cypress, 34119. I have been to both meetings that Rich Y ovanovich and Mr. Wayne Arnold have given. Originally it is correct, it was 41 acres. I have maybe different concerns because all of a sudden they pulled out the other acreage. But to be honest, there is 50 acres there, and once you get the zoning, the other two owners can hook on because the zoning is there. And you cannot come out of Olde Cypress right now and turn left or right going east or west without passing commercial. The area that you do see that is vacant right now has been seeded, but that is 446 acres, which was Vita Tuscana. And that was designed for single-family homes also. Page 103 October 29,2009 We already have two activity centers there. And just because there is a new stoplight on Immokalee Road and Logan Boulevard does not mean we have to have commercial. According to the owner's agents, Logan Boulevard lacks commercial development. We say that's nice. This is nothing more than a strip type mall spot zoning into our area. And this county pays hundreds of thousands of dollars for this Growth Management Plan, and then to have someone come along and just want to change everything and do this spot development I think is not justice to the rest of us that live there. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Appreciate it. Are there any other -- is there anybody else in the audience who would like to speak who has not already spoken? Okay, well-- sir? Come on up and use the microphone, provide your identity, we'll be in good shape. MR. RIZZO: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Name is Ben Rizzo. Spell it? R-I-Z-Z-O. 2158 Khasia Point, in Saturnia Lakes, 34119. K-H-A-S-I-A. I appreciate you hearing what we have to say, and I don't want to take your time up, so I'm just going to say that I agree with all the objections which were made to this project of more commercial space. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Anybody else from the public that would like to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Corby, you want to get something on for the record, I understand? MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. There were two correspondences that staff received during the last few days. For one of them, that person already spoke to you previously during this hearing so I'll skip that e-mail. The other one from a Mr. Barry Tulin of Butterfly Palm Drive. Page 104 October 29, 2009 As a resident of Saturnia Lakes and Naples, Florida, I am against the subject petition mentioned above. I do not understand the proposal is for is work to be done in the future to accommodate future growth -- I'm sorry. He reads, I do understand the proposal is for work to be done in the future to accommodate future growth. However, I think that thinking is premature. No one knows how long it will take to fill any of the empty homes, offices and retail space that is now available in Naples and our specific area. I also don't feel that any additional office or retail space is needed or wanted in the area designated by the petition, and I certainly don't want any more traffic in the area, already having to cope with the Immokalee Road construction for some four years now. I also believe that the proposed drawings that were shown were not representative of the final outcome. And I believe he's referring to the preliminary site plans or concept plans. The retail portion of the plan showed the stores set back and partially covered by trees. No one would want their stores shielded from traffic, they would want their stores or signage proudly displayed. At the meeting which I attended at the Saturnia Lakes social hall on Monday evening, October 26th, it was clear to me that the majority of concerned people there were also very much against the above petition. Please take these comments into consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, at break David said you may want to put something on for record, some analysis of your own? David? He's looking at me with this puzzled look. MR. SCHMIDT: Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity. Given the idea that you may act on this today and not lay it over, I want to make sure that on the record we reiterated some of the findings that still might be valid, even with the reduction in square Page 105 October 29,2009 footage: The fewer owners; the lack or the different access onto Logan Boulevard; the restricted mix of uses, or whatever the final presentation to you might be or to staff forthcoming. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, you previously -- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Excuse me, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tor. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Corby, could you repeat that slowly so we could jot that down what those items were? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I've got an idea along those lines. You previously supplied a list of bullet items on Page 15 and 16. And if you really have concerns of this new one that you're familiar enough with to respond in regards to which one of those would still be valid or invalid based on the reductions to the extent you heard without a full analysis, that might be the best way to approach it in an organized manner so we can understand where you're coming from. MR. SCHMIDT: Simply stating that many of those points still stand. For instance, the staff analysis of the market study shows that there is no need for additional commercial space through the year 2030. Reducing the amount of square footage or the acreage would not change that. So that's why we're interested in seeing those materials in the future. For those that would still stand and certainly we mentioned earlier, there are viable uses on the property, and there still would be even in the reduction in size. One that was newly introduced because of the change as we've heard it here today, the reduction in size really reduces or eliminates any merits the petition would have had as a mixed use sub-district that could have met some of the criteria for the community character plan for the county. Your FLUE Objective 7, it's under policies. Now we have a single use being introduced at the intersection of a smaller size and an inability to meet those criteria. With the reduction in size or acreage it would no longer serve as Page 106 October 29,2009 a community center or community sized shopping facility but now another neighborhood center. And I believe that the petitioners themselves or the agent touched on this, that the adjacent properties' change here might lead to advanced or additional requests similar to this on adjacent properties. Well, when it was one large piece there was some merit to that contention, and we present that many times and you hear it because there's a basis for it. Here now that I've removed some of the properties, leaving them vacant for future development, introducing commercial to part of it even makes that a stronger argument. Now those adjacent pieces more certainly will come in for the same kinds of requests. And finally, we've already seen in the staff report materials that there's an over-allocation of commercial space, both existing and potential for the future, enough to serve the market areas shown and even a greater area. An over-allocation of commercial space is one of the primary indicators of urban sprawl. And that's one of the things the DCA has told us recently they're looking stronger at. And here's a situation where not only do I remove the residential potential over the property where I would have avoided sprawl by providing the residents close to the existing shopping opportunities, I'm taking that opportunity away with this amendment to the FLUE and instead I'm replacing it with additional commercial opportunities to fewer residents, just the opposite of where we're supposed to be going. Someone said it wasn't good planning -- MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, correct me ifI'm wrong, but I believe what you want, in addition to what Corby just went through, was going to the findings and conclusions on Page 15 and expressly articulating whether or not each one of those bullet points apply, based on what was introduced today as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, ifhe wasn't going to do it, I was Page 107 October 29,2009 going to ask him, so one way or another. That's what I'm trying to get to. I understand your presentation, Corby, but like the first one, you believe it was spot zoning as originally presented. Do you still believe it's spot zoning? MR. SCHMIDT: Even more so, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the kind of response I wanted to your bullets, because that's -- I guess the meat of your conclusions are right there. So if you could proceed down that -- I don't want to read it to you, I think you -- MR. SCHMIDT: Certainly. We've already shown a number of times or in different ways there's no additional need for commercial. Reducing that amount of square footage doesn't change that threshold. It doesn't meet any new numbers, doesn't meet any new demands or different. The magnitude and scale of the project, it simply provides -- would provide, if it was approved, another typical neighborhood center. There are only significant impacts to transportation facilities. And you've already heard some testimony this morning that although you may not have the constraints imposed, once the construction project is completed on Immokalee Road, you still have a problem at that intersection, and some of those other situations would not be eliminated by this change. You still have the situation with existing neighborhood generators being just a half a mile or more away in one direction, less than two-thirds of a mile away in another direction, and community center shopping areas a little over one mile away to the west and a little less than two miles away to the east along Immokalee Road. We talked also earlier about the viability of the project. That bullet point does not change. The residential viability of this project had a higher density than exampled by the agent earlier. It's not just a Page 108 October 29,2009 three or four-acre item, but here we saw that if rezoned to its potential as a residential neighborhood, likely up to 12 units per acre could be the density we would see there. We still have a situation where there's a problem with access onto Immokalee Road. We haven't heard anything to reverse or change the idea that there might be some there now with the smaller property or the narrower frontage. And the others I've covered. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Are there any questions of staff at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Richard, do you want a short rebuttal opportunity? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'd like a long one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you've had a lot of time. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I haven't had a chance to respond to the public or some of what staff just said. I was being facetious about long, I would appreciate -- I've never taken a long time on rebuttal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, I've never cut you off either. But if you think you're going to take an hour or two, that's not going to work. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I don't have the stamina for an hour or two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I just find some of what was just said to lack any credibility. I would like to know how staff can base their decision that there are other viable uses on this site. I didn't see a single analysis of viability of other sites. And to my knowledge, I don't think any of your staff that testified today have any experience on the private side on viability of Page 109 October 29,2009 projects. Nor did we ever say there were not other uses that can be made on that site. What we said was low density residential at this comer was not a viable use. And we stand by that statement. Low density residential use on this comer is not a viable use of the comer. The standard that we have to meet is not are there other uses on the property. Is there data and analysis so support what we're requesting is the standard we have to meet. There are two reports you have in your packet. You have our report prepared by Chuck Mohlke who knows what he's doing and has concluded that there is a demand for what we're requesting, and that this location can meet the demand. He factored in all of the sites your staffs talking about. He factored in the two small retail sites that are on Immokalee Road, on the north side of Immokalee Road. He factored in Quail II that's predominantly office. He factored in the small retail that's in Olde Cypress. He factored that in and he concluded that yes, there still is demand to be met on this corridor. We put up a transportation consultant who did analyze the reduced request and he testified that there are no transportation related questions. That's been uncontroverted because your staff has not been given an opportunity to review that. To conclude that there are still transportation related problems related to our reduced request is not fair. It's not accurate. We put a credential consultant up to show you that there's not. Staff can't conclude that there still are problems. I almost got up here and said, tongue in cheek, we'll accept Corby's offer of 12 units per acre density. But you know and I know that's never going to happen on this site. We're never going to get 12 units an acre approved on this site. To get to 12 units per acre we'd have to come in with an eight unit per acre bonus. And how do you get to an eight unit per acre bonus on this site? I only know of one way, and that's through the affordable housing density bonus program. And I don't think that 12 Page 110 October 29, 2009 units per acre is going to get approved today under the affordable housing density bonus program. Now, one thing I do think we qualify for is the -- we're less than 20 acres so we would be -- we would qualify for residential infill that would allow us to get to two seven units per acre, and that's a possibly for this site. Now, of course we'd have to -- I call it six for free, you buy one under the TDR program, so it costs you something to get to the residential infill. But I do think that that site, you know, you might be able to get to seven as a residential density but certainly not 12 the way you would have to get there. I'm not surprised by the people who spoke today. I mean, they were the same people at our NIM and they basically said there's enough commercial out there. I told you from the outset I didn't think I persuaded them any differently at the neighborhood information meeting. That's okay. We do believe that the project that we have put in front of them and the conceptual plans will work for a retail and office use. What it comes down to is do you want to continue to accept the activity center generated retail and office concept as the only place in Collier County that you can have retail and office development? If that's the answer, that will be the only place that under no other circumstances can you justify other retail and office opportunities, you know, I guess I lose. But that's not how it's been historically done. When you can show at intersections of major roads -- and you've got Immokalee Road in a four-lane intersection with Logan -- appropriately scaled retail and office can occur in predominantly residential areas. That's happened. And I think a good example of planning on a roadway, and I go to the King's Lake Shopping Center. That's a neighborhood scale retail project. Publix anchored shopping center. It's not a big shopping Page 111 October 29,2009 center, but it certainly does serve a lot of homes in the area. I could envision the same scale of development at this intersection. There are a lot of homes in this area that that type of center can serve. We're asking for the opportunity to have our reduced request analyzed by your staff and come back to you with an analysis. Not an off-the-cuff analysis, because I honestly don't think that they've given it much thought on what we're proposing and what those changes are. I don't think that the activity center concept has been a good one. I mean, most people cited as where you don't like it. Pine Ridge Road and Airport Road is what every time we come in with a commercial change to the compo plan is thrown in our face. But that's an activity center. What we're suggesting is a smaller scale 18-acre project, not 160 acres of activity center development. We think there's data and analysis to support our request. We think the conceptual plans work. And with that, if you want to continue it, fine, if you don't want to continue it, we understand and we'll -- I don't know, I'm confused, do I give the data and analysis to staff or do I not on my 120,000 square foot proposal? Because we would still like to go forward with that and have the Planning Commission consider that, because we're responding to neighborhood information meetings well as well the staff report. And I couldn't do it ahead of time, I have to do it after the fact. So we're requesting that we be given consideration on our request and our data and analysis, but we'll see what comes from the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any final questions of the applicant? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, Rich, I would say that with your ability of persuasion, if you could get ingress and egress at the Saturnia Lakes entrance and then also at the southern point of that landscaping, you know, the southern end toward down Logan -- sorry, I got my tongue tied up -- that that may be viable. Highly improbable, but I think that you could take care of some transportation problems Page 112 October 29, 2009 that way and -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner Wolfley, I think I have a shot at the one on Logan. I'm fairly certain I could be shot on the other one. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You would be shot, yes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, okay. So-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That would be a way to solve -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: But if you think about what you're saying, and you have thought about it, obviously, is that if we had access onto Logan far enough from the intersection, full movements would be allowed to be made, because it's going to be a four-lane road. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: When it's four-Ianed. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right now I already have full movements. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's correct. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So, you know, that may -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It'll take it through the four-lane. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It may be a reasonable condition to impose is that I need to get access far enough south through my neighbor to the south. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right. Well, that is -- and I take Logan quite often. And that lady that was pulling out of Olde Cypress, it may have been me. Was it a pickup truck that almost hit you? It could have been me, because it can get pretty crazy there and you're uncertain where people are coming from and going there. So that is a tough intersection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard, one thing I wanted to kind of -- you had said something to the effect that you didn't think it was fair for staff to object without a new data and analysis. I think that's about as equitable as you presenting all this stuff as Page 113 October 29,2009 late as it was presented. So I don't think -- if you want to weigh fairness in this, that's not an issue. They did the best they could to respond to a question from the panel in regards to their objections or their positions on this, based on what little they've heard today. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And again, Mr. Strain, I had asked for permission to submit it much earlier. So I will not accept the responsibility that we have sprung it on staff, because I was not I couldn't give it to him sooner. And we can disagree on that, but we were not allowed to provide the data sooner for review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you have a 2007 dated GMPA. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you've been in the process a long time. And to do anything in the last 30 or 60 days is difficult to respond to in a manner that warrants a real good analysis. So they did the best they could and I think they did it in response to us, so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: And I understand that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that's where I'll leave it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand that. And I will say again, I do have a 2007 date, and I got my first substantive review as to what they thought of the results of my analysis on October 1st, 2009. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we've heard all the public speakers. Staff is finished, I assume. And with that in mind, we'll have discussion prior to motion. I just want to layout to the Planning Commission, we have three choices that I can see. One is we recommend to staff they review this and we continue it to the 19th. The second is that we recommend denial. And the third is that we recommend approval. Now, I don't know which way it's going to go, but before we even consider the first one, what is the agenda like on the 19th? Have Page 114 October 29,2009 you gotten input on that, David? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. It's available. There are presently four petitions on that agenda: One PUD, one variance, one conditional use and the previously continued comprehensive plan amendment at the southwest comer of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. COHEN: Could I clarify the record that with respect to approval or denial, would that be based on the petition as presented by the applicant today? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we get into that motion, we'll be very specific. Okay, so before we go to motion, is there any further discussion or any discussion the Planning Commission would like to have before a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I mean, once they reduce the site, that made it totally -- I would never approve something that would be this spot zoning. Had Rich come in and said, guess what, I got the additional sites, so now we can totally plan that area, we can put in proper buffers, we can discuss the aesthetics of the comer. But I would never support an application of this size in that condition. It makes the other properties totally uncontrollable. And it would be probably the worst sprawl move we could make. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other points of discussion, anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, then I need to ask for a motion. Does anybody want to make a motion? Page 115 October 29,2009 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make the motion that we deny as presented today transmittal. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Second. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or that we recommend denial for transmittal. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, there's been a motion made to recommend denial for transmittal, made by Mr. Schiffer, seconded by Mr. Kolflat. Mr. Schiffer, your motion is made pursuant to the revised changes that were presented in the public meeting here today; is that correct? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Kolflat, you concur with that? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Discussion of the motion. I am going to support the motion because it coincides with my agreement with staff that basically this is spot zoning, it does not show sufficient need, there are unresolved transportation issues, and there is ample enough commercial available in the surrounding neighborhood, or actually surrounding roadway. And so that's why I will support the motion. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I'll support the motion. My basic reason is need. There is just not a need. And the custom area that they developed to try to create need was certainly creative, but I don't think valid. I also have concerns about the traffic situation. I think for a project of the original size or even this size, I think we're going to run Page 116 October 29,2009 into a lot of traffic issues, so for those reasons I won't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I'm going to support the motion, obviously, I seconded it, because number one, it's all residential there, and we've seen that without question. And this is a hearing for growth management planning, not for a PUD and dividing based on making the decision based on some of the details involved. And I think the staff has indicated that they are capable of making a satisfactory judgment and motion on the information they've got and that any new information in the areas they designated would have no bearing on the conclusion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll call for the motion. All those in favor of the motion to recommend denial, signify by saymg aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you all for your time and attendance today. That will go forward to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of denial, so -- Okay, I want to thank our records department again for the Page 117 October 29, 2009 coffee. It kept us going today, and was especially helpful. I appreciate it. And Cherie' for her time and Kady for the attempted fix on our clock. With that in mind, I would like to ask the Planning Commission for a motion to continue to the November 19th meeting to hear CP-2008-3. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. We are continued until the 18th. Thank you. Page 118 October 29, 2009 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:37 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MARK STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on or as corrected , as presented Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 119