CCPC Minutes 01/07/2010 R
January 7, 2010
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Naples, Florida
January 7, 2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning
Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted
business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION
in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida,
with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain
Donna Reed-Caron
Karen Homiak (Absent)
Tor Kolflat
Paul Midney
Bob Murray
Brad Schiffer
Robert Vigliotti
David 1. Wolfley
ALSO PRESENT:
Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
Nick Casalanguida, CDES
Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager
Thomas Eastman, CC School District, Real Property Director
Page 1
AGENDA
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 8:30 A.M., THURSDAY, JANUARY 7,
20 I 0, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING,
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA:
NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM.
INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR
GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAYBE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON
AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE
WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS
MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE
RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED
TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE
APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE
PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC
WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE
A V AILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
IF APPLICABLE.
ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED
A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE
MA Y NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBA TIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS
MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON
WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY
3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
4. NEW BUSINESS
A. Revisions to the GMP amendment hearing schedule for the Transmittal of the Immokalee Area Master
Plan petition CP-2008-5
5. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 19,2009, AND DECEMBER 3, 2009
7. BCC REPORT- RECAPS - DECEMBER 15,2009
8. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
9. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS
A. Petition: PUDZ-2007-AR-12294, Theresa Cook, Executive Director of the Collier County Airport
Authority and CDC Land Investments, Inc., represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady
Minor and Associates, requests a rezone from the Industrial (I) and the Rural Agricultural with a Mobile
Home Overlay (A-MHO) Zoning Districts to the Airport Operations Planned Unit Development Zoning
District (AOPUD) for a project to be known as the Immokalee Regional Airport Planned Unit
Development. This project proposes to allow development of a maximum of 5,000,000 square feet of
aviation and non-aviation development on 1,484" acres of land located north of CR 846, in Sections 25,
26, 27, 34, 35, 36, Township 46 South, Range 29 East, and Sections 2 and 3, Township 47 South,
Range 29 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP)
1
B. Petition: PUDA-PL2009-781, Craig T. Bouchard of Tennis Realty, LLC represented by Michael R.
Fernandez, AICP of Planning Development Inc., is requesting an amendment to the Naples Bath and
Tennis Club Planned Unit Development (PUD) (Ord. No. 8 I -6 I) to revise the site development plan
approval process for the transient lodging facilities accessory use and adding development standards for
transient lodging facilities, by amending the development plan cover page; by amending Section II, Project
Development, Subsection 2.3.B.; by amending Section IV, Tract B: Recreational Club Development,
Subsection 4.3.B.3); by amending Section IX. Development Standards, adding Section 9.12,
Transportation Improvements and any other stipulations or regulations that may result from the amendment
process pertaining to transient lodging facility units within the 20" acre Tract B of the 153.7 acre project.
The subject property is located on the west side of Airport-Pulling Road, between Pine Ridge Road
and Golden Gate Parkway in Section 14, Township 49S, Range 25E, Collier County, Florida.
(Coordinator; Kay Deselem, AICP)
10. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Petition: V A-PL2009-37, FLO TV Inc., represented by Kimberly J. Madison, Esq., of Ruden, McClosky,
Smith, Schuster and Russell, P.A., is requesting a Variance of 55.7 feet from the 75-foot front yard setback
requirement; and Variances of 22.3 feet and 22.6 feet from the 30-foot eastern and western side yard
setback requirements, respectively, of LDC subsection 4.02.01, Table 2.1, Table of Minimum Yard
Requirements for Base Zoning Districts, to permit 19.3-foot, 7.7-foot and 7.4-foot setbacks, respectively,
for the guy lines and anchors of a communications tower in excess of 75 feet in the Estates (E) Zoning
District. The 4.77-acre subject property is located at 5860 Crews Road, in Section 8, Township 50 South,
Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida. (Companion item to CU-2008-AR-14085) (Coordinator: John-
David Moss, AICP) (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 17,2009)
B. Petition: CU-2008-AR-14085, FLO TV, Inc., represented by Kimberly J. Madison, Esq., of Ruden,
McClosky, Smith, Schuster and Russell, P.A., is requesting a Conditional Use for a communications
tower and the installation of related shelter and equipment in the Estates (E) Zoning District, as specified
in Section 5.05.09 of the ColJier County Land Development Code (LDC). The approximately 4.77-acre
subject property is located at 5860 Crews Road, in Section 8, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, in
Collier County, Florida. (Companion item to V A-PL2009-037) (Coordinator: John-David Moss, AICP)
(CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 17,2009)
C. Petition: PUDZ-A-2006-AR-I0318. Pawel and Teryl Brzeski, Magnolia Pond Holdings, LLC and
Teryl Brzeski, Trustee ofthe Land Trust # I-B, represented by Davidson Engineering and Patrick White
of Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, LLP, are requesting a rezone from the Magnolia Pond Planned Unit
Development (PUD), Ordinance No. 98-49, and Rural Agriculture (A) Zoning Districts to a Mixed-Use
Planned Unit Development (MPUD) to be known as Magnolia Pond MPUD, permitting 231 multi-family
dwelling units and/or an assisted living facility (ALF) at a floor area ratio of .60 with the applicant seeking
to add an additional 5 acres to the site. The subject property is 47.05" acres and is located on the north
side of the 1-75 right-of-way and half mile west of Collier Boulevard (CR-951) in Section 34,
Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone) (CONTINUED
FROM DECEMBER 17, 2009)
D. Petition: CU-PL2009-405, Collier County Alternative Transportation Modes Department represented
by Abra Horne, AICP, of Wilbur Smith Associates is requesting a Conditional Use in the Gallman Olds
PUD zoning District to add a Government Facility, limited to a Bus Transfer Station pursuant to LDC
Section 2.01.03.G.I.e, Essential Services. The subject 1O.0H acre property is located on the south side of
Radio Road extending to Davis Boulevard, approximately 1,000 feet from the Radio Road and Davis
Boulevard intersection in Section 3, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida.
(Coordinator: Kay Deselem, AICP)
2
E. Petition: RZ-PL2009-469, East Naples Fire Control and Rescue District No. 26, represented by Robert
L. Duane, AICP of Hole Montes Inc., is requesting to rezone from Rural Agriculture (A) and Commercial
Intermediate (C-3) zoning districts to the Public Use (P) zoning district for a Fire Station and accessory
uses. The subject property is 3.68" acres and is located in Section 20, Township 51 South, Range 27 East,
Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Melissa Zone)
I I. OLD BUSINESS
12. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
13. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA
14. ADJOURN
12/18/09 cepc Agenda/Ray Bellows/ld
3
January 7, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to
the January 7th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission.
If you'll all please rise for Pledge of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you haven't realized it yet, it's
cold out there. And this weekend it's supposed to be colder. So I have
to start out by saying thank you very much to the records department
for the coffee today. It's going to warm all of us up. So we appreciate
it.
Roll call by our secretary, please.
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,
myself, is present.
Commissioner Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And Commissioner Homiak is
absent.
Oh, Commissioner Midney just showed up. And Mr. Eastman is
here, for the record.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Great.
Page 2
January 7, 2010
Item #3
ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA
CHARIMAN STRAIN: Okay, addenda to the agenda. Are there
any changes? Ray, do you know of any?
MR. BELLOWS: No continuances that I'm aware of.
Item #5
PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now, our next meeting is on
January 21st?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's for the CIE.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's our next regular meeting, but all
the regular items have been --
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, the next--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- continued.
MR. BELLOWS: -- meeting will be the 21st, a regular county
commission meeting. I have on the calendar that you have an LDC
amendment meeting on the 28th, the following Thursday.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. BELLOWS: And let's see --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the 21st, as far as that goes,
though, Ray, the only thing left on that agenda I believe is the CIE.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And for members ofthe Planning
Commission, that's the booklet that was just passed out by David
Weeks.
The other agenda items, and there were four of them, had to be
continued I believe for advertising or other purposes?
Page 3
January 7, 2010
MR. BELLOWS: Two for other purposes, one for advertising.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I don't know how long ofa
day that will be until we read the document that was passed out today.
But that's the only thing on the agenda.
Does anybody know if they're not going to make it to the meeting
on the 21st?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll be here. But I have a
question about the LDC meeting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which when are we going to
get those things? Is there a lot of them or is there a few of them?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: We did get them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We already got them.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We did?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. We didn't want you to have them
because you ask too many questions.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me check to make sure I
have them.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. If you don't, we'll get some to you
ASAP.
Item #4
NEW BUSINESS - REVISIONS TO THE GMP AMENDMENT
HEARING SCHEDULE FOR THE TRANS MITT AL OF THE
IMMOKALEE AREA MASTER PLAN PETITION CP-2008-5
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, new business. New business. I
guess that's David -- oh, no, that -- yeah, David, what have you got to
Page 4
January 7, 2010
say about it?
MR. WEEKS: For the record, David Weeks ofthe
Comprehensive Planning Department.
At your last meeting we discussed the Immokalee Master Plan
Growth Management Plan amendment petition schedule. And we
have agreed on February the 16th as the hearing date. The only
question to resolve is the location. It originally had been planned to
be held in Immokalee, but at your last meeting it was discussed to
hold it here, and --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It looks like unless there's an objection
from any Planning Commission member, we're going to hold it here.
MR. WEEKS: Sounds good. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Planning Commission absences, we already discussed that.
Item #6
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 19, 2009 AND
DECEMBER 3, 2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Approval of minutes. We have two
sets. Let's start with the first one. Is there a motion to approve or
change November 19th, 2009?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded by?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
Page 5
January 7, 2010
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
Next one is December 3rd, 2009, a same motion.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I have a correction on Page 46. At
the very top, the second line, the word is respected typed here, and it
should be represented. But Mr. Passidomo or whoever represented
him. I'm sure we all respect Mr. Passidomo.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think Cherie' wanted to make
sure we did, so that's why she changed the word.
Okay, so with that correction is there still a motion to approve as
corrected?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, there is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mr. Vigliotti.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I will second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mr. Schiffer.
All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
Page 6
January 7, 2010
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
Item #7
BCC REPORT - RECAPS - DECEMBER 15,2009
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, the BCC recaps?
MR. BELLOWS: There is no land use items to present at this
time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Item #8
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The chairman's report. Kind of want to
make a few statements. There's been a lot of announcements that all
of you have seen with changes over at the community and
developmental services. A lot of people have left. The budget's
getting harder and harder to deal with. A lot of lay-offs had to occur,
and there are a lot of people that we have worked closely with for
quite some time, and we will sincerely miss those individuals.
A couple people have been moved who were very close to this
commission, one being Susan Murray. She is in another department in
the county now. We'll miss her expertise and professionalism for sure
in resolving the zoning and Land Development Code issues.
And especially our friend Joe Schmitt. Joe has been moved out
of Developmental Services to the County Manager's office. I want Joe
to know I personally and I think the rest of this commission have
thought very much of Joe. He did a great job for us. He was always
attentive and responsive to our needs and fought for our concerns, and
Page 7
January 7, 2010
I certainly will miss him.
Now, with that said, we have a problem. We now have Nick
Casalanguida in charge.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, no.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I figured out a solution to the
problem. And every now and then you'll hear me say to Nick, we're
going to tell Connie. Now, Connie isn't Nick's secretary, isn't his
administrative assistant, that's his mom. And I understand she watches
the show. So if we have trouble with Nick, we know how to take care
of it now.
So Connie, I hope you're listening, because you may have a lot of
work cut out for yourself.
So Nick, congratulations, I think, on your new position and I
know that as one Planning Commission member, and I think I speak
for all of us, we will certainly do our best to work with -- work every
way we can to make the transition smooth.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that does bring up one other point.
Some of the cases we have today and some coming up in the future
were worked on by people who are no longer here, and so we're going
to have to have a little more tolerance with staffwho do stand up
today and try to make presentations. Because they may not have been
the ones who were involved as deeply in the project.
And in that regard it also brings on added responsibility for the
Planning Commission, because if we were careful before and if we
read thoroughly before, we need to read 10 times thoroughly now.
Not to find mistakes but to find things that need to be further
considered or discussed. Because with a short staff, a lot of stuffs got
to move through at the same rate with less people, and there is a
chance that things may be missed. We're here to help make sure they
don't get missed.
And so from now on I think we're going to have even a further
Page 8
January 7,2010
more intense job than we've been doing in the past.
So with that in mind, we'll move on. Nick, it's good to see you
here today.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Thank you, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know it took a promotion, or I guess--
I don't know if you want to call it a promotion or not, but a transfer to
a different department -- to get you attend our meetings. So we'll
certainly make them entertaining for you.
Item #9 A
PETITION: PUDZ-2007-AR-12294, THERESA COOK,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT
AUTHORITY AND CDC LAND INVESTMENTS
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we'll move on to our consent
agenda items.
The first one is Petition PUDZ-2007-AR-12294, Theresa Cook,
Executive Director of the Collier County Airport Authority and CDC
Land Investments.
After -- any comments from the Planning Commission on the
consent item that's in their package?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'd like to--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: -- make a motion to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion made by Mr. Midney __
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to approve the consent item.
Second by Mr. Murray.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
Page 9
January 7, 2010
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
Item #9B
PETITION: PUDA-PL2009-78I, CRAIG T. BOUCHARD OF
TENNIS REALTY, LLC
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next consent item is Petition
PUDA-PL2009-78 (sic), Craig T. Bouchard of Tennis Realty, Inc.,
and it's for the Naples Bath and Tennis.
Is there any discussion or motion on that item?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Move to approve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray made a motion to approve,
seconded by Mr. Vigliotti.
Any comment?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
Page 10
January 7, 2010
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0.
Item #lOA & Item #10B
PETITIONS: V A-PL2009-37 AND CU-2008-AR-14085, FLO TV,
INC. (DISCUSSED TOGETHER)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, we're going to go into our regular
public hearings. And so for the benefit of the public that's either
listening or in the audience, we have two continued items: One is
called FLO TV, and actually that's two petitions but it's the same basic
item. That was continued from September. So that's first on the
agenda by policy.
The second one is Magnolia Pond. That is also continued from
December. And that is another by policy, second in line.
I know there's been a lot of discussion about when are we going
to hear the C.A.T. transfer station site. That will be the first one up on
the -- today's agenda after the continued items. So I would expect
we're going to spend a good hour or more on the first two items, and
then we'll be getting into the C.A.T. right after that at the earliest.
I will try to make an announcement as we move forward how
close we're getting to hear the C.A.T. one, as I can best judge it. So I
know -- if any of you are watching and waiting to come down here,
that's the best we can do at this point.
And with that, I'll ask all -- we have two petitions, Petition
Page 11
January 7, 2010
V A-PL2009-37, FLO TV, Inc., and Petition CU-2008-AR-14085,
FLO TV, Inc. Both will be heard concurrently, be voted on
separately.
All those wishing to participate in either one of those, please rise
to be sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there disclosures on the part
of the Planning Commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, hearing none, start with the
presentation.
Welcome back to our coast.
MS. MADISON: Thank you. Happy new year.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MS. MADISON: Good morning, Planning Commission
members, Chairman Strain, members of the county staff and County
Attorney's Office.
Once again, my name is Kimberly Madison, attorney with
Ruden-McClosky, 401 East Jackson Street, Tampa, Florida.
With me is Mr. David Hallowell of Black and Veatch
Construction, and Mr. Tony Renda, as well as Jerry Heckerman, both
representatives of the property owner, Renda Broadcasting. And we
are here on behalf of the conditional use and variance petition
submitted on behalf ofFLO TV, Incorporated.
Before I begin my presentation, and if it pleases the Commission,
I would like to submit exhibit books, which are a composite of
everything that's been submitted on both applications to date. I think
they'll aid in the presentation. And they also have copies of the
information that was requested by the Commission at the last meeting
and subsequently submitted to the county.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you do, I just want to make sure,
is everything that you're submitting been submitted to staff so it __
Page 12
January 7, 2010
MS. MADISON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- has staffs review and most likely then
was included in our packages already?
MS. MADISON: That is my hope. Yes, it was submitted to the
staff.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Better make one for
the -- you've got to make sure our court reporter has one, too.
MS. MADISON: I've provided both court reporters.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Do we need to read these right
now before your presentation?
MS. MADISON: It has everything that's been submitted.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Can you give us two months to
read --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got to caution members, we have to
be on record, so if we're looking for a response from the young lady,
we need to get her back at the mic.
Did everybody get their book?
COMMISSIONER CARON: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. We're missing a couple.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Actually, mine was a
statement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do we need--
MS. MADISON: How many more? One more?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One more.
Well, here, she can have mine. This is all data that's in our
package anyway; is that correct?
MS. MADISON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, how do we know? I mean
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're not considering the book.
She's passing it out for the record. We're considering what the staff
gave us and what the presentation and the public testimony will be
Page 13
January 7, 2010
today.
The book I believe is more for your positioning, should this ever
have to be appealed, you want to have everything on record that you
can and that it be as complete as possible so you can use it in further
appeals.
MS. MADISON: Absolutely.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, and let me just put down for the
record, since we're now handing out stuff for the record, if there's
anything in here, ma'am, that's not in our packages previously, we're
not looking at them here.
MS. MADISON: Okay.
MR. KLATZKOW: If you want a continuance so we can review
that, we're happy to grant you one now.
MS. MADISON: I don't need that. I'm very confident that
everything has been submitted to John-David, who's no longer here.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. Because I'm not looking at this.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I'm not going to.
MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, this is--
MS. MADISON: I can take them back.
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, why don't you--
MS. MADISON: I'm sorry.
MR. KLATZKOW: Why don't you take them back.
MS. MADISON: Okay. I would like to just submit it on the -- I
do have the right to submit it on the record for --
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm a quick reader, but I'm not this quick.
MS. MADISON: Okay. Not a problem.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It didn't matter to me whether we had
them or not, because we only can read what we read up till today, so--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Except you wouldn't be able to
discern that in a field situation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they still can submit it for the
record, so --
Page 14
January 7, 2010
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm going to keep mine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, on second thought, let us
have those -- no, I'm just kidding. We've had enough.
MS. MADISON: They were really more for reference, but if you
have all that stuff in front of you, I'll be referencing it today, so please
feel free to look at it.
We're here before you today to request approval to separate and
yet interrelated petitions. At the outset it's important to know that
these petitions as stated previously are for to -- to legitimize the
continued existence of a tower which currently exists at 5860 Crews
Road, Naples, Collier County, Florida.
We do not seek to construct a new tower; rather, if both petitions
are approved, it will legitimize the continued existence of one that
already exists and allow the applicant, FLO TV, to utilize that tower
for the purpose of installing an antenna and related equipment.
That being said, I'd like to address the first petition, which is for
the conditional use.
If you will recall, on October 15th, 2009, this commission heard
nearly two hours of testimony and evidence at a public hearing for the
conditional use petition that was continued to today . We would like to
incorporate that hearing into the record.
For the purposes of to day's hearing, I will focus my presentation
on the specific inquiries that were made by the Planning Commission
in relation to this petition at the last hearing.
Specifically the Planning Commission requested additional
information from the petitioner, as well as from county staff. County
staff has since addressed those inquiries directed to it in its
supplemental staff report.
So if it pleases the Commission, I will narrow my presentation to
the inquiries that were raised in direction to the petitioner, the property
owner and/or the engineers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. And one of the things that
Page 15
January 7, 2010
we had asked you to do is clean up who represents who. That was a
question last time.
MS. MADISON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I just want to make sure you put
that on record so we're covered.
MS. MADISON: Yes, I am here on behalf of the property owner
and the applicant.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MS. MADISON: At the October 15th hearing we were asked to
submit at a minimum copies of the most recent inspection report for
the tower that is the subject ofthis request. Copies of that inspection
report were submitted to Mr. Moss prior to this hearing.
If it pleases the Commission, and they do not have those directly
in front of them, I have copies in the exhibit books, which were
demonstrative in nature. The report does certify that the tower passes
inspection.
The second request was for clarification of the collapse zone for
the tower. Section 5.05.09, sub G, sub 7, as you're aware, exempts
this particular tower from the collapse zone requirement. Nonetheless,
it was the Planning Commission's desire to have an in-depth analysis
of the collapse zone for this site.
We have provided that analysis. It was provided prior to this
hearing date. And if you do not have that immediately available to
you, I can provide a copy of that as well.
The next request was made for the copies of the most recent
filings with the Collier County Mosquito Control District. The
applicant submitted on October 15th, and the staff confirmed at the
initial hearing, that the site was compliant with the requirements set
forth by Collier County Mosquito Control. But the Planning
Commission requested to review the most recent filings.
We have since provided copies of those. And if you need to
review those, I have them available with me as well.
Page 16
January 7, 2010
We were requested to provide a copy of the redacted FBI lease.
That has since been provided. It certifies that the lease is certifiable
for nine -- I believe nine extensions of a one-year term. And we have
testimony present today that will certify that the FBI has in fact been a
tenant there for over 20 years.
We were also asked to clarify and delineate the distances by
which separate adjacent residential and/or housing from the subject
site. We have revised the site plan to include that information. That
was previously provided and is available to review today, ifit pleases
the Commission.
We ask that you make a final decision on this, being a
conditional use application. As such, we stipulate that we do meet all
the published criteria in the Land Development Code for issuance of
this conditional use permit.
Additionally, we've worked diligently with county staff members
to provide the information that was requested by the Commission at
the October hearing.
Staff has reviewed this additional information and has maintained
its recommendation of no objection to the request, which was the
initial recommendation in October.
We have since re-noticed the hearing and have not received any
inquiries from the public, despite that fact.
The staff report we believe constitutes competent substantial
evidence as a matter oflaw. And -- I'm sorry, before I close, one
additional request that was made was that we have two Florida -- not
two, but a Florida certified engineer here to address questions as
needed by the Commission. And we do have two engineers here
today, Mr. Hallowell and Mr. Heckerman, who can address any
additional questions, as necessary. And I will allow them to step up
and answer the questions as needed.
But to close, I would ask that based on our compliance with the
Land Development Code requirements, the staff requirement -- or I'm
Page 17
January 7, 2010
sorry, the staff recommendation of approval, our compliance with the
requests that were made in October as well as the lack of public
opposition, we do renew our request for approval of this conditional
use petition, and we are available to answer any questions that you
may have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I want to thank you for the
thorough job you did in attending to every single one of questions. I
did -- I have a list from before, and you have responded to each one.
That's appreciated.
Okay, are there any questions from the Planning Commission,
now that we have the remaining information that we didn't have the
first time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, staff report?
MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Nancy
Gundlach, and I am filling in for John-David Moss today for this
petition.
And staff is recommending approval of this conditional use and
variance as well.
And I do have a change to one of the conditions of approval for
the conditional use. And that is the last condition of approval,
condition of approval number six. And we are changing the time
period on that. And that's the time period that should the government
entity ever leave the tower site, they will have six months to find a
replacement instead of the stated 60 days.
And with that, if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer
them.
Yes.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Is there any sanction being
applied to the applicant for not having torn down the old tower, as
they agreed?
MS. GUNDLACH: By sanctions, you mean punishments?
Page 18
January 7, 2010
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Punishment.
MS. GUNDLACH: There is a double conditional use fee.
And Ray, can you think of any other?
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
This petition was not brought to the Code Enforcement Board for
further action, and the applicant took the action to submit the
conditional use. So there is no other --
MR. KLATZKOW: And for the record, since the time of the
issuance of that conditional use, we've changed our public policy in
the county and we're now looking to have multiple towers on sites. So
rather than having single towers throughout the county, the county
policy is now to put multiple towers on these sites.
So really from a code enforcement standpoint we'd be enforcing
a public policy that's no longer a public policy.
That conditional use that would have required them to take it
down was under an old public policy. The present public policy
would really be to keep them both up there.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: But they were under the old --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- conditional use --
MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. And there's the--
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- when they decided on their own
not to dismantle the tower --
MR. KLATZKOW: They should have dismantled the tower,
yes, I agree.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- as they should have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And maybe Ray, you could
answer this, because I know Nancy, you're new and it's an unfair
question.
Page 19
January 7, 2010
Ray, you have determined that this is an essential service as per
5.05.09?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We ran this question by the zoning
director, Susan Istenes, at the time, and it was her opinion that that
was the intent, her opinion, that this qualified as an essential service
tower site.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Have you read G.3 of that and
come to that conclusion yourself?
MR. BELLOWS: We got that from the zoning director, who is
the one authorized to make that determination.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So she states, and it's your
position, that this is an essential service tower --
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- as per G.3 of5.05.09?
MR. BELLOWS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of staff?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I don't want to belabor
this, but -- and I understand, I think, the reason for six months. But if
it's deemed to be an essential service tower because there's an antenna
on there that's appropriate because of governmental involvement, but
if the government entity goes away and you give them six months and
they can't get another entity, they have to take the tower down; is that
correct?
MR. BELLOWS: It goes through code enforcement action and
that could be one of the solutions.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So if--
MR. BELLOWS: Certainly they can't operate it unless it is
deemed to be an essential service tower, and they have to have some
kind of essential service on it.
Page 20
January 7, 2010
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand sometimes that we
have to struggle to try to make things fit that don't seemingly fit. But
a duck is a duck is a duck. And if it's essential services tower because
we've said so because a governmental antenna can be on it, then I
don't see how it can change its status by the absence temporarily of it.
But if it can be taken down because it no longer has a
governmental entity's antenna on it, how then is it an essential services
tower? It's a conundrum.
MR. BELLOWS: Like any use that is approved by the county
commission, if at some point in the future the use changes and is not
operating as (sic) the manner that it was approved, then it's subject to
code enforcement action to get compliance or to take whatever
remedial action to correct it.
And in this case a tower, if it doesn't have an essential service
use, could be subject to be torn down.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Ray, if they have that problem, one
of the solutions would be to come back in and seek further public
processes to relieve themselves --
MR. BELLOWS: That's a good point.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- of any concerns they have.
MR. BELLOWS: That is correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: One of the other issues with the
conditional use that they are supposed to be living under today is the
height of the tower. It was stated that the new tower would be 394
feet. And we all know that the tower is actually 452 feet.
MS. GUNDLACH: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Again, why are we sanctioning--
when people make commitments to this county, why are we then
going back to sanction and say oh, it's okay that you absolutely did not
follow what you were supposed to follow? You made a commitment,
it's in writing and you decided not to be bothered to construct
Page 21
January 7, 2010
something that you wanted to construct.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, if! may, I'd like to try to answer that
one.
It's -- I don't think the county's condoning actions that are
inconsistent with their approval. We are trying to rectify the problem
in the limits that the code allows. And the code does allow them to
come in and apply for a conditional use to rectify the problem.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So just for everybody else out
there, it's okay to say that you're going to do one thing, decide to do
something else, and then just come in after the fact and say sorry,
guys, now grant me an exemption to --
MR. KLATZKOW: They do that -- Commissioner, they do that
at their parallel. If they don't get this conditional use, at that point in
time there will be code enforcement proceedings. And at that point in
time we will move to tear down the tower, okay?
So, you know, it's within the public policy of this board to make
a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners who will
then make a public policy as to what consequences are going to flow
from, you know, their prior actions.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, were there any public
complaints concerning either of these towers?
MR. BELLOWS: Not to my knowledge.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The neighbors were notified of to day's
meeting?
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have any complaints, e-mail,
telephone call, anybody have any concerns?
MR. BELLOWS: Nothing on record.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And again, Nancy, I'm going to
do it to Ray, because it isn't fair to do it to you.
MS. GUNDLACH: Fine with me.
Page 22
January 7, 2010
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, has anybody in the
department with a structural knowledge reviewed the analysis of the
collapse zone? The collapse zone is an important part of a tower. It's
supposed to be two and a halftimes the height of the tower, unless it's
an essential service tower. Now, I don't agree with that, but I'll bow to
your prior conversation.
But has anybody reviewed that? Especially this engineer's letter
in the second to last paragraph says the above is just an estimate so it
essentially neuters, you know, the prior part of it anyway.
Has anybody reviewed this to say that these towers are in
structural, you know --
MR. BELLOWS: Well, like any structure built in Collier
County, it goes through a site development plan review process. And
then as building permits are issued in construction, their inspections,
our engineering staff review those plans and make those
determinations.
I think the thing that came up last meeting, as I recall, is the
maintenance reports. The code requires these towers to submit these
maintenance reports to the county. And one of the things that wasn't
clear at the last meeting is who reviews those and how do we track
those monitoring reports.
And John-David Moss was working with Joe Schmitt to create a
process within CDES to ensure that those reports are being looked at
through the staff of CDES.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But they haven't been on this
site prior.
The engineering analysis, unless I read it wrong, is only -- the
report is only for one tower, and I'm not sure which tower it is.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's in the book, it isn't in our --
MR. BELLOWS: If they're --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- other information.
Page 23
January 7, 2010
MR. BELLOWS: -- deficient on that, we will follow up with
them and --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But the concern I have is, let me
get to it, is the collapse zone thing. Is that -- I know of a tower, an
experience where a cable snapped and it fell way out of the cable zone
like they're describing it only does.
Two towers nested together, one being an old one, if it's in
disrepair and it starts to come down, it could take the cables out of the
new one. So I'm not really comfortable that this has met the collapse
zone.
Once again, collapse zone's only a problem if it's not an essential
service tower. Which you guys are saying that this is either owned or
leased by the government.
So -- but -- so nobody has looked at that, nobody has reported to
you that these -- you're comfortable with this engineering?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, engineering reports have been
submitted. I wasn't the planner involved in reviewing all those things,
but we can double check that and get back to you.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What was submitted was one
letter stating the towers only fall within the cable outline.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. And like I said, though, the towers are
inspected and they can't get a C.O. without passing all the inspections.
And then as the years go by there are engineering maintenance
inspections, and we're getting copies of them. And I don't know if we
have all of them on this one, but if we don't, we will get them.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But you admitted, and we
finally got one done in December, that they haven't been done on
these towers.
MR. BELLOWS: I'm not sure what the process was. It doesn't
(sic) be clear at this point what was being done. But we have a
process in place now and --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But nobody in this room is
Page 24
January 7, 2010
aware --
MR. BELLOWS: -- going onward into the future we've
identified an issue and now we've corrected it.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So what you're saying is
you're going to assure everybody that these towers are going to be
inspected immediately, and any kind of structural deficiency will be
corrected.
MR. BELLOWS: I didn't say -- the county doesn't inspect them.
The property owner, the tower owners hire their engineers, inspect,
and they file reports with the county.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And they're reviewed by?
MR. BELLOWS: Engineers.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any
questions?
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: One of the issues that I raised
was the question of liability associated with the other tenants on there
and whether or not the liability would be shared or what the
implications for the county would be in the event of a collapse
because we're designating it essential services; whereas, the possibility
exists that, if I recall correctly, there are residential properties that are
fairly close.
Have we resolved the issues of the other liability questions? I
recognize -- let me preface by saying I recognize that this is a lessee
coming before us seeking -- this is a lessee coming before us seeking
to utilize a property, okay. And it can be done. It's done in stores and
so forth. I understand that fully.
But we have multiple tenants in this case. What -- did we
explore? Did we work with the law, the legal office and try to
determine whether or not liability will be -- we're going to be
impacted by this? I don't want to go further than that statement.
Page 25
January 7, 2010
MR. BELLOWS: Well, typically the property owner is the one
that has any kind of liability if there are problems associated with
maintenance or anything else. Safety is the property owner's concern.
Now, they may have worked out some arrangements with people
they lease space to for proper utilization of those towers, but when it
comes down to liability, it's the property owner.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, let me go a little step
further. Not to belabor this, but frankly, I'm concerned.
The governmental entity goes away. They have six months. One
month into that period that tower no longer has a governmental entity.
Is that still an essential services tower?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, we would start the Code Enforcement
action, and --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You're not answering my --
MR. BELLOWS: Well, our opinion is it is not an essential
service tower in that regard. And that's why we would start code
enforcement action after six months.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I appreciate that. What I'm
driving at is that under those circumstances should the collapse occur
and it extends out into the residential properties, what then? That's the
MR. BELLOWS: That's an excellent question --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- concern I have.
MR. BELLOWS: -- and I'm glad you asked. But still the answer
is it's the property owner's responsibility.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I would --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Use the mic., Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can't hear you, you're too far from
the mic.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Am I? I apologize.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, just then you were is the only time.
Page 26
January 7, 2010
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would hope that, Mr.
Klatzkow, you can help me with that regard, because that's a sticking
point for me, quite frankly. And I have no personal matter in this, but
I'm concerned. Ifthere's any liability for this county associated with
it, I think we need to get that matter cleared up.
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm not concerned with the liability issue.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. That's good enough
for me.
MS. MADISON: I was going to respectfully add, if you like I
can just state for the record the specific code provision. It's 5.05.09,
sub G, sub 9, and it does state -- I'm sorry, sub 8. All owners of
approved towers are jointly and severally liable and responsible for
any damage caused to off-site property as a result of a collapse of any
tower owned by them.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I've been to court where
those things have been contested. Thank you.
MS. MADISON: I just want to cite--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, you need to get closer to your mic
if you're going to speak.
Okay, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Just one other question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then Ms. Caron.
MR. BELLOWS: I believe the applicant has an engineer here
too if you want some testimony from the engineer.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, and this may be for the
engmeer.
Obviously I think the county policy needs to change with respect
to essential services. Because if one of these towers does fall and they
don't all collapse within the collapse zone -- I mean, the towers are
meant, if something happens to them, to fall within a collapse zone.
Page 27
January 7, 2010
However, if somebody cuts a guy wire, all you have to do is cut one of
them and it will fall over, just like a tree, pretty much.
Yes, please come up here and we'll talk about it. Because -- and
we'll talk specifics as well. Here's our engineer.
MR. HECKERMAN: Good morning. My name is Jerry
Heckerman. I'm the chief engineer for Renda Broadcasting. I've been
with them for going on 14 years. I've been an engineer for about 40
years. I've been in the field and I can assure you, when you read the
document closely, the towers are constructed to the TIA and the EIA
standards. And these standards include an inner and outer guy points.
Cutting one wire will not make the tower fall. You would have to cut
all of the guylines. Even if you cut four on the outer guyline, the
tower would still fold at its halfway point. Because in the standards it
is designed to have your inner guy points go up at the 50 percent
lower level of the tower and a second set of guy points that are further
out the second half. That would be the worst case scenario.
Ninety percent of all tower collapses do not happen because of
. broken guywires. They happen due to the twisting motion of a tower
because of devices on the tower that cause the tower to twist, which is
called the loading. So if you have antennas sticking on the tower that
stick out like this and the wind blows, that is the chief cause of a tower
coming down. And it twists. And as it twists, it comes upon itself.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So let's talk about what happened
in September of '09 out in Oregon.
MR. HECKERMAN: I'm not --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Guywires were --
MR. HECKERMAN: -- familiar with that case.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- cut. Guywires were cut. It was
done by an environmental terrorist group. They cut the guywires on
KRKO and the thing went down just like a tree. It would be pretty
hard to be in your business and not to have read about that.
MR. HECKERMAN: I did. And there are exceptions to any
Page 28
January 7, 2010
case.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, there are exceptions. And so
if you lived in a home right over here, wouldn't you want to know that
you were protected, that if that thing went over for whatever reason __
MR. HECKERMAN: Currently there are --
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- ifit went over during a hurricane
or --
MR. HECKERMAN: -- no residential homes within 500 feet of
the tower --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Currently.
MR. HECKERMAN: -- is my understanding.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, you're going to have to wait till she
finishes, because the recorders can't pick up both conversations at the
same time. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Currently there are no homes, but
the zoning is residential. It is zoned for homes right there.
So that's all. That's my only point. And if the tower had been
built to the specifications that it was supposed to be, we might not be
in this position. I don't know.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
MS. MADISON: Can I just before we proceed have Mr.
Heckerman state his name. And for the record, I believe the court
reporter requested that.
MR. HECKERMAN: Jerry Heckerman. H-E-C-K-E-R-M-A-N.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Ms. Madison, that was
something I should have caught. Appreciate it.
Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Jerry, looking at the tower
inspection report, which tower was inspected?
MR. HECKERMAN: Both towers have been inspected. You
should have two reports there.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the book that you just gave
Page 29
January 7, 2010
us, the only place we have it there's only one tower. And you're a
licensed engineer in the State of Florida?
MR. HECKERMAN : Yes. I'm federally licensed too.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In the report, though, it does
state that one of the guylines -- did you review that, one of the
guylines has a temporary splice that should be replaced?
MR. HECKERMAN: Yes. And the reason that it wasn't
replaced at this time is because if this gets approved the tower will
have to be beefed up for additional antennas. And my understanding
is that FLO TV will pay to beef the tower up to newer, stronger
standards and replace guylines as necessary.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. The -- okay, so then
essentially I must be reading the oldest tower's report?
MR. HECKERMAN : Yes. The new tower was brought up to G
standards in the last year when the standards changed from F to G.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't know what that means,
but --
MR. HECKERMAN: Okay, well, the standards got tighter in the
last couple of years.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So you do have two of
these reports?
MR. HECKERMAN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then they're signed
by a guy named Darrell Elliott. So what is he, he's a structural
engmeer, or --
MR. HECKERMAN: Darrell Elliott is the -- has been in the
tower business for quite a long time. We did bring his resume about
his experience. He is an EE engineer. And I have that document here.
I'm assuming this was all submitted, correct?
MS. MADISON: No.
MR. HECKERMAN: But I do have his qualifications here.
Also, he works with the people that stamped. And if you look
Page 30
January 7, 2010
carefully on the stamped letter by Structural Components, it says both
towers were constructed, meeting all the EIA TIA Section 2-22
requirements, which is the requirements that this county and just about
every county in the United States goes by.
The only difference is, is since then the F requirements have
changed to G, which means some stronger bracing will need to be put
on the tower, and some extra guywires, which FLO TV is prepared to
do if we get this approved, because it's going to be necessary.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But EE is electrical
engineer, not a structural engineer.
MR. HECKERMAN: TIA. They're combined entities. Electrical
Industry Association and Telecommunications Industry Association
provide the standards for towers.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But an EE designation in
the State of Florida would mean electrical engineer, correct?
MR. HECKERMAN: No, but Structural Components did stamp.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. But that's another
requirement.
MR. HECKERMAN: And in the requirements of the county, it
says -- the inspection says any qualified tower professional that's been
doing this for years and years and years. These people build -- in this
report I can show you pictures where they build giant 2,000-foot
towers, antennas on top of buildings. Darrell's quite experienced.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is this the only county that
requires annual or biannual inspections?
MR. HECKERMAN: I've never seen this anywhere in my 40
years of experience except for here. Now that I'm aware of this
requirement, we are going to make sure that it gets followed to the T.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron. And then Brad, you need to
pull that closer next time you're on the mic.
Go ahead, Ms. Caron, then Mr. Murray.
Page 31
January 7, 2010
COMMISSIONER CARON: I just have one other question.
On the old tower that we're trying to get a conditional use for
here today, essentially is LoJack, wants to be FLO TV, and the FBI, or
some government entity. Is that pretty much --
MR. HECKERMAN: And Reach FM, which has a translator --
COMMISSIONER CARON : Yeah, that's a ham.
MR. HECKERMAN: -- on the tower.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, that's a ham thing.
Would there -- would it be possible for those entities to be on the
new tower?
MR. HECKERMAN: No. There is no more space to put
anybody on the new tower. And this is why we would like to be able
to have this tower beefed up and made available, not only for these
tenants but for other people that may need to have a place to put an
antenna in the future.
Because right now it's hard to get a tower anywhere. In the
world of today, the communications and the electronics, you know,
towers are in need. And if you already have a tower that's existing
that's capable of adding future tenants, I think we're doing the county a
.
servIce.
COMMISSIONER CARON: What's left on that -- on the old
tower certainly doesn't take up much wind load.
MR. HECKERMAN: Currently what's on the tower right now
does not have a lot of wind load.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. What about FLO TV,
they're not --
MR. HECKERMAN: FLO TV is going to have a little bit of
wind load. Definitely . We've already looked at some structural
analyses. The tower is going to have to have structural work done to
put the new tenants on to meet code.
COMMISSIONER CARON: The old tower--
MR. HECKERMAN: The old tower, yes.
Page 32
January 7, 2010
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- is going to require structural,
okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, you wanted to comment before
Mr. Murray?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. For the record, Nick
Casalanguida.
I've spoken to the applicant, and based on the discussion there's a
condition of approval they will provide a structural report, certified by
an engineer, every year to the county on the condition of both towers,
the guywires and anything that would encumber that tower. And I
would suggest we put that as a condition of approval on this
application.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Isn't that part of the code?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: It is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then we wouldn't need it as a condition
of approval because they've got to do it, right?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well, maybe we can go a little farther
with that in terms of that review. We'll check the code. But I think if
the concern is that review, that report could certainly be part of that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir, just one quick -- here I am.
Just one point. Your engineering degree is what, civil, professional,
electronics? What is it, sir?
MR. HECKERMAN: Radio. It's in the field of broadcasting,
radio. I have worked with the towers. I've been involved with as
many as 30 towers being erected. Also, I also work with a couple of
tower companies and assist them in actually building a few towers.
I'm also a ham radio operator and I also have my very own tower at
my house.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sure. Thank you.
MR. HECKERMAN: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions of
Page 33
January 7, 2010
anybody at this point?
Mr. Kolflat?
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Ray, after hearing what you've
heard this morning, added to what we received in our packet, does the
staff still recommend approval for this project?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we do.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions at
this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, do we have any public speakers?
MR. BELLOWS: No speakers on this item.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we will close the public
hearing and entertain a motion from the Planning Commission.
Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a motion to
approve. Do we need to approve these separately or together?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Separately. So we've got to say one
first, then we've got to vote on that, then we've got to go to the second
one.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okay. I recommend approval
on PL2009-37, FLO TV.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a second?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, motion made to approve and--
by Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Mr. Murray.
I assume the approval is subject to conditions and stipulations in
the staff report?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I hope so.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, of course. And staff
approval.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any discussion?
Page 34
January 7, 2010
COMMISSIONER CARON : Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON : Yes, I will not vote for the motion.
I feel very strongly that the issue is that Renda Broadcasting agreed to
a conditional use, and that among the requirements was that the old
tower come down after the new tower was constructed.
And in addition to that, the new tower was supposed to be 394
feet, not 455 feet. And I think if this particular conditional use could
not be -- they couldn't live by that conditional use, then I don't know
that we expect that they will live by the new one. So I'll vote against
the motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The reason I seconded it and I
will vote for the motion is because the concerns I had, which were the
matters of liability and potential injury to somebody in the future have
been effectively resolved. The fact that there have been two towers
there, that perhaps that one of them should have come down is now
moot in my mind, especially in light of public policy and the need for
towers.
As long as we're structurally okay and we've done everything we
could to protect the public, even though it may have been a wrongful
act to fail to bring them down, perhaps we can benefit from it anyway.
So that's my maybe illogic, but that's why I voted.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, I'd like to echo what Mrs.
Caron said. I think based on their past record, I'm concerned that this
company will meet the commitments that they're committing to today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, and I will be supporting the
motion. I think that the fact that we had a code that wasn't to as much
benefit as it could have been in the past and we saw that it needed
correction and the correction was that multiple towers are a good
thing, this one has no reported incidences around it, there's no
Page 35
January 7, 2010
complaints, I just don't see any reason why it shouldn't be there. So I
certainly will be supporting the motion.
Anybody else?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, as much as I want to vote
against it, I will support it based on the fact that I do think clustering
the towers is the most efficient and smartest use of towers. I think
we're going to structurally concern (sic) it. I really disagree that it's an
essential service tower and like (sic) somebody in staff to read the
code I read and get back to me and tell me why, you know, it looks
black to me but you're saying it's white. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, I'll call for a vote and
it should be by both hand and voice.
All those in favor of the motion for approval of the variance,
signify by saying aye and raising your hand.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
One, two, three, four, five, six, in favor.
Those opposed?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two against.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next one, is there a motion on
the conditional use?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I will make a motion to
approve CU-2008-AR-4085, FLO TV, for approval, with all the
conditions we spoke about today and staff approval.
Page 36
January 7, 2010
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, a motion made and seconded
with the stipulations.
Discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My position will be the same as for the
previous one, and I will be supporting the motion.
All those in favor, same sign, signify by saying aye and raising
their hand.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
One, two, three, four, five, six in favor.
Those against?
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two against.
Okay, thank you very much for your attendance today. And that
-- we'll be done with that one.
MR. KLA TZKOW: Just for the record, the reasons for the
negative votes were the same as previously stated?
COMMISSIONER CARON : Yes.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: (Nods head affirmatively.)
MR. KLATZKOW: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next item up -- and by the way,
for those people on the C.A.T. transfer station, we probably aren't
going to catch you by 9:30, so it will be closer to 10:00 before we
start, if we get that far by then. I'm being optimistic.
Page 37
January 7, 2010
Item #9C
PETITION: PUDZ-A-2006-AR-10318, PAWEL AND TERYL
BRZESKI, MAGNOLIA POND HOLDINGS, LLC
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next petition is
PUDZ-A-2006-AR-I0318. It's Pawel and Teryl Brzeski, Magnolia
Pond Holdings, LLC.
All those wishing to participate in this item, please rise to be
sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there disclosures on the part of the
Planning Commission?
Mr. Vigliotti?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I had a brief conversation with
Patrick White.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, Patrick White called me,
we had a brief conversation.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: And I had a brief conversation
with Mr. Hancock.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I did too with Mr. Hancock.
Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think I might have had a
conversation with Patrick sometime in the past, I just can't recall it
offhand. Not recently, though.
Okay, with that, we will turn it over to the applicant.
MR. WHITE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
Happy new year to you and the staff. And indeed, you mentioned the
cold, and I have one, courtesy of my son, so please forgive my voice.
Page 38
January 7, 2010
Patrick White, with the law firm of Porter, Wright, Morris and
Arthur, Naples office.
Here today on the agenda item you referenced, Mr. Chairman, we
note that there are a number of housekeeping issues we need to
address before we get into the true substance of the presentation.
It's going to be pretty much a dual effort between myself and Tim
Hancock of Davidson Engineering. He will be handing out through
staff a tract changes version of the PUD document that you're
receIvmg now.
We also have prepared an addenda that has 13 items that have
come to our mutual attention working with the staff and with the Chair
in addressing a series of issues that Tim will enumerate and go
through one by one.
In addition, before we get to that, there are two aspects of the
staff report that I'd like to make mention of that are minor points, but
ones that I think warrant being corrected on the record.
First is as to the owners. And this has been backed up with
affidavits that have been previously provided to the County Attorney's
Office. There are three series of ownerships. The first two of those
are correctly stated in LLC where Ms. Teryl Brzeski, Terry Brzeski, is
the manager of that LLC.
Second item is a land trust number 1.B. Ms. Brzeski again is the
trustee of that trust.
Thirdly, the five-acre parcel that's actually the unzoned piece or
the differently zoned piece that's being added into this mixed PUD is
one that is owned by Mr. and Mrs. Brzeski as tenants by the entirety.
So what we would do is just correct the record to reflect that
there's a third owner, Teryl and Pawel Brzeski, husband and wife.
That, as I said, was for the five-acre piece that's presently zoned ago
that we're bringing into this PUD.
Second item, a little minor, maybe more personal. As agent, our
law firm recently moved and the new address is 9132 Strada Place,
Page 39
January 7, 2010
third floor. All other information remains the same.
Correspondingly to the amendments to the staff report, we will
further amend the application to reflect the ownership interest that I've
just referenced, and that is under the disclosure of interest information
that is on Page 2 of the app. under small letter "a", just for the record's
purposes, and that's where we would indicate 100 percent ownership
in the individual status of husband and wife of Mr. and Mrs. Brzeski.
I would note for the record that both Mr. and Mrs. Brzeski are
present today, but unless you have specific questions of them, we're
not anticipating any remarks from them.
One of the other items that was provided to staff, as you're aware,
there was hand-off ofthis project to Ms. Deselem. And in making
sure since Monday that all of the I's are dotted and T's are crossed, we
provided a follow-up affidavit of posting notice and photographs to
ensure that the notice is proper with respect to the dates.
As you see on your visualizer, Mr. Hancock will be providing a
brief Power Point that will help orient towards the project. And what I
believe at this point is probably best to do is to just simply indicate for
the record that Mr. Hancock obviously is an expert in planning and
has been I'm certain recognized by this body as such on numerous
occaSIOns.
And with that said, I believe that's enough from me. We're going
to do our best to wrap this up.
I'm not aware of any public opposition, but I would like to
reserve some time to respond and to address any comments that any of
the Commissioners may have working in tandem with Mr. Hancock.
Are there any questions at this time, Commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Doesn't look like it, Patrick. We'll move
on.
MR. WHITE: Simply note for the record that at this point we
have a recommendation of approval from staff. Thank you.
Page 40
January 7, 2010
MR. HANCOCK: Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Commissioners. For the record, Tim Hancock with Davidson
Engineering, and working with Patrick White as co-agent for
Magnolia Pond Holdings, LLC and Land Trust I-B.
The application before you today seeks to amend the existing
sunsetted zoning for the Magnolia Pond PUD. The previously PUD
allowed for the development of231 multi-family units on 42 acres of
land.
The PUD proposal in front of you today serves to increase the
land mass from 42 acres to 47.05 acres through the addition ofa
previously unzoned agricultural parcel to the north and east.
However, in doing so we do not seek to increase the number of
developable units. They'll remain at 231. What that effectively does
is reduces the gross density from 5.49 units per acre to the proposed
4.91 units per acre. Certainly not a substantial reduction, but a
reduction just the same.
The second component of the application seeks to amend the list
of permitted uses to clarify some undefined terms that were in the
prior PUD, such as townhomes and garden apartments that go
undefined in the current Land Development Code.
We also wish to add assisted living facilities as a permitted use
within the project.
Just as many projects have come before you in recent months and
requested a combination of assisted living facility and/or residential
uses, this application seeks to permit the conversion of a former
residential PUD to ALF uses for part or all of the project. I'll address
that conversion issue a little more fully later in my presentation.
The site is located approximately one-half mile west of951 and
is bisected by Magnolia Pond Drive. Magnolia Pond Drive serves
residential and institutional uses located along its length and
terminates at Golden Gate High School, where my wife is the Dean,
so I'm compelled to say Go Titans at this point. Take that one back to
Page 41
January 7, 2010
the office, Mr. Eastman. All right.
To the north is existing and developed RSF-3 zoning across the
Golden Gate canal, which measures a little more than 125 (sic) in
width. The project has approximately 650 feet of frontage on the
canal.
To the east, which is to the right of the drawing you're looking at,
is Mike Davis Elementary School. Approximately 400 feet with a
common shared border, followed by a preserve extending further
south all the way to Magnolia Pond Drive.
As you cross Magnolia Pond Drive, the adjacent land is zoned for
Collier Boulevard mixed use commerce center. This permits a
residential density of up to 10 units per acre with hundreds of
thousands of square feet of commercial and hotel use.
To the south is the I-75 right-of-way measuring approximately
350 feet in width with multi-family zoning across the right-of-way,
ranging from four to 13 units per acre.
And again to the west is Golden Gate High School.
The property is designated as urban residential subdistrict in the
Growth Management Plan, and as such is afforded the opportunity to
request up to 16 units per acre. Because the property is located within
the density band of the activity center at I-75 and 951, it is eligible to
request up to seven units per acre. However, as stated previously, the
approval before you today is for a maximum of 231 residential units, a
density of less than five units per acre.
While I could regale you ad nauseam as to how the project meets
the goals and objectives of the GMP, staff has done a fine job of
summarizing the project's consistency in their staff report, so I'll let
the application and report stand as sufficient evidence in that regard.
As part of the PUD amendment, the master plan has been
updated to reflect the required preserve, water management, project
access conditions, and desired amenities. The site plan is dominated
by the required preserve area to the south, or bottom of the drawing
Page 42
January 7, 2010
before you. Of the total 47.05 acres, 41.1 are deemed to be indigenous
and thus the required preserve area equals 10.28 acres.
Based on the adjacent zoning approvals, the largest contiguous
preserve exists along the southeast portion of the project, which is the
lower right-hand corner of the drawing. This fact, combined with the
desire to buffer the project as much as is reasonable from the noise of
I-75, resulted in the preserve area being located along the south and
southeast property lines.
The only species of concern evident in our surveys is a fair
number of gopher tortoises. At the time of submittal of this
application off-site relocation was the preferred method, but there may
be a change in focus going on at the state level to encourage on-site
retention where preserves are large enough and suitable with
vegetation. At the time of development order, off-site relocation,
on-site retention or a combination of both will be utilized in
accordance with state and federal regulations to address the presence
of the gopher tortoises.
The project proposes buffering consistent with Land
Development Code requirements for the perimeter of the project,
including a 10-foot Type D buffer along Magnolia Pond Drive. The
Type D buffer is the most intensive buffer in the Land Development
Code, and provides for the option of placing a privacy wall within that
buffer.
The project also proposes an interesting amenity along Golden
Gate canal that may require a little bit of explanation. The applicant
was approached by the Collier County Parks and Recreation
Department during the rezone process and asked to grant a 20-foot
easement along the canal frontage for the purpose of constructing a
bicycle and pedestrian pathway that will ultimately connect 951 to
Santa Barbara Boulevard.
The county apparently has all the necessary pieces to accomplish
this, except for the Magnolia Pond frontage. We're the last remaining
Page 43
January 7, 2010
link.
The issue for us was that -- I looked at it and we saw the access
to the canal as being a recreational amenity for the community. And
by granting a 20-foot easement along that canal, that serves a purpose
of almost severing the connectivity between the community and the
canal.
After some thought, a design was created that we feel preserves
and even improves the access, while granting this 20-foot easement,
which is the -- it doesn't show it very well in the visualizer but it's a
small pink strip across the top of the site plan.
The concept as shown on the master plan is to grant the request to
the easement, but permit the developer in the future to construct a lake
parallel to the canal and create connections to the canal that would
require the installation of pedestrian bridges so the county pathway
would remain intact but allow for access to and from the canal by
residents within the development. The creation of this connected
lagoon would also reduce or eliminate the need for any boat docks or
access facilities along the canal.
And in short, we were able to basically take what I saw as a
liability and turn it into an interesting amenity that will give the
community access for recreational purposes to the Golden Gate canal
system without having to operate within that easement for structures
and any boat docks or launching facilities.
We see it definitely as something of a small-scale kind of a canoe
and kayak launch type facility. Again, if you've ever fished the
canals, they are loaded with bass and oscar and blue gill, and there's
quite a bit of recreation that goes on there.
So we've been able to satisfy the 20- foot request from the county
without adversely impacting the plan for the community.
A second -- and then one thing I do want to mention is during the
neighborhood information meeting the property owners across the
canal expressed a desire to keep the plan as it was shown, because it
Page 44
January 7, 2010
provided for a greater distance between the canal and what would be
the buildings.
While I explained to them that I could not guarantee that a lake
would be located in that location, what we did do is, being responsive
to their concerns, is installed a minimum 300-foot setback for any
structures that would reach three stories. That would allow for
two-story structures to be located across the canal from homes that are
zoned that allow for two-story construction. But if a three-story
structure is to be built, the minimum separation from the property line
would be 300 feet. Hopefully the plan will be constructed as shown.
If not, at least any taller buildings than two stories will have an
increased separation.
The project has a secondary public benefit in that it will result in
the conveyance to Collier County of a 30-foot easement for
maintenance and required improvements to an existing water
management ditch that runs the length of the entire eastern property
line. This easement actually serves not just our project by any means
but believe it or not serves projects south ofI-75 from the Radio Road
extension road northward.
I've worked on projects down there, and I was interested to find
out that projects that far south actually have their stormwater flow
north underneath I-75 ultimately into the Golden Gate canal. That
conveyance was never really clear and the ability for the county to
maintain that easement was not in place.
What we've agreed to do is grant the 30-foot easement to the
county at no cost. And we've agreed to do so within 120 days of
receiving a written request from the county. But in actuality, both of
these easements are in the process of being granted. We've obtained
the legal descriptions, we've done some preliminary review with the
County Attorney's Office, and by the time we end up before the board
we hopefully will have both easements granted and have that behind
us. Nonetheless, we've included in the PUD that requirement to
Page 45
January 7, 2010
ensure that it happens.
The PUD has been completely updated in an effort to comply
with the current PUD format, and it contains a request for two
deviations. The first is to allow for reduction in the internal buffer
requirement from 15 feet to 10 feet where multi-family development
directly abuts single-family or two-family development and where a
similar architectural theme is applied.
The plantings would still meet the Type D requirement, but
would be placed in a 10- foot buffer easement instead of a 15- foot.
Since the building massing between the two uses only varies by
three feet in height, this seemed to be a small request to save some
internal space without sacrificing the quality of the buffer.
The second deviation is to request a 50-foot internal right-of-way
cross-section, instead of the standard 60-foot required by the county.
Since all required utilities, sidewalks and pavement widths can be
accommodated in a 50-foot easement and since the roads will remain
private, the need for 60 feet was not deemed necessary.
The staff does support both of these deviations.
Before turning things back over to Mr. White to execute a
wrap-up and clean up any of my mistakes, we also had an addition to
a change in planners to Ms. Deselem. We received some additional
comments from the County Attorney's Office this week and had some
input from the Chairman. And by the time we wrapped up all these
little changes, I ended up with a list of about 13. And I thought for the
sake of clarity, the easiest way to address those may be to prepare
what I call a tract changes document, which has been handed out to
each of you. And I would like to, with the permission of the Chair, to
just really go page by page, discuss those changes, go over each one of
them with you, and then I have a written addenda that addresses that,
that if it would be helpful during the course of any type of a motion
for the project, I'd be happy to provide that to you also.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Tim.
Page 46
January 7, 2010
MR. HANCOCK: The first change is that Pages 1 and 2 of the
PUD you received have been removed. They were a title page and a
list of exhibits and are no longer necessary in the current PUD format.
The second change is under Exhibit A, Item A.l. Ms. Deselem
recommended capping the number of residential single-family units to
125, which is the number that is reflected in the TIS. The petitioner
has no objection to this change.
The next change on that same page, Exhibit A, Item A.4, there is
a conversion ratio related to net acres of assisted living facilities and
net developable units, which has apparently caused some confusion.
To be perfectly honest with you, when I originally wrote this, the
four-to-one ALF to residential ratio that has become commonplace
was not being used. And what I tried to do was subtract out the lake
and preserve areas to create a net/net situation. So if an ALF were
built on one acre, it would reduce the density by a commensurate
number of units.
In doing so, while it made perfectly good sense to me, apparently
I was the only one. So what we've included here is basically language
that is more comfortable to this body and something you've seen
before and doesn't require a degree in mathematics to get there.
And so what we've added here is we've inserted under Item A.4
that for each four ALF units developed -- and I'm sorry, there should
be a strike-through there also. In the exclusive of preserve areas,
lakes, easements, buffer units, that will go away. So it would read, for
each four ALF units, one residential unit shall be subtracted from the
maximum of 231 permitted dwelling units.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, that answers my question,
because it didn't make any sense. Thank you.
MR. HANCOCK: Oh, it made sense. You just had to spend a
lot of time with me to figure it out.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, no, what didn't make sense
was the 8.27 units stuck in there out of nothingness.
Page 47
January 7, 2010
MR. HANCOCK: Oh, I -- yes, in trying to make these changes, I
will admit that I -- I hope that's the only mistake I have from here
forward, but I can't promise that.
Also, on Exhibit A, and I'll go to the next page, on Item B.6, Ms.
Deselem also noted that we had some antiquated language there that
referred to the county manager or designee, which should have been
replaced with board of zoning appeals. We made that change in A.6.
And also, upon her recommendation, we added that same -- I'm
sorry, under 8.6 we added that same language under A.5 under
permitted uses. Again, a standard reference to say any permitted uses
must go through the BZA as opposed to county manager or designee.
The next change is on Table 1, Exhibit B. And in the tract
changes document you have, that's going to be page number three.
Under the single-family and two-family categories, the setbacks for
principal and accessory structures was listed as N/ A, not applicable.
The chairman pointed out this seems to be kind of confusing and so
suggested revising this to read 20 feet and 10 feet respectively for
principal and accessory structures. And that is the change you see
toward the bottom there.
Just below that there was a lake setback of 20 feet, which
because of the required 20-foot lake maintenance easement that was
redundant, so we have removed it.
The next change is in the footnotes of Table I. Under footnote
six it's stated, minimum floor area of the ALF, and that should have
been maximum. Thank you, Commissioner. So that change has been
made.
And the next change was an addition that I made under footnote
eight after discussing this with the Chairman. And one of the
concerns there was as you go down Magnolia Pond Drive, if you look
at the site plan, you very conceivably could have the rear of the homes
facing Magnolia Pond Drive.
A Type D buffer can be a fully vegetated buffer, and you have
Page 48
January 7, 2010
the option of placing a wall in there. It was pointed out to me that
with a lO-foot accessory structure setback you could have accessory
structures butting up against a 10-foot vegetative buffer along
Magnolia Pond Drive.
For strictly aesthetic purposes and something that I think would
probably happen as a matter of course anyway, what I've put in here is
that the buffer along Magnolia Pond Drive shall be a Type D buffer of
either 10 feet in width with a six-foot privacy wall or 15 feet in width
if only vegetation is installed.
So what I've tried to do is if they choose not to do a wall, we've
increased the buffer width to give a little more setback for accessory
structures and whatnot to hopefully address what is potentially an
aesthetic concern.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Just because you're making
corrections as we go, if you go up to maximum zoned height and run
across, you want 35 feet and two stories, and 20 feet for the
clubhouse. So the other 35 feet is extraneous, it needs just to come out
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- all the way across. Do you see
where I'm --
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- talking?
MR. HANCOCK: All after clubhouse in that entire line there's a
second number of 35 feet in there.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And the same under maximum
actual height, 42 feet needs to come out all the way across.
It's just a formatting thing, right? Because you want 42 feet and
27,42,27,45,27,45,27. And underneath that final 42 feet is
extraneous, right?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No.
Page 49
January 7, 2010
MR. HANCOCK: I don't believe so. Because it deals with--
let's see.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, can I say something?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, go ahead, Brad.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think what they're doing there,
Donna, is they're saying that accessory buildings are 20 feet, except
the clubhouse is 35.
MR. HANCOCK: That's correct. It should read more clearly
than it does. It runs together a little bit there.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, the question that Donna
has is --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Oh, I see. So all right, yeah, it
doesn't read cor -- yeah.
MR. HANCOCK: Yeah, the accessory -- what it says there is
accessory buildings are 20 feet. A clubhouse, which they've drawn
out separately, would be at 35 feet.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Then drop it down onto a
separate line so that --
MR. HANCOCK: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- it's understood. Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or Tim, what would make you
assume the clubhouse is an accessory building, not a principal
building? I think the clubhouse would be considered principal, so you
could --
MR. HANCOCK: We could strike it altogether. Okay.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Is that the way --
MR. HANCOCK: Well, clubhouses--
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- the county normally does it,
though?
MR. HANCOCK: More than not I've had clubhouses deemed to
be accessory to a residential community.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's a principal structure. And
Page 50
January 7, 2010
accessory uses would be accessory to it as a principal.
How did staff look at it when they reviewed it? Now, I caught
staff off guard because they're chatting, but --
MR. BELLOWS: We're chatting about it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, how did you interpret the clause
that Ms. Caron pointed out and Brad's been talking about as well?
MS. DESELEM: For the record, Kay Deselem, Principal
Planner with Zoning.
Yeah, at first I was following along, and yeah, I thought, sure,
she's right, that was just extraneous. But when I look at it, I think I
understand now what he's saying, that he did want the clubhouse to be
higher.
And with Tim, I usually look at a clubhouse as an accessory
structure. It's usually accessory. The principal use is either the
residential units or whatever.
But in looking at the list of uses, I don't see the clubhouse itself
listed for either. Yeah, I was just looking at it quickly, Ray and I were
looking, and it looks like it may come under recreational uses, but it's
not. There is something that says recreation buildings, but in actuality
a clubhouse per se is not listed as a use. So it might be appropriate to
add that use to an accessory and then it's clear.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that may get into another
concern, though, is you know how you've got your top of your
columns, you have four different uses up there? You probably should
add the clubhouse as another use so that you can list its front side yard
and the whole nine yards --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- because you're not going to want your
clubhouse without a side yard setback the same as to a single-family
home, say.
MS. DESELEM: That's more customary.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, that is more customary and I suggest we
Page 51
January 7, 2010
do that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I think what we're going to
end up doing then, Tim, is somehow this is going to have to get done
during lunch or break and you can bring it back today for finalization
this afternoon, if you want. But I think we're going to need to see how
that lays out, because all those setbacks and everything else are going
to be something we need to understand.
You've got a better suggestion, or do you have one?
MR. HANCOCK: No, sir, I think that's something we can do.
And if it -- if the Commission will allow, I'd be happy to, as soon as
we're done here, head back, make those changes and bring at least that
portion of the document back to you.
I know we'll be back to you for consent agenda, if we receive an
approval, with changes for you to review. I don't know if you feel like
that change itself could be handled on consent or whether or not it
should be handled separately today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'd have to work through every
one of your other standards; your side yards, rear yards, front yards
and et cetera for the clubhouse. If you create a separate column,
you're going to have to fill in all those same standards. If you know
what those are, we can verbally go through them and if the
Commission feels comfortable enough it may work.
MR. HANCOCK: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think we have to get to that point.
And this may help you: We need to take a break for the court
reporter, and this might be a good time to break. You can think about
what we just said, decide how you want to handle it, and we'll come
back here at five after 10:00 and resume.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, we'll do that.
(Recess. )
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from
Page 52
January 7, 2010
break. And when we left, we were being entertained by Mr. Hancock,
and he shall continue.
MR. HANCOCK: I appreciate the broad version of
entertainment.
Based on your recommendation -- I appreciate the time, Mr.
Chairman -- I think what would be the cleanest would be to add the
table -- to the table a column of clubhouse on Exhibit B, table one.
And what I'd like to do is just go down each category and give you
what we feel is the appropriate number or standard to be filled in.
So what we'll propose is adding a fifth column for clubhouse.
Under minimum lot area, 7,500 square foot. Under minimum lot
width, 50-foot interior, 60-foot corner. In this case same as the
single-family.
Front yard setback, 25 feet. Side yard setback, 15 feet. Rear
yard setback, 20 feet for principal. I don't believe accessory structure
setback is applicable, but to avoid confusion maybe just put 10 feet in
there anyway, just in case there's an accessory structure on the
clubhouse parcel for some reason.
MPUD boundary setback, 20 feet with notation three, and 10 feet
for accessory structure.
Garage setback, not applicable.
Second page. Natural habitat preserve area setbacks, 25-foot
principal, 10- foot accessory.
Distance between principal structures, one-half the sum of
building heights. Distance between accessory structure, 10 feet.
Maximum zoned height, 35 feet. And of course we will remove the
clubhouse notation from the other four columns.
Maximum actual height, 42 feet. And again, removing the
clubhouse notation from the other four columns.
Minimum floor area, 1,200 feet. And minimum carport or garage
per unit, not applicable.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we move on, let's make sure we
Page 53
January 7, 2010
all have -- since we walked through that, let's just discuss any of the
items.
And my first question would be if this is not listed as one of the
principal uses or accessory uses, are we going to add that terminology
to one or the other? And then which one is it? And then that one
might spur another question. For example, a clubhouse, at least all the
ones I'm used to seeing, have accessory structures to themselves, and
so you haven't addressed that yet in your standards. So you may --
whereas in the second page where you've got 10 and 35 -- or 35 feet
for your zoned height, I think you need to address your accessory
building height in both of those categories, maximum and actual, so --
MR. HANCOCK: In which case I would replicate the standards
for 20 feet for accessory buildings under the zoned height and 27 feet
under actual.
As to the first part of that, because we've created a separate
column for it, I think it's fair to say we're not going to see a clubhouse
being built without residents or an ALF facility in place. Whether it's
listed as a permitted use or an accessory use, I'm -- I'll be honest with
you, I'm not sure it matters in the end.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is staffs preference? Since you're
the ones that are going to have to monitor and control this. Don't say
you don't care.
MR. HANCOCK: Why don't I suggest we put it under permitted
accessory uses and structures, under number two, recreational uses
and facilities, including clubhouses, swimming pools and so forth.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, does that work?
MS. DESELEM: Kay Deselem for the record.
That's acceptable. And that's more customary with what we've
done in other petitions.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then the other thing I think I'd want
to consider, Tim, is when we look at clubhouses, because of the
Page 54
January 7, 2010
activities there, and some have dining, some have a lot of other uses,
they don't become a compatibility issue as much interior, but they do
exterior.
So your MPUD boundary setbacks for those -- for the clubhouse
and its accessory uses I would think may be more of a concern
compatibility-wise than a single-family house would be. Especially if
you've got activities around a pool and things like that, you don't want
it up against another outside your facilities. So you might want to
consider using larger principal and accessory setbacks where it is
against an MPUD boundary.
MR. HANCOCK: The only reason that I didn't factor that in is
when you look at what's around us, the only residences are to the north
across a 125- foot canal. And then we have a high school, an
elementary school and preserve to the south.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's to your -- I can't remember
what's to your east.
MR. HANCOCK: To my east is Mike Davis Elementary School
and then preserve all the way down to Magnolia Pond Drive. Then
when you get across Magnolia Pond -- I'm not adverse to it. I'm just --
I'm thinking on the north end of the project we may have a -- in that
lagoon area if there were a clubhouse to be located there, it would be
closer to Mike Davis Elementary School.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Tom, from the school's
perspective, do eating facilities, recreation facilities at a clubhouse
have any impact on the learning facilities within a school? And is
there a concern from your perspective, since you're here for exactly
this kind of example?
MR. EASTMAN: The use appears to be compatible. And
looking at the school site, it's really the back end of the school that has
deliveries and such. And I don't think that the noise from that would
disrupt students in the classroom. Usually it's the reverse situation,
that residents are complaining about what's going on on the school
Page 55
January 7, 2010
site.
I think what the applicant's asking for here in terms of uses is
compatible with a school situation.
I appreciate you asking, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else have any questions
on this issue before Tim finishes up?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is this an appropriate time to be
discussing these tables in general or should we --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't -- Tim, does it matter? Is it going
to interrupt your presentation for us to just start questioning now, or
do you want to --
MR. HANCOCK: No, sir, I'm flexible.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tim, one problem I have is the
setback from I-75. And especially in some cases you're allowing that
to be 20 feet. Would you have a problem making all structures at least
100 feet from I - 7 5? You've done that for three stories.
But I think one of the nicest features of Collier, which we're
starting to lose, and this could even lose more, is the vegetation along
75.
MR. HANCOCK: Because of the preserve location shown on
the master plan, we're going to have a buffer there regardless. And as
you know, we can't change that wholesale without coming back before
this body. So I feel like that accomplishes that, what you're asking
about.
I don't know about 100 feet. I think when you get to that lower
left corner as you look at the master plan, we may be talking about
something around 75 feet or so there.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, could you do 75 feet all
along it?
Page 56
January 7, 2010
MR. HANCOCK: Along I-75?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right.
MR. HANCOCK: I don't think that adversely impacts our plan.
And if that --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't either.
MR. HANCOCK: If that gives you a degree of comfort, I'm fine
with that.
I guess the best place to put that would be under MPUD
boundary setback.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Tim, the best place might be --
remember the table you took out? Just add a line MPU boundary at 75
and then just throw 75 feet across the table.
MR. HANCOCK: Okay. So we'll add a line there that says
MPUD setback from I-75, and include 75 feet in each category.
I don't -- if that gives you a greater degree of comfort, I don't
believe it adversely affects the plan.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just out of curiosity, Tim. The
turnaround there, is that 1,000 feet or 500 feet or--
MR. HANCOCK: It exceeds the -- it's pretty long. I want to say
it's over 600 and some odd feet. But we do have a pedestrian
connection, a sidewalk connection at the end of that to allow students
who may be going to Golden Gate High School, for example, to make
that access.
One of the problems we had is -- I can foresee this project really
being developed as a north and south. Somebody may develop both
sides at the same time. But there's also the possibility that someone
may develop the north side or the south side first. And the idea of
having a loop road there and an access closer to the high school, just
an added cost down the road that we wanted to try and avoid.
So it's a long cul-de-sac, but I dare say we've got communities
Page 57
January 7, 2010
with far greater effective cul-de-sacs all over town.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And it's what, 20-foot wide, at
least?
MR. HANCOCK: Fifty-foot wide would be the right-of-way.
Or are you talking about the sidewalk connection?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm talking about to the
cul-de-sac turnaround for the fire equipment and so forth.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, minimum radiuses are established
there. It's a 50-foot exterior radius.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I know that Brad would
normally ask that question, but I --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that was on my list.
And this one's very long. It's not a 600 -- this is a rather lengthy
thing. Could you not put a turnaround somewhere in the midpoint of
't?
1 .
The concern is that for cul-de-sacs with emergency vehicles, if
they make a wrong turn it takes them a long time to correct that.
What would be the problem -- I mean, most communities around
the state, we -- they honor that better than they do in Collier. And the
solution is a turnaround in the center and it ends up becoming an asset
to the community anyway.
Are you asking for a deviation from that anyway? I didn't see
that.
MR. HANCOCK: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So you really aren't allowed to
do this site plan without it, so --
MR. HANCOCK: We can do one of two things: We can either
show an additional turnaround kind of at the midpoint of that
cul-de-sac, if you will--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good idea.
MR. HANCOCK: -- graphically, and then at the time of
development order the code requirements would come to play.
Page 58
January 7, 2010
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, because it becomes a
traffic calming device. Right now you've got a terrific drag strip being
built and it would be -- take away that a little bit.
MR. HANCOCK: It is going to hurt our drag racing market of
residence, but I think we can accomplish that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You're not asking for the
deviation, and your site plan would be amended to show an
approximate location of a turnaround. Good.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tim, that will probably -- I would
assume, since you want to retain as much buildable area as you can,
that means you're going to probably push the south strip of residential
down and bump out the lake, something like that? Is that -- because
you're going to have to redo the master plan when you come back for
consent, I would assume.
MR. HANCOCK: We probably will absorb it in the lake and not
affect the preserve.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. HANCOCK: We're I think just a little bit over on our lake
size, which is where I like to be, as opposed to the opposite.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if the fire department turns down
that wrong street looking for a fire, I think we've got bigger problems
anyway.
Any other questions of -- well, first of all, Tim, did you finish
your presentation, or did you have more you want to continue with?
MR. HANCOCK: Unfortunately I have I believe two more.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. HANCOCK: We left off at the table.
The next change is on Exhibit F, which is Page 11 in the
document you were provided this morning. And that is that under
Exhibit F, item 3.C, the County Attorney has requested clarifying
language with regard to the 30-foot easement along the eastern
Page 59
January 7, 2010
property line. The requested language is shown here identifying the
easement as a drainage, utility and access easement and indicating that
it is to be conveyed at no cost to the county.
Now, this item does carry over. It later where a fair share
contribution toward the c1eanout cost of the MGG-15 drainage swale
was discussed. And I wanted to put on the record and we've discussed
this with transportation staff, that the donation of the easement will
more than satisfy the site at cost, and therefore the reference to
cost-sharing in the PUD is to be removed. And both Mr. Casalanguida
and Mr. Podczerwinsky are here and can confirm that. Make me
pretty stupid to say it if I didn't think they would confirm it, but I don't
want to rule that out.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And just for the record, that's Item 4.D
on Page 12?
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's going to be removed.
Nick, do you know if that's in agreement?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That is in agreement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. HANCOCK: It's D.
Following to Item 4.E on Page 12, we have added language to the
PUD basically that states that the 20-foot -- Ms. Deselem picked this
up. The 20-foot easement along the canal will be conveyed to the
county within 30 days of approval of the PUD.
While we had stated that, it was not in the PUD. The reason for
that was that we thought it would have been done by now, but we're
still working on it and we're very, very close. But we want to put that
in the PUD to ensure that that commitment is upheld.
Language has further been added under Item 6.A, Page 13. This
is architectural language that was in the previous PUD with respect to
the development on the site. The Chairman asked if we would
consider putting that language back in. He thought it was beneficial.
Page 60
January 7, 2010
We saw it again as not being adverse to the project in any way, so we
have added that language back in from the originally approved PUD,
which requires that an architectural theme shall include similar
architectural design and similar material throughout all the buildings,
signs, fences, walls and so forth.
Again, typically done, but this ensures that it will be addressed.
Language has then been added under Item 7.A, at the request of
the County Attorney. They were seeking further clarification on the
definition of a care unit with respect to the ALF use.
So the language we've proposed is nearly identical to that which
this body has reviewed for at least one other similar project. And I
sense we're kind of struggling with how to define ALF project to
project, and I think this is the latest and greatest language that the
County Attorney's Office was comfortable with.
So that's the purpose of that language there, is to ensure that you
get an ALF and not a market rate project that's disguised as an ALF I
believe is the concern there.
And that, sir, is the end of my all too lengthy changes document.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's start with questions of Tim
or anybody with the applicant from the Planning Commission before
we go to staff. Any questions that haven't been asked already?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I just have one.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: You're going to be using the canal
for stormwater drainage; is that correct?
MR. HANCOCK: That's the ultimate discharge, yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Does that stormwater have to be
treated before it goes into the canal?
MR. HANCOCK: Oh, yes, ma'am. Matter of fact, if we create
that lagoon that connects to the canal, it cannot be used as a part of our
storm water system if it directly connects to the canal.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, and that's -- I just wanted to
Page 61
January 7, 2010
confirm that for the record.
MR. HANCOCK: That would clearly be an amenity, but not a
part of our storm water management system.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thanks.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom?
MR. EASTMAN: Tim, the property to the north, the north
parcel, would potentially students be able to access Mike Davis and
Golden Gate High School by using the pathway that Parks and Rec is
proposing?
MR. HANCOCK: I believe that answer is yes.
Yes.
MR. EASTMAN: Okay. And then the parcel to the south--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you pull your mic a little closer
to you, Tom? Thank you.
MR. EASTMAN: The parcel to the south, could you walk
through how a student might walk to either the elementary or the high
school and the provisions that would be made for that?
MR. HANCOCK: Certainly. If you kind of bisect that southern
piece to an east half and west half, on the east half where the entry
road comes in there will be sidewalks. We're not requesting a
deviation on sidewalks. There will be sidewalks on both sides of that
roadway that connect to Magnolia Pond Drive. In Magnolia Pond
Drive there are currently sidewalks that access both Golden Gate High
School and Mike Davis Elementary.
So their -- what I don't recall off the top of my head is whether
that sidewalk is on both sides of Magnolia Pond Drive or just on the
north side. If it's just on the north side, we'd have to have a crosswalk
and access conditions constructed there.
To the west end where the cul-de-sac is, we are showing a
pedestrian sidewalk connection, again back to the right-of-way, to
connect to the sidewalk that exists within the Magnolia Pond
right-of-way for access to the high school.
Page 62
January 7, 2010
MR. EASTMAN: Thank you.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tim, on your new Exhibit A,
you added under A-I single-family units limited to 125 units. But on
the beginning sentence in Exhibit A your maximum number of
dwelling units is 231.
I'm going to get into your TIS in a minute, but I know that we
have a higher impact from single-family than we do multi-family. But
was your intention here to limit the units to 125 overall and they could
all be single-family, or do you expect then to have 125 units and a
difference between 231 and 125 potentially in multi-family?
MR. HANCOCK: No, sir, my intent was not to cap at 125 units.
This was an addition that Ms. Deselem requested.
The bottom line is we can only have -- if we did all single-family,
we could only get 125 units on it, period, without doing something
dramatic. Ifwe did multi-family, it's 231.
You know, I left it wide open, because the difference in the TIS
between the 231 multi-family and the 125 single-family is not
significant. They're fairly close to each other. So I added this
language at the request of Ms. Deselem.
But it does bring up a confusing situation. If you did --
physically we can't do both. We couldn't do 125 single-family and
100 multi-family. I just know that from a site planning standpoint.
Beyond that I'm not sure how I could convey that to you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the problem that your TIS presents
is that you produced a TIS as producing either 125 single-family or
231 multi-family, not a mix. So if you do the 125 single-family and
you want to add to that the difference in some kind of multi- family --
and I understand what you believe a good planning exercise would
mean, but there are a lot of planners out there, especially some that
we've seen plenty of times in front of us, that would stack stuff on top
of stuff and somehow we'd end up with a lot more units than we
Page 63
January 7, 2010
anticipated. And we've had projects like that numerous times.
So how do we correlate your TIS that's "or", not either or not
mixed, but "or" with now the numbers that you've put in Exhibit A?
Because now you've got either 125 units of single-family and that's it
or 231 of multi-family. And what I saw was the combination of them
based on what you originally had in your Exhibit A. Now, it doesn't
look like if you combine the Exhibit A with the TIS you can do a
combination if you go and max out the single-family at 125. And if
that's the case, why don't we just say that.
MR. HANCOCK: Well, the intent is if you build 125
single-family units, you're done. That was my intent.
I think the protection you're seeking, Commissioner, may occur
under Item 4.C in the traffic section on Page 12 where any mixed
residential development proposed shall not exceed the 131 p.m. peak
hour trips.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I was going to get to that,
because that produces another problem in regards to the ALF. I didn't
see in your TIS where the ALF was addressed. So how are you going
to account for the traffic in the ALF if you're going to cap your traffic
at just the single-family?
MR. HANCOCK: I believe as we went through the TIS the
discussion with transportation was to present as much as possible a
practical worst case scenario. The ALF use, if it were involved, would
chew up a portion of that 131 p.m. peak hour trips. And so with that
ceiling, I think the transportation staff felt that we'd identified worst
case, but the way to create a ceiling so that we couldn't throw a larger
mix in there would be to cap us at the 131 trips.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you build 125 units, because of the
TIS you couldn't build any ALF; is that what you're --
MR. HANCOCK: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the acknowledgment that you
realize?
Page 64
January 7, 2010
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, that is our intent, in fact.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I just wanted -- that I
didn't understand, but it's clear now. Thank you.
In number four, A.4, your four ALF units and how they equate,
you're going to reduce one residential dwelling unit, subtract it from
the 231.
Now, what if you only build 125? Will you still subtract the ratio
of ALF units to residential? See, I mean, say you decide to build 200
with the ALF but yet the ALF doesn't discredit the 231 at all. You're
just always going -- you're working against the 231 when in reality
you're going to be -- you really have 125 . You could have 125
residential units and be done with this project.
Would you have an ALF with 125 residential units?
MR. HANCOCK: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Too full.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that, Bob, I want him to say it
for the record.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I apologize.
MR. HANCOCK: Because our minimum development standards
established in the document and the intent of the project is that ifit
were to build out at single-family at 125 units, we would consume all
of the available land.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. HANCOCK: And the trips.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
Ifwe go to Page 4, footnote number seven, your reference to the
parking requirements. Ray, do we have a different parking
requirement in the LDC for independent living units than we do for
multi-family?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The Land Development Code under
group housing has parking requirements for ALF.
Page 65
January 7, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are they more or less stringent than
multi --
MR. BELLOWS: I think it's less.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Less stringent. So that's a more
stringent criteria?
MR. BELLOWS: I believe it is. I'd have to double check, but I
believe it is.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Under your general notes on
your master plan, number two, that general note is the old general
note. I don't believe it's any longer still consistent now with the
language you changed in the text.
MR. HANCOCK: It will have to be amended, yes, sir. I failed
to mention that in my notes, but that's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 11, Exhibit F, a list of
developer commitments. You have some water management
commitments in here. A and Band E, I believe, are all currently
required by the Land Development Code.
Ray, sorry to --
MR. BELLOWS: That's all right, I just wanted to verify that
other question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In asked Nick this in his first day on
the job here, more or less, I'm going to get a transportation answer,
and I really don't want that, so I thought I'd ask you.
Page lIon Exhibit F, 3.A, Band E, are those already
requirements of the Land Development Code?
MR. BELLOWS: Let me get to that page.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the handout that Tim provided in the
beginning of the meeting.
MR. BELLOWS: That's redundant information.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, the purpose of the new
format was to remove that kind of stuff, right?
MR. BELLOWS: Well, I think the reason it's there is because it
Page 66
January 7, 2010
may have come out of the EAC, but they are redundant to code
requirements.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then I think they should be
in here if we're trying -- otherwise, let's just take the entire Land
Development Code and put it in every single PUD.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I agree. I think Melissa was the one
that prepared this staff report, but it's my understanding that __
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: B is not redundant to--
COMMISSIONER CARON: I was going to say, B --
MR. BELLOWS: Well, B is not.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I'm just asking, which one
-- the redundancies, though, the whole objective of consolidating our
new format was to do away with the multiple redundancies we had
because they become a problem as our code and policies change in the
future.
MR. BELLOWS: I agree. And I think in this case we had
something that may have come from an EAC staff report. John
Podczerwinsky had just indicated B is not redundant, but we'll verify
that too.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if A and E are redundant,
could they be removed by consent?
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then the last page, I think Cis
where I had my questions, but you already clarified those in our
previous discussion. That's all I've got on these.
Does anybody else have any more questions?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, can we talk a second
about the architectural theme?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, you have to be a licensed architect
to do that.
Page 67
January 7, 2010
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is it important that we make all
the buildings stucco? And here's the concern. I mean, this -- as we go
into the greener world, these stucco walls are not the most
sophisticated. So why are we locking every building to be stucco?
MR. HANCOCK: Personally I -- as someone who was born and
raised in Florida, I hate stucco. It has nothing to do with Florida. So
I'm happy to remove that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just take that sentence out.
MR. HANCOCK: And just remove the sentence.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the objective, Brad, was to make
sure there was some common architectural element to the project.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And let's -- I mean, what's the
virtue of that? I mean, that's another thing is that there are a lot of
people complaining that some of our communities -- you know, it's
difficult to tell one unit from another. And it also ends up making
something look bigger when you make everything look the same.
In other words, if you have 10 houses in a row and they all look
the same, they look like one big building versus smaller buildings in
different styles, which is kind of the new urbanist approach anyway.
So do we want to really lock that in?
MR. HANCOCK: The real benefit I see in this paragraph as it
applies to the project that we've discussed here today where you may
have an ALF and then there may be some single-family or
multi-family on another portion of the project, as long as we stay
within that trip cap, is that the code has always pushed us toward a
cohesive development, not broken apart into many pieces.
While I may philosophically agree with you, but yet I live in a
planned community in a stucco house, it's just kind of the reality of
what we're dealing with.
So I'm okay with pulling that. The only thing I like about having
this in here, Mr. Schiffer, is that it does require some forethought and
continuity between what may be two different uses, a single-family
Page 68
January 7, 2010
and a multi-family, and that's good for real estate values. I'm not sure
whether it's good to the eye. That's a personal opinion.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe I'm missing, what are
we preventing with that? I mean, what is it that goes wrong when you
don't have a common architectural theme, other than the scale of the
development drops?
MR. HANCOCK: I think you deal more with a perception from
people who live around the project that, you know, it --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If you want it, you can have it.
So what we'll do is we'll cross out all buildings shall be primary
finished in light subdued colors. You want that? And then we'll just
cross out everything after that.
MR. HANCOCK: I don't see any reason to control color in this
document.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't either.
MR. HANCOCK: Or finish. But architectural cohesiveness is
something that I think people have expressed a support for, so I'm
more apt to leave it in at this point.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we'll kill that whole
sentence. All buildings shall -- we'll just wipe out that whole
sentence.
MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. That's a step in the right
direction. But you could be limiting something better, that's my
concern.
MR. HANCOCK: I understand. I can't say I disagree with you,
but --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of the
applicant at this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Tim, thank you.
MR. HANCOCK: Thank you.
Page 69
January 7, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll have staff report.
MS. DESELEM: Good morning. For the record, again, Kay
Deselem, Principal Planner with Zoning.
You do have a copy of the staff report on record. It is revised,
dated 11/17/09. And it goes into detail, but since you've already had a
lengthy presentation and discussion with the applicant over the issues,
I won't belabor the points, other than to cite the specific sections of
that staff report.
Beginning on Page 1 shows the geographic location. As you've
seen in the different exhibits you've seen anyway, there is a project
description.
On Page 2, the surrounding land use and zoning is provided to
you in significant detail in that section. There's another aerial that
mirrors what you have been presented today. There is a discussion as
noted in Tim's presentation of the growth management issues. And
there also includes the transportation analysis and the conservation
and coastal management element analysis as well.
Staff is recommending that this petition as amended through the
hearings so far be deemed consistent with the Growth Management
Plan; that is, all applicable elements of that plan.
Going on on Page 5 is the analysis. This includes environmental
review staff and transportation staff, utility review, emergency
management staff review, Parks and Rec review, an affordable
housing review and zoning staff review.
In the environmental review you see comments about the native
preserves and gopher tortoise relocation. In the transportation review
you see review comments about the significant impacted roadways.
In the Parks and Rec review you see discussions about what's
already been discussed about the easement that's going to be dedicated
for the 20-foot wide easement to accommodate the sidewalk.
And then it goes on to the zoning review. And in this zoning
review it shows an analysis of the proposed MPUD and the existing
Page 70
January 7, 2010
MPUD. And it's also followed and supported by PUD findings one
through eight with analyses of each of those findings and the rezone
findings beginning on Page 9.
All these findings are in support of staffs recommendation for
approval.
We have worked very diligently in the last few days. It's been a
tough few days for Tim, I know we've driven him nuts, but trying to
get the changes made to the PUD document that you saw this
morning. And we are comfortable with what is proposed in the
changes.
We do have transportation staff here that can address any
questions you might have for them. And there is someone here from
environment staff as well.
Other than that, if you have questions, I'd be happy to address
them.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron, then Mr. Wolfley.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I just want to get to the
deviations. And let's talk about deviation number two first. And Kay,
this is really for transportation and/or your new boss.
The deviation that seeks relief from the minimum right-of-way,
which is 60 feet, we get this request with every single thing that comes
before us. Why do we have this minimum? Did you all have a reason
for it to begin with? And if it was valid as a minimum to begin with,
why do we keep allowing deviations from them? Or please could we
get it changed in the next LDC cycle.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida.
It's a typical section, even on our public roadways as well as
private roadways, that we recommend. It's optimized buffer,
optimized setbacks, optimized curb and pavement width.
If the design speed of the road is lower, the pavement width can
be smaller. If they want to put the sidewalks in the back of curbs
sometimes and widen the sidewalk to six feet, they can do certain
Page 71
January 7,2010
things to minimize that width.
So it's a recommended standard. And applicants, based on their
design of their property, the speed of the road, can always make
adjustments. It's reviewed typically internally by engineering, which
is now our staff, externally by transportation.
But we can come back and provide maybe an update in the next
cycle of the LDC. We'd be happy to do that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, it's become a deviation in
every single thing. So if there is a legitimate reason for 60 feet, then
we should be using 60 feet and we shouldn't be granting these
deviations. If it should be 60 feet with conditions that you can go to
50 feet ifthus and so happens then -- you know, then we should state
it that way.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure, we could do that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, I don't know, you all will
figure that out. But it just seems like --
MR. CASALANGUIDA: We could qualify it so it's not a
deviation. They can pick off a menu based on speed or different
options of the road so it still meets the criteria. W e'1I100k into that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: And the other one is deviation
number one, where we typically -- or what we're seeing now is we
want to put the landscaping requirements in a smaller space.
And I brought this up before and I just want to bring it up again.
I want to know if somebody is tracking this in any way . We keep
doing this but we don't know whether it's successful or not. Is this the
right thing to do be doing? It seems okay. We keep doing it. But are
these landscaped areas successful, I mean, or are we putting too much
into a too small area?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: When you say successful, do the
plants survive; is that your question?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, are things surviving.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure, I can have --
Page 72
January 7,2010
COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean, I know that ifit all died off
they'd have to replant it. But if it's not a successful strategy, we also --
why would we continue to do it?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: If it's your pleasure, I can respond to
both of those items in the next Planning Commission meeting or just
send you an individual e-mail just to follow up.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I think everybody would probably
like to know.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure, happy to do that.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Good.
MS. DESELEM: In might offer, on deviation two there is a
section of the LDC that allows projects that are non-PUD that won't be
coming before anybody for deviations to seek substitutions based on
engineering criteria. And that's customarily done, as he said,
internally. So yeah, that's a very common thing that's done.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But this is a PUD.
MS. DESELEM: Right.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, sir, regarding the traffic
impact study done in December of '08, trip distribution assignment,
Nick and I spoke for a moment, and I'd like to -- my question was
regarding how are we going to handle the intersections at Magnolia
Pond Drive and 951 or Collier Boulevard, and how is that whole thing
going to work? Because it seems like we're adding it especially in the
morning, in the afternoon. And I think you may have stood up there at
the same time and -- but Nick did such --
MR. PODCZERWlNSKY: I thought you were about to ask a
different question.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- a great job and a great
diagram.
MR. PODCZERWINSKY: I'd like to give it to Mr.
Casalanguida, ifhe'd like to take it.
Page 73
January 7, 2010
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: How are we going to do it? Are
we going to leave the lights there so close to I-75, or what are we
going to do there? How are we going to handle that?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: He appears to be gloating too much,
referring the question to me.
The intersection of Magnolia Pond and 951 is currently in a
design right now. The final permits are being obtained. So that
intersection approach heading east out of Magnolia is being widened
as part of the Collier Boulevard project.
Also secondary with the Noah's Way realignment that's owned
by Mr. Benderson to the north, that intersection will be moved to the
north at a point in time in the future as part of our project as well.
Both of those improvements will take into account the necessary
traffic to get these projects handled coming out of Magnolia Pond
Drive.
And again, as Mr. Feder, my boss, pointed out, you always have
a hard time when those schools come in at that peak hour. You don't
design the road for that peak peak 20 minutes when the schools come
in and out. There's going to be congestion on all of our roads at that
point in time.
But that intersection is being improved. Within the next one year
that capital project will start.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So -- but basically what you're
saying is that Noah's Way, which is north, closer to the canal, is going
to be signalized.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And the Magnolia Pond Drive
will not be signalized.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Will be directionalized.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Directionalized.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you.
Page 74
January 7,2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of staff?
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Kay, maybe Ray could answer
this because of the legacy here.
Ray, why is this called a mixed use when all the uses are
residential?
MR. BELLOWS: We knew you were going to ask that, so we
were prepared.
It is a addition of the ALF, which is a group facility found under
community facility zoning. That in conjunction with the residential
pursuant to our code qualifies as a mixed use.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Because I wouldn't want
to confuse it with a real mixed use.
MR. BELLOWS: Well, it meets the minimum definition.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, that's why. Got it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it, Brad?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done, yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, I've got a couple of questions.
Under the emergency management review, I just think it's
interesting that we ask them to comment, but they can never do
anything but CY A their position. Yet we never get a feedback from
them that tells us anything positive. It's just that -- let me read this to
you: Residential development in this area further taxes an already
tight evacuation and sheltering situation within Collier County. While
there is currently no impact mitigation required for this, it should be
noted that approval of this MPUD increases the evacuation and shelter
requirements for the county.
Now, that department has put us on notice ever since we started
asking them to review these PUDs, with almost the same language.
This one actually is a little more -- seems a little stronger than
Page 75
January 7, 2010
language in the past.
Is anybody in the county taking it as a hint that we might want to
do something about this, that we may want to figure out a way to not
have this liability on every project we approve? Is anybody looking at
it; do you know?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, but we can.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know you guys are overtaxed right
now, but when things turn around, a year, whatever it takes, I think it's
something from a county perspective it would be wise for us to start
looking at. We used to have it different than we do now, and I think it
would warrant further review.
And Kay, on the last paragraph of Page 6 of 16, your sentence is
as follows: As stated earlier, part of this petition request is a rezone of
a five-acre parcel which will be added to the original 42-acre property
at the northeast corner of the Magnolia Pond PUD. Although there is
no increase in the number of residential units, the site will be
permitted to be developed as an assisted living facility.
When you said the site, were you referring to the whole PUD or
just that north five-acre tract that was added?
MS. DESELEM: I believe that actually references the subject
property, which is the entire acreage, it's not just that piece.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ijust wanted to make sure that's what
your analysis was. Because that's not how the PUD was written, so __
okay, that's the only questions I have. Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Kay.
Are there any public speakers, Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: No public speakers have registered.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then Tim, do you want to rebut
anything the public speakers didn't say? Any closing comments?
MR. HANCOCK: I believe Mr. White has a couple of very
quick comments.
Page 76
January 7, 2010
But I personally just want to thank you for your time in working
through the difficulties today. This was an unusual situation. I do
appreciate it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, I know that in asked Patrick, he'd
have stand (sic) up said something, but here we go.
MR. WHITE: Thank you, Mr. Strain.
No, I just want to again echo that this is a project that has not
only a history of being the longest in my professional working
relationship with the clients, but has probably a 20-year history.
We believe that we have reconfigured the project, we've brought
the additional lands in, we've addressed what the staff concerns are,
we have the determination of consistency, recommendations of
approval, and I believe that we have addressed your questions
adequately.
We will work diligently with regard to the easement issues to
have those conveyed, and as well to make all of the changes that we
have tracked and provided an addenda for.
And at this time I would ask for a motion of approval if you
would, please.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, now, we'll close the -- Ray, since
there are no public speakers, we will close the public hearing.
Patrick, you jumped back up for some reason.
MR. WHITE: I simply wanted to indicate that Mr. Barry
Williams is here from Parks and Rec, and he wasn't mentioned as
being part of the staff, but we have worked with him and his folks and
I believe that they are in support as well. I do not want to speak for
him, but I think it's fair to say that they'd like to see us go forward.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Okay, with that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a
motion.
Mr. Schiffer?
Page 77
January 7, 2010
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I would make a motion
that we recommend -- forward with a recommendation of approval
PUDZ-A-2006-AR-I0318, the Magnolia Pond MPUD.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion's been made by Mr. Schiffer,
seconded by Mr. Vigliotti.
And I'm assuming, though, your motion is subject to the Exhibit
A that was passed out with all the corrections that we discussed today
that will come back to us on consent. Is that --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, both the--
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- motion maker and second
acknowledge that?
COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Is there any
discussion on the matter?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, Ijust--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- want to make sure it's also with
other stipulations that have been made by staff. And, I mean, for
things like the gopher tortoise management plan and whatever else
that might not have gotten into the changes. I just want to make sure.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, well, any other -- and Tim, when
you come back on consent, you'll have all this cleaned up in a
document that we can review at that point, so -- subject to the motion.
Okay, if there's no discussion, all those in favor of the motion,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
Page 78
January 7, 2010
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: 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 very much, and we'll see you on consent.
Now for the people who have been waiting for the C.A.T. issue,
we're about to start it. So I noticed that I think most of you have been
here.
Item #lOD
PETITION: COLLIER COUNTY ALTERNATIVE
TRANSPORTATION MODES DEPARTMENT - BUS TRANSFER
STATION
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The next petition up is Petition
CU-PL-2009-405, the Collier County Alternative Transportation
Modes Department for what's considered a C.A.T. transfer station on
Radio Road.
All those wishing to participate in this item, please rise to be
sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
(At which time, Commissioner Vigliotti exited the boardroom.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Disclosures on the part of
Planning Commission.
Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, I had a phone conversation
Page 79
January 7, 2010
with Michelle Arnold regarding the issues on this job. Essentially it
was discussing the activity that would occur on the site.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I too had a telephone
conversation with Ms. Arnold and this lady planner.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This lady planner?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Miss Abra Horne.
MS. HORNE: It's a tricky name.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I also had a meeting with Michelle
Arnold and Ms. Horne, and we went over many of the issues we'll be
going over today.
With that, I think that's the last disclosures.
Okay, it's yours.
MS. HORNE: Thank you.
Again, my name is Abra, I know it's tricky, Horne. You can call
me Mrs. Horne, if that's easier.
Before I begin my presentation, I'd like to briefly qualify myself
as an expert witness, if you don't mind, since this is a quasi judicial
hearing.
I have 18 years of experience in both land use and transit
planning. Half of my career I worked in the public sector for the local
governments of Ocoee and DeLand. I reviewed a number of -- an
extensive number of land use petitions and conditional uses.
I'm also a member of the American Planning Association and the
American Institute of Certified Planners. I served as the development
review coordinator for the City of DeLand. I served as the long-range
planner for the City of Ocoee, responsible for the Evaluation and
Appraisal Report, as well as the Growth Management Plan and the
maintenance of the Land Development Code.
Page 80
January 7, 2010
As a consultant I have not only served as an extension of staff for
numerous local governments and reviewed conditional use
applications there, but I have also focused my practice on transit
facilities here in Florida.
Since joining the private sector, the focus of my efforts have been
transfer stations, light rail, bus service, transit development plans and
the like.
Most recently I appeared before Seminole County and Orange
County in 2006 and 2008 to review conditional use applications.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today.
The reason that we are here is Wilbur Smith is here to represent the
alternative transportation modes department.
I have with me here today a principal from Wilbur Smith
Associates, Chris Swenson, and our traffic engineer, Revo Kanilwa.
And we will all be speaking to you today in answering any questions
that you may have.
I do have a cough drop to try and keep my voice.
The proposed requested use is a -- to add bus passenger transfer
-- that's easy to say. Bus passenger transfers at an existing facility
located at 8300 Radio Road.
We submitted an application based on a zoning verification letter
for a conditional use to add these uses.
I'd like to note a few things for the record. We have reviewed the
staff report, and I would like to enter it into the record and make a few
specific notes. In particular, there are approximately 939 unique
signatures rather than 1,000 on the petition.
We disagree with the statement in the staff report that
consistency is only obtained through applying conditions to this use.
Through the presentation that I'm about to give, we hope to
demonstrate that the conditional use, if approved, would represent a
very minor addition of activities that would increase the public safety
and welfare and enhance the quality of life in Collier County. And
Page 81
January 7, 2010
therefore it is a minor modification of existing conditions.
What is a bus passenger transfer facility? It's a place for several
routes to come together, for passengers to safely move from one bus to
another. There is a place for passengers to wait and to buy tickets and
have other passenger amenities such as vending machines. A place
where passengers may be dropped off by their spouse or another
person. It is important to move -- I'm getting ahead of myself.
Reasons for the transfer might include moving from one route to
another to make a more efficient travel pattern and reduce commute
times from home to work. If your home is located on one bus route
and your work opportunity or other recreational or medical
opportunities are located on another route, you would make a transfer
at such a station.
One of the things I wanted to spend a little bit of time on today is
the existing operations. I have a history teacher that my husband and I
both had in junior high school here in Florida, and he said you cannot
know where you're going until you know where you have been.
So in that vein I wanted to talk a little bit about what happens
today on-site so that we're very clear about those activities. I know
that it was described in the staff report, but I want to go over those
activities.
At the beginning of the day, around 3:30 in the morning today,
the drivers arrive, the bus drivers for fixed route transit arrive at the
site. They turn on their buses. They do a vehicle inspection. They
walk around the bus to make sure that it is safe and adequately
maintained. If it is not in proper working order, then another bus
would be started and the first bus would be put into maintenance.
Fleet maintenance operates at this facility. There are 23 fixed
route buses. Those are not all operated all the time because they
maintain what is called a spare ratio, a number of buses that will
remain on-site to allow for scheduled and unscheduled maintenance
activities.
Page 82
January 7, 2010
There is also paratransit vehicles that currently operate on this
site. What does that mean? There are about 20 vehicles that are
owned by the county, there are also other vehicles that are owned by
separate operators that provide on-call services for people who are
unable for various reasons to ride fixed route transit.
Those people are certified annually, so they need to go to the
C.A.T. operations center and be evaluated for what their capacity is to
use transit. The reason this is important and that it allows C.A.T. to
operate efficiently is that paratransit trips cost approximately three
times as much as fixed route trip. So we would prefer, if someone is
capable, that we move them on a fixed route system. We feel that the
transfer facility is one of those opportunities to move some passengers
more safely to the fixed route service.
Other examples of activities that take place on-site are that __
employees and supervisor vehicles. So together we have
approximately 43 vehicles that are stored overnight. They are county
vehicles. And they are also maintained and washed at the end of the
day inside and out.
So employees arrive throughout the day, there's a second shift of
bus operators that arrive and supervisors that drive them out to the bus
routes so that continuous operations are permitted.
In addition, as noted in the staff report, there is a sale of vehicles
that occurs on a regular basis. There is also a collection and counting
of fare box revenues. I think I've covered most of the things that
happen there. I'd like to go on to the next slide regarding existing bus
routes.
There are three current C.A.T. bus routes: Route 3.A and B,
route five and route six that are shown on this slide. Our graphic artist
took a couple of liberties and so the dots that are located -- the green
and blue dots should be located slightly east and west of where they
are on this slide.
But the point that I'd like to make is that today the purple route
Page 83
January 7, 2010
already travels along Radio Road and serves East Naples. It stops
adjacent to the C.A. T. operation center today on street 20 times per
day.
The same thing is true for route five and six, they both operate
along Davis Boulevard today, and they stop along Davis Boulevard a
combined total of 34 times per day for a grand total of 54 stops along
and adjacent to this site.
By improving this site and allowing for safe circulation of buses
off street, you would reduce potential conflicts with drivers on street
who have to wait behind buses that are stopping to pick up and
discharge passengers along the roadway.
You can see that the circu -- this illustrates the circulation today
-- I'm sorry, the future condition. Plus this area that I will show you in
red is the difference that we are requesting in conjunction with the
conditional use. In other words, everything that is shown for bus
circulation for the purple route today is shown in purple now, and the
red is the difference that would be requested as a result of the
conditional use.
I also indicated the time points that are shown on the schedule, so
you can see which areas the purple route serves.
This is route five, as we would propose to circulate it if the
conditional use were approved. Again, I showed you earlier that it
currently operates along Davis Boulevard. And the area in red is
where we would request that the routes deviate to enter and exit the
Radio Road facility.
The reason this is important is that it reduces unnecessary
circulation along Radio Road. Weare not proposing to reroute the bus
routes along Radio Road. We would simply go to the traffic signal
located at Davis and Radio Road to make the turning movement.
Again, I've shown the time points for the blue route.
The yellow route has a similar circulation pattern in this vicinity.
And again, the only change from current conditions that operate today
Page 84
January 7, 2010
is the area shown in red.
I've shown again the time points. The route six provides access
to homes, businesses and other destinations in Immokalee and Naples.
So why is a passenger transfer facility needed? In particular, I
wanted to mention, in case you hadn't -- you probably know this, but
Policy 12-10 of the Transportation Element incorporates and adopts
the transit development plan by reference into the comprehensive
plan, Growth Management Plan.
This table 120 was taken out of the last major update to the
transit development plan. What they do during the development of the
transit development plan is they interview passengers who are riding
C.A.T. fixed route transit and they have a directed questionnaire.
This is the response to a directed questionnaire that indicates that
passengers are looking for a safe place to make transfers and to wait
for buses, they are looking for availability of bus route information,
dependability ofC.A.T. buses, on-time performance, and ability to get
to where they want to go. These are the reasons that we believe that
the C.A.T. passenger needs would be met by adding a transfer station.
In accordance with that, we have developed a site plan that
reduces the potential for conflicts between single occupant vehicles,
pedestrians and the buses as they operate.
You'll notice what we call a sawtooth bus bay. What that does, it
allows the drivers to operate in a forward motion only, so there are no
backing of vehicles and no backing alarms required.
Shelters would be added, although not shown in these pictures.
The picture on the left I should point out is the way the area looks
today. The picture in the center is the proposed passenger waiting
area and sawtooth bus bay parking spaces. That's where the buses
would park and the passengers would be in the center, somewhat like
the illustration on the right. It's a photograph that I thought might
make it easier to show what the parking looks like once it's in place.
We would also add shelters to protect the passengers from
Page 85
January 7, 2010
inclement weather. And there would be an opportunity, because this
is located in front of the C.A.T. op. center, for eyes on the passengers
throughout the day. Supervision of transfer activities, if you will.
The proposed Phase I improvements would be pavement
markings, bus parking spaces, bollards, parking and crosswalks.
Phase II improvements would include a vehicle storage area in
the vacant portion of the site shown on the photograph here, a pad for
fueling activities, and a driveway improvement on Radio Road,
although not shown in this picture. It's a very minor improvement on
Radio Road.
One of the questions that we have heard from the community is
did the county look at other sites. Over a three-year period before I
became involved with this project, the county looked at over 25 sites
to serve as a potential maintenance, administration and operations
base, as well as passenger transfer opportunities. They knew and
contemplated in the transit development plan that is incorporated into
the comprehensive plan by reference that they were reaching the
maximum capacity for both the County Barn and the government
center operations for transfers. As such, they anticipated the need for
a new site and they identified criteria and they looked at a number of
sites.
Shortly after the conclusion of these studies the Gallman
Oldsmobile site became available and the seller was willing to sell to
meet the county's pressing schedule and price considerations.
The facility was selected because it met a number of the criteria
that were used to evaluate the other sites that the county considered.
Specifically, the site availability, the size. As I said, two uses were
contemplated that might be needed and so a site that more than met
the county's existing needs for maintenance. And so maintenance and
passenger transfer is what occurred at one location.
Proximity and accessible to arterial roadways. The cost of site
improvements. Proximity to existing routes, particularly in the East
Page 86
January 7, 2010
Naples area. Central location to the bus system so that buses do not
have to go a long way around to go back to a transfer station. And
good accessibility.
Another item that when we were meeting with the public we
realized is that there is not a clear understanding of the different types
of transfer facilities, not only here in Collier County but around the
country. We stuck to identifying two types of transfer facilities which
are in question here: Major transfer facility and a secondary transfer
facility .
As you know, in Collier County we also have passenger transfers
that occur on street. For example, at the Coastland Mall they are now
making transfers on street.
A major transfer facility is anticipated to handle between 60 and
75 percent of passenger activities. It is supervised and publicly
owned. The reason that we recommend to our clients that the sites be
publicly owned is that you are master of your destiny, just like any
other developer. You control what happens on your site.
Off-road bus parking and circulation is also offered at major
transfer facilities, and you can park your car all day and ride. So for
example, here at government center there's an existing parking
structure.
Secondary transfer facilities handle multiple routes. In this case
we anticipate between 25 and 40 percent as a typical guidance. It is
supervised and publically owned for the same reason: You want to
increase the passenger safety, you want to reduce the conflicts
between buses and cars and pedestrians, you want to have the
opportunity to provide the amenities that are needed.
Typically we would provide drop-off 10 minute or less parking
spaces for what we call kiss and ride opportunities.
Another item that we heard quite a bit about was that this is not
an appropriate location for a transfer facility. So what we did is we
looked at the state guidance. The Florida Department of
Page 87
January 7, 2010
Transportation and the Florida Department of Community Affairs has
initiated a study to look at where are the appropriate locations for
transit and transit facilities, and what types of land use patterns
support which type of investments and transit.
And so what you see along the bottom is the hierarchy of land
uses. And you can tell by the arrow at the top there is a close linkage
between land use and public facilities. In particular, in Collier County
on your comprehensive plan you've identified in the Future Land Use
Element on Pages 8, 9 and 10 that there is a significant gap between
your planned residential development, approximately 25,000 dwelling
units, that are not adequately planned for in terms of transportation.
As you can see at the top, transit provides an opportunity to serve
those needs, those unmet needs.
So what the Department of Transportation has indicated on their
website as an appropriate location, and this being one of them, is a T-3
suburban transect. Collier County, as I mentioned, faces quite a few
challenges, particularly you are the single largest county in terms of
land area. That affects the provision of transportation and specifically
in the analysis I've been able to do over the past year, the provision of
transit and paratransit transit services. Having such a broad service
area and trying to operate in those areas is very challenging.
What we typically advise our clients and what we suggest is that
you focus on an urbanized area as shown on your Future Land Use
Map here. And that allows you to focus your services to enhance the
quality of life, to meet the needs of an aging population that
eventually may want to choose not to drive every day, to alleviate the
traffic congestion or at least provide a transportation choice, preserve
natural resources, increase energy efficiency, which is increasingly a
requirement of getting any federal funding for a wide variety of
money that the county would use, and provide cost effective
transportation services, as I mentioned.
So when you look at the proposed areas where we have transfer
Page 88
January 7, 2010
opportunities that are identified in the transit development plan, you
can see that we are focusing our services within that same area, that
urbanized area.
As I mentioned, Collier County, along with all of the other transit
agencies in the state, annually prepares a transit development plan.
The annual updates are minor updates, but the major update, you'll see
I've noted a few figures throughout my presentation.
The last major update was done in 2005. So some of our
socioeconomic characteristics are slightly dated, but those will be
updated this year as the county is conducting their major update right
now.
It's required by state law. And the TDP must be consistent with
the Growth Management Plan. And as I mentioned, the transportation
element incorporates it by reference.
So when we look at this site specifically, transit is serving the
urban area. The C.A.T. facility is located within a residential density
band. It is also approximate to interchange activity center. And I'd
like to note for the record that it is located within a TCMA identified
in the transportation element.
Issues and considerations and questions raised by the community:
Passenger destinations. We had quite a few questions regarding
where our passenger is going to and coming from. Again, as I
mentioned, this is an onboard survey that was conducted as part of the
last major update to the Transit Development Plan, but it gives you a
good indication of where our transit riders live and are going to work.
We also had questions regarding the passenger characteristics,
what is the average age of your passengers. As you'll notice, the 19 to
24 age group is significantly larger than all the other age groups. What
was notable, though, is that these are not students, if you will, that are
going to educational opportunities, these trips are almost exclusively
work trips, when we look at those onboard surveys that were
completed.
Page 89
January 7, 2010
Household income is another important characteristic that we
look at in providing transit service and that we were asked about, so I
wanted to provide this information. As you can see, income is an
issue for a lot of the C.A.T. passengers. These are the folks that are
most in need, particularly in these adverse economic times, and
transits provides them in some cases the only opportunity to be
self-sufficient and remain employed in such challenging economic
times.
The race of our passengers is also indicated here. Again,
Hispanic passengers are a significant portion. And I wanted to just
show you this in response to some of the questions we've heard.
This traffic impact slide, I'd like to give Revo Kanilwa, who is
our traffic engineer, the opportunity to come up, introduce himself
briefly and give you his qualifications, in may.
MR. KANIL W A: Good morning. My name is Revo Kanilwa.
I'm --
THE COURT REPORTER: Would you spell that, please.
MR. KANILWA: Revo Kanilwa is R-E-V-O. Last name
FC-f\-N-I-I--W-f\.
I'm a traffic engineer with Wilbur Smith Associates, and I'm a
registered engineer in the State of Florida. I've been doing a draft
engineering status for the last 12 years. And I was involved in the
preparation of the TIS, which was done as part of this conditional use
application.
What I want to talk about is the table that is shown on the display
there. What this table is showing basically is before everything else
there was a dealership at this site. And this dealership had some trips
that were being generated for during the morning peak hour and
afternoon peak hour.
And as you can see there in the figure indicated, we have six to
eight vehicles in the morning and eight vehicles in the afternoon peak
hour.
Page 90
January 7, 2010
Now, when that dealership was gone, with the current use that is
taking place there, which is the C.A.T. facility, without any transfer
taking place the number of trips that were being generated from the
site actually went down as compared to when the dealership was there.
It went down by 37 vehicles in the morning peak and 47 vehicles in
the afternoon peak.
Now, if we add on to the new trips that is going to come as a
result of transfer activities taking place at the site, that reduction
compared to the previous -- to the dealership times is going to go
down to 27 vehicles in the morning. That means we're taking away 27
vehicles from the traffic that would have existed if that dealership had
gone on being there. We're going to reduce that by 27 vehicles. And
in the afternoon that number is going to be 37 vehicles.
So what I think I'm saying is that with the current use and with
the additional use that we are here for, the condition is actually even
better than compared to what would have been there if the dealership
had remained.
So the bottom line is this transfer use taking place there has no __
has absolutely no impact on their existing conditions as far as traffic
conditions are concerned.
I think with that I'll take it back to Abra.
MS. HORNE: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a question.
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: I just have a question on this chart.
There are several asterisks, and they are not noted at the bottom.
What are they for?
MR. KANIL W A: This asterisk came from a previous report that
was a part of the --
MS. HORNE: URS.
MR. KANIL W A: By URS, which those are another application
that was done before, and I think it was submitted in 2007 or 6?
Page 91
January 7, 2010
MS. HORNE: 2006.
MR. KANIL W A: Six, yeah.
And these are numbers that came from that study.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that answer the question?
That's not the question she asked. She asked what do the
asterisks represent. Where is the footnote that they are __
COMMISSIONER CARON: Where's the foot--
MR. KANIL W A: That's what I'm saying, that they're referring to
the source of where these numbers came from. They came from that
report that was done previously.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, it should be footnoted.
MS. HORNE: Actually, Revo is correct, the source for the one
asterisk is June, 2007, traffic study for SDPAAR11842 approving the
change from Land Use Code 841, new car sales, and approving less
impactful Land Use Code 110.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
MS. HORNE: And then the double asterisk refers to May, 2009
traffic study for CUPL2009000405, evaluating the impacts that are
presented only by the proposed transfer facility. That would be the __
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's the current one, thank you.
MS. HORNE: Yes. Thank you for asking for the clarification.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: While we're on that subject, it's
just so difficult for me to see how only 10 trips, additional trips, will
be generated from a transfer station. You were waiting on that,
weren't you?
MS. HORNE: I'm ready.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: From existing. I can't even __
unless people are going to walk there, there's going to be more -- even
more buses than 10, isn't there?
MS. HORNE: No, sir. Actually I'm going to keep Revo up here,
because I --
Page 92
January 7, 2010
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's fine.
MS. HORNE: Okay. When we looked at the transit
development plan onboard surveys, we examined how many people
approach transit in Collier County. These are existing riders that were
surveyed, and a very high percentage of them were surveyed, higher
than most other onboard surveys conducted in Florida.
And what it indicated was most of your passengers approach
transit by walking. The reason that's so important and that I had my
little cheerleading moment was that is exactly what makes this
location so appropriate. It is not located exclusively in a residential
area, it's a mixed use area. But there are excellent sidewalks along
Radio Road so that an individual who either has a destination on
Radio Road or lives on Radio Road can walk to the facility easily and
make a transfer.
The second thing that I'd like to note is that Revo did an analysis
of the number of buses. You may remember the slide that I showed
much earlier in the slide show that had those little red things that came
over.
And the reason that's important, and I'd like to emphasize it,
buses already operate along these roads and already stop and
discharge and board passengers along these roads. As I indicated in
my earlier slide, 54 stops, 54 times a day the buses stop and load and
discharge passengers.
So the only thing that is being requested in conjunction with this
conditional use is that bus crossing the driveway to get in on the
purple route and a minor deviation of about 2,000 feet for the yellow
and the blue route to come up Radio Road so they can go into the site.
And what that does is it stops buses from -- it eliminates the need
for buses to be stopped in the travel lanes on existing roadways
causing conflicts, and creates a safe place where people can load and
discharge.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: One more thing. How many
Page 93
January 7, 2010
parking lots for vehicles are there -- will be there?
MS. HORNE: How many -- you mean how many __
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: How many parking spaces?
MS. HORNE: Oh, the short-term parking spaces, I will have to
double check the number, but it was approximately 12. It's shown on
the site plan in a bubble. We showed short-term parking. It's like 10
minutes. You know, you would just -- as you were driving to work,
maybe at the airport, you would drop off a spouse and they would get
on a bus to go to a different destination.
So if you had a one-car household, it's a way for both of you to
get to where you're going without having to drive the person all the
way there.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I see. So it's not like a New
York City thing where you can park your car and travel to Manhattan
or whatever.
MS. HORNE: No, that's what we would anticipate at a major
transfer facility like government center.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I see. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just for clarification, the chart that's
here, David, is for peak hour. So the lObus trips you see don't mean
that's lOa day. That's only 10 at the peak hour time. So that's the
difference in what you may have been trying to __
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank you, Chair.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yeah, in your dissertation you
mentioned that you're reaching capacity at the campus. And are the
transfers that are being contemplated for this location the same bus
route transfers that currently exist at the campus?
MS. HORNE: I'll clarify, because I'm not sure I understood the
way you asked your question.
We anticipate that the yellow, the purple and the blue route is
what would have transfers occurring at Radio Road. So the routes that
Page 94
January 7, 2010
already go by this site would just go into that site.
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Are the bus routes that are at the
county campus right now the same bus routes as those?
MS. HORNE: Yes. Some of those -- in fact, I want to double
check. I believe all of those routes also make a stop at government
center.
The advantage as a transit passenger is you don't have to double
back twice as far to get to where you're going.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I appreciate that.
I had heard that they might have been contemplating building at
the Collier County campus, building a structure to facilitate, to house
people during inclement weather and so forth. Is that still going
forward?
MS. HORNE: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So we really would have two
bus transfer points.
MS. HORNE: And it is appropriate to have it. As I pointed out
earlier, you have such a large service area. I'm going to step aside for
a moment.
MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, Transportation
Administrator.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I noticed that Nick left when you
got up.
MR. FEDER: Yeah, you never see us both in the same place,
believe it or not. No.
The government center is our primary and will remain our
primary transfer center. Yes, we are planning some improvements.
The routes that are here will also have a transfer capability there,
allowing people, depending upon the nature of where they're going on
the route, to have both options.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So it is possible for a person __
not that I hope that they have to do this -- but it's possible for a person
Page 95
January 7, 2010
in line yellow, and I don't know what the difference is, to transfer at
one location, get to the campus and transfer to another bus or another
route?
MR. FEDER: That's an option. If they were going, let's say, to
north county, yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So in other words, this -- does
this complete the circle, so to speak, of all needs?
MR. FEDER: Far from it. We have obviously needs throughout
the county for --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I'm talking about --
MR. FEDER: -- further transit. But as far as that, yes, it does.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Transfers is what--
MR. FEDER: Yes, transfers.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- I'm solely interested in.
MR. FEDER: Yes. These are the two primary transfers we
anticipate, and the primary one being at the government center.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So to make it for clarification
purposes, the intent here is to provide opportunities for buses instead
of discharging and bringing passengers on in the street where there's a
sign that says C.A.T. where they may be out in the rain, you're talking
about bringing them into a facility where they can go inside, they can
wait for their bus and then go back to another location.
MR. FEDER: Exactly. And especially those three routes as
noted are passing that area today.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: One last question. As we're
going forward in the future, and I know we all have horizons that we
work with. Right now you have "X" number of buses. And I don't
know what that number is, and I appreciate there's an inventory that's
functioning and there's one that's held.
MR. FEDER: Generally about 18 vehicles a day.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's fine.
When would we make our next leap into the future to acquire
Page 96
January 7, 2010
additional buses that may impact on this? And if we were, would the
facility that we currently have there be suitable to contain those
additional buses?
MR. FEDER: Second part of your question first. Yes, it would
be, and that's part of the general development plans, even outside of
this conditional use for a transfer that are being done on-site and
maintenance.
To the first part of it, we already saw that our passenger levels
went up to a million some three years ago. They're slightly reduced.
Some of that is because we haven't been able to expand the network
financially. We see that coming for a while in the future. But we're
looking for transit to be some of our answer, especially out in the
eastern part of the county, as opposed to multi-Ianing looking at transit
options as part of our vehicle as well, so to speak. And so we would
expect some growth.
What you had and was looked at here was a five-year
transportation impact statement, because that's the process to look out,
five years, to look at whether or not the roads have the capability to
handle, which they usually do, even at two lanes. But we said we'd
wait till four-laning, which we did.
But expect that we'll see some growth in the future that may even
exceed, and we'll have to address that in the future. We're agreeing to
some conditions here today that you'll discuss that are hopefully an
orientation to the community's concerns and their fears that we will
limit the activities at this site. And hopefully they'll find that some of
those issues are not a concern when and if out into the future we need
expanSIOn.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Those when and if situations
would be another conditional use application.
MR. FEDER: Either that or rezoning the site --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay.
MR. FEDER: -- or something of that nature, yes.
Page 97
January 7, 2010
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: One last question regarding
safety issues for all people. It is my understanding that you don't
simply carry people who are in labor work, you do also carry business
people, and that's a good thing.
MR. FEDER: Everybody.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But there is a concern, I think
everybody realistically should have it, the gorilla in the room needs to
be talked about it, concern for safety. And so I'm going to ask you
about whether or not the facility that you intend to have there, will it
be supervised so that there is a modicum of safety?
MR. FEDER: Yes. And we're doing that. Even when we have
transfer activities today at the government center we have individuals
down there specifically at the site throughout operational hours. We
will do that. We did that when we were over at the Yo-Tech. And
there will always be. And that's one of the benefits here that we have,
even for a secondary or not primary transfer site. It's right there at the
depot where staff works, there's always a constant oversight.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And as far as issues, statistically
I'm told -- I'm informed that we've had no problems at the campus, and
it is because we have supervision.
MR. FEDER: Yeah, we have had --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The assumption being that.
MR. FEDER: We've had very little problems. And I was going
to go over that. You have statistics that are not necessarily attributable
to us. But you'll see they don't change, even when we were there and
after we left, even at the V 0- Tech.
So it's been a good operation, but it's one that we would always
oversee. And it's not one that is 24-hour operations either. I know
there was some of those concerns raised by the community.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Horne, did you finish your
presentation? Because typically we wait for our questions till the
Page 98
January 7, 2010
presentations are completed. Hopefully they'll answer some of our
questions.
MS. HORNE: I did not. I have --let me see how many more.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we just continue normally,
and if you could finish your presentation.
By the way, for members of the public, we generally take a lunch
break. It starts sometime between 11 :30 and 12:00 at a convenient
point. We will most likely be taking one fairly soon. So I don't know
if we'll get to the public's questions before lunch, but I just wanted to
keep you aware of that.
Okay, go ahead, Ms. Horne.
MS. HORNE: Thank you, sir.
The area -- one of the concerns we have heard from the
community is that properties would be devalued. And what we saw
when we looked at historic photographs, this one, this 1995 aerial
photograph was taken from the property appraiser's website, is that the
commercial uses preceded the residential development and the
acquisition of single-family homes.
In addition, I talked a little bit earlier about what the guidelines
are for orienting development and transit together.
I indicated that this is not an exclusively residential community
as it has been characterized in some of the articles that I have seen in
the newspaper. And I wanted to put that on the record.
In particular, there are vacant commercial properties that I've
noted on this aerial photograph that should be noted. There is
residential development and multi-family. So this is a mixed use
suburban area, as was consistent with the transect provided by the
Department of Transportation.
Density is worth mentioning as well. I'm sorry. The density in
Sherwood Park is 4.2 units per acre. There are two undeveloped
commercial convenience tracts, measuring about seven acres
undeveloped, approximately 10 acres to the east.
Page 99
January 7,2010
Cedar Hammock PUD to the south is at a density of
approximately one unit per acre. And the Ibis Club at Naples has a
density of approximately 8.9, according to the staff report.
As mentioned earlier, we did look at crime statistics to be able to
respond to the questions that we've been asked about transfer
activities.
As I mentioned at the meetings that we had with the community
and to you earlier, the opportunity to have eyes on passenger activities
serves as a deterrent to any antisocial behavior. Nonetheless, it's
always important to look at the statistics.
We did try and collect data for the government center use from
the Sheriffs Office. Unfortunately the Sheriffs Office does not
distinguish -- and this is worth noting for all crimes statistics -- a call
that is made by an officer is attributed to where the officer looks up
and says, I am adjacent to. With Lorenzo Walker Institute, you can
imagine that was an easy location for an officer to identify. So in
some cases the accidents may not necessarily have been on site, just as
one example.
And when we tried to collect data for government center, what
we found is they could not distinguish between calls for service that
occurred at the jail, at the courthouse, at the administration center, at
the museum or any other building on-site, including the parking
garage. So we wouldn't be able to make a difference.
What we do know, though, is that the way the transit is operated
here in Collier County, any time there is any type of incident that
relates to passenger fixed route service or paratransit services,
Michelle Arnold is called. And she has not gotten calls related to the
activities at government center. And we feel that it is because it is a
supervised activity.
That being said, one of the things we heard concerns about was
burglary, theft or criminal mischief. And you'll notice that the transfer
activities left Lorenzo Walker Institute in 2007, and that did not affect
Page 100
January 7, 2010
in one way or another the burglary or other activities and reports of
incidents.
Noise: As I mentioned earlier about operations, there's a couple
things that are worth noting. One is that over time the C.A.T. system
is investing increasingly in energy efficient buses which have less
emissions and lower noise.
Also, we do not anticipate that -- in fact, I'd like to point out that
the departure of buses in the morning and the warming up of buses in
the morning is more intense, i.e., 18 buses, than the three, four or five
buses that would go through this site as part of a permitted use within
an hour.
So the noise activity would actually be lower in terms of per hour
in the middle of the day when the noise is less notable to the
community .
When we met with the community, they did not identify noise in
the early morning hours as something that presents an issue for them.
We were also asked about project costs. You asked a little bit
about that earlier. These are the federal government funding sources,
5309 and 5307.
What I'd like to point out specifically, since I'm fairly certain
most people don't know what those grant sources are, is that money is
separate and apart from operating funds. It is a peculiar instance that
in working with the federal government FDA administration, there are
opportunities for urban areas, such as Collier County, more
opportunities to provide capital assistance to us to improve our
services than there is for operating funds.
Rural systems, especially in Florida, typically are able to obtain
both federal and state monies to assist with transit operations costs, but
they are two totally and separate distinct pots of money, and so
spending money on improvements such as a transfer facility is not
taking money out of the pocket for improving operations and reducing
headways, for example.
Page 10 1
January 7,2010
So this is the funding. The first line is the engineering and
documentation required by the federal government. We call it
environmental documentation.
And the second line is the funding for the actual improvements
on the site. And it includes a wide variety of improvements.
In general, I agree with the staff report. I did submit my
comments on it as I noted at the beginning of my presentation. I
specifically do not feel because of the nominal nature of change in the
requested use that the conditions are required to make it consistent
with the zoning and Growth Management Plan. I feel that through the
presentation that I've made, I have demonstrated that. But I wanted to
point that out for the record.
Also, I'd like to mention a few of the transportation elements,
goals, objectives and policies that were not listed in the staff report for
consistency. It will just take a moment, and then I can submit it into
the record.
I already mentioned Policy 12.10. Policy 12.7, 12.8 and 12.9,
those all deal with the integration of the transit system into the
planning process.
Objective 10, the county shall encourage safe and efficient
mobility for the public.
Policy 7.3 and 7.4, Objective 7.
Policy 5.6, I'd specifically like to read this one. The county shall
designate transportation concurrency management areas to encourage
compact urban development where an integrated and connecting
network of roads is in place that provide multiple viable alternative
travel paths or modes -- that being transit is one of them -- for
common trips.
Purposes within each TCMA shall be measured based on the
percentage of lane miles meeting the LOS described in this
Transportation Element Policies 1.3 and 1.4 of this element.
The following transportation concurrency management areas are
Page 102
January 7, 2010
designated. Again, this is policy 5.6.B.
Essential TCMA. This area is bounded by Pine Ridge Road on
the north, Collier Boulevard on the east, Davis Boulevard on the
south, and Livingston Road extended on the west side.
Objective four. The goal -- the primary goal ofthe transportation
element: To plan for, develop, operate a safe, efficient and
cost-effective transportation system that provides for both the
motorized and non-motorized movement of people and goods
throughout Collier County. And objective one.
In addition, I'd like to make a brief reference to Pages 7 and 8 of
the Transportation Element. And earlier you'll note that I mentioned
Pages 8, 9 and 10 of the Future Land Use Element, where you identify
a gap between land use and transportation planning.
With that, and the presentation that we've made, we feel that the
proposed conditional use is consistent with the zoning code, consistent
with the Growth Management Plan, compatible with the
neighborhood, not detrimental to the public welfare. In fact, we feel
that it will enhance the quality of life for a significant portion of the
community .
Provides adequate ingress and egress to the property. The effect
on neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic and
odor effects is not adverse.
In terms of economic impacts, we feel that this is actually
positive as it provides access to jobs and other opportunities
throughout the community, and compatibility with the adjacent
properties in the district.
Just to summarize what I've already stated, the request is an
incremental change, for routes that already travel by here would now
enter the C.A.T. operation center. Riders arriving by bus would move
to another bus. The commercial uses were built here first. And this
was purchased as both the administration and future minor passenger
transfer center.
Page 103
January 7, 2010
As a good neighbor, it was agreed that the county would wait
until Radio Road improvements were made. We also had an
additional meeting that was not required in addition to the NIM
meeting to meet with the community. And we extended our
conditional use process to meet the needs of folks that do not live here
full-time so they would be back after the holiday period to have this
hearing.
So with that, I will relinquish the -- oh, I'm sorry, I did forget one
other thing. I'm sorry. We also reviewed the proposed conditions of
approval. We noted that we would like to modify condition number
two with the underlying text: So long as these changes remain
consistent with the permitting requirements of the Water Management
District and any other applicable agency, as well as all applicable
development standards.
With respect to some of these con -- with respect to these
conditions, we feel that we are agreeing to them not because we feel
they are needed but in order to serve as a good neighbor. In particular,
number five, this transfer station use shall be added to the existing
uses permitted on-site and shall allow the addition of transfer activities
for no more than four C.A.T. fixed routes.
And number six, no more than 10 fixed route p.m. peak hour
two-way bus trips per hour to Radio Road can be generated by this
transfer station use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is that the end of your
presentation?
MS. HORNE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, I'm sure that there are questions
from the Planning Commission, and we have the staff report and the
public speakers yet to occur.
Does the Planning Commission wish to move forward into the
lunch hour? Do you want to take an early lunch to get through the
line downstairs now and then come back and start fresh?
Page 104
January 7, 2010
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That seems to be the general consensus.
So since your presentation is done and it will give time for plenty of
the people here to think about what you said, and I'm sure they're
going to have comments, we'll resume at 12:40 back in this room.
Thank you.
(Luncheon recess.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, it's 12:40, we're back on record.
And if C.A. T. isn't ready, then I guess we'll just skip them.
I knew you were here.
Okay, where we left off and the way that we'll proceed is we now
have questions from the Planning Commission of the applicant. And
then after that we have the presentation by county staff, which the
applicant is not in this case. We have questions then of Planning
Commission of county staff. Then after that we ask for public
speakers. We start with the registered speakers, and anybody who
isn't registered but would like to speak, we'll give them the
opportunity to speak as well. As long as you get your name on record.
So with that in mind, I'll turn to the Planning Commission for
questions of the applicant.
Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I just have to have one
qualification here. I had asked this question to you earlier, and I'm
still curious about it.
You had made your statement that we were reaching capacity at
the campus. Will this new set of transfer -- this new transfer station
reduce that problem? Not from what I heard from the conversation
that we had with the administrator. So tell me, please, how this will __
MS. HORNE: How this will work.
I like to explain it in terms of the grid street pattern that most
people are familiar with. Transportation network, whether it's transit
Page 105
January 7, 2010
vehicles, buses or any other type, needs to work in a grid pattern so
that it interconnects throughout the community.
If you remember the slide I showed earlier where I showed the
urban growth area -- or the urbanized area from your Growth
Management Plan. And then I compared it to transfer opportunities
within the C.A.T. system. You want to create that grid that connects
where people live and where people work or other destinations they
may want to go to, and it needs to be done on a regular basis so that
you don't always have to go back to the point of origin, government
center, for example, to get to where you ultimately want to go.
In terms of capacity, when we talk about government center,
we're talking about the number of vehicles that would come into this
facility. So you would make connections at other points throughout
the community, and that would alleviate the full demand on this
location.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: In understand you correctly,
what I think you're suggesting or inferring is that because you have
another alternative transfer station, you somehow realize additional
capacity?
MS. HORNE: For example, you could determine that
hypothetically the blue route no longer needs to go all the way to
government center. You would base that on the ridership inputs.
Remember the slide I showed you that asked people from the last
major update where are you going to and coming from? You would
look at that and you would compare it to the route and the folks that
are being served along the blue route, and you may determine that
they don't necessarily need to go all the way to government center and
you could reconfigure the route, alleviating or creating a new slot, if
you will, at government center for another route in the future as the
system grows.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I suppose that's what you could
do, but that's not what the administrator said.
Page 106
January 7, 2010
All right, well, I understand. We're talking about the specifics, so
I'm not going to go much further than that.
But just reconfirming, if you know, you reconfirmed that we're
going to build a facility more permanent at the campus.
MS. HORNE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley?
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Earlier we had talked about,
when you had the slide up, traffic impacts are reduced.
MS. HORNE: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And I don't know why, because
we always talk about things about peak hour generation and so on.
And I didn't even notice it. I was just thinking of total traffic.
Could you please go over, if you have the numbers, during a
daily period, including peaks, how much trips will be generated in
total.
MS. HORNE: I'm going to go ahead and ask Revo Kanilwa to
come up and respond to that question, as he is our traffic engineer.
MR. KANIL W A: Again for the record, my name is Revo
Kanilwa.
And our traffic impact that we did, we focused solely on the peak
hours, because that's when we know we have the most impacts on the
roadways. So we delve into there, because we know -- the 10 routes
that we're talking about, the lObus routes we're talking about are
spread throughout the day. So for each hour you're going to have
those 10 buses.
So essentially during the peak hours, that's when you have the
most impact and that's what we tried to focus on. So -- but we can get
you the daily numbers, if the Planning Commission --
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: What -- it kind of surprises me,
because I would think that -- because I know nothing about the routes.
And how -- and I just learned how many vehicles we have in the
Page 107
January 7, 2010
county. And I'm just con -- you know, we've got a few residents here,
and they don't just listen to it at peak hour. Or they -- you know, it's all
day long. I'd like to find that out. Thank you.
MS. HORNE: To respond more directly to your question, I
identified in one of the slides in our slide show how many times the
bus today goes by the site.
And I think that answers -- whoops, I went too far. I think that
answers your question.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We're not seeing anything.
MS. HORNE: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are you talking about current
C.A.T. bus routes? Current C.A.T. bus routes, is that what you're
looking at?
MS. HORNE: Basically 54 times a day, is what's presented on
that slide, existing bus routes travel past this location.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. So you are saying--
does that make it 54 or 108? I'm not trying to be funny here, I'm just
MS. HORNE: No, I counted both directions, and I took that off
of the schedule.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's one route.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The C.A.T. routes stop here.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's for all routes, right?
MS. HORNE: That's for the three routes that currently travel by
this location.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, thank you.
MS. HORNE: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions of the
applicant at this time?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ma'am, while we're focusing on traffic,
Page 108
January 7, 2010
can you put up the slide that shows route five with the red overlay.
MS. HORNE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's route three.
There you go.
Is that a right-in and then a right-out, or how is that -- you're left
in and left out, is that how that works at that intersection?
MS. HORNE: Yes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what about the next route, I think
it's six.
MS. HORNE: It's the same operations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's left in and left out.
Is there a reason you wouldn't have made the transfer from the
other direction so you would have a right in/right out?
MS. HORNE: In fact, to be more precise, they would do it in
both directions, because an outbound bus would have to make a left
onto Radio Road. And an inbound bus would have to make a right
onto Radio Road.
Does that make sense?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I understand. That's why if
they're coming past there from both directions, I was wondering if you
had both directions needed to enter, and your answer is yes.
MS. HORNE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In your additional trips on Radio Road,
the existing route 3.A and 3.B already is on Radio Road; is that
correct?
MS. HORNE: Yes, sir, and it stops in front ofthis site.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And we're seeing an increase in
10 peak hour and whatever it is during the day. But let's just work
with peak hour. It isn't because of 3.A and 3.B then; is that correct?
There's no increase to your daily peak hour based on 3.A or 3.B?
MS. HORNE: This has been a matter of debate is when do we
count the trip. I mean, we're almost counting the trips twice because,n
Page 109
January 7, 2010
as I said, the vehicles are already operating along the roadway. So
what we did is we counted the trips that would be generated for
C.A.T. ops as they cross the driveway threshold;
Is that correct, Revo?
MR. KANIL W A: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So 3.A and 3.B, if they're including in
the 10, are already there?
MS. HORNE: Are already on the segment of Radio Road. Now
the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the 10 is not an increase based on--
see, I'm trying to understand the increase intensity. And the chart you
showed showed a reduction from the dealership and then an increase
because of this change. But the increase still was below the
dealership.
But I'm wondering if the increase reflects what you already had
on the road from the 3.A and 3.B. Because if you have, it's nothing to
do then with this application; is that a fair statement?
MS. HORNE: That is a fair statement. We are double counting
in order to meet the requirements of a traffic impact statement.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then we have another tricky
question.
So you really don't have 10 additional impacts a day, because
half of the routes are already there.
MS. HORNE: Three of the routes are already there.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, two of the routes are already there.
3.A and 3.B are already on Radio Road.
MS. HORNE: Yes, sir, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 5 and 6 are not.
MS. HORNE: Yes, sir, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, in your traffic impact
statement, you have the statement: Four bus trips were converted into
equivalent passenger car trips using a conversion factor of two
Page 110
January 7, 2010
passenger car trips per one bus trip.
And then if you go to your chart, in your TIS it does have the
peak hour of 10. But the way I read it, the 10 represents only five bus
trips, and of the five you're telling me two and a half of those -- I don't
know how you get a half a bus -- but two and a half bus trips are
already there because two of the routes are already being on that
street.
MR. KANIL W A: Yes. Actually, in our analysis what we did is
we assumed that the 10 trips that we're talking about, the lObus trips
we're talking about, we're looking at five years out. So we are
assuming that we're going to have five routes allowed to use this
facility .
Now, if you take five bus routes and each bus operates at a
headway of 30 minutes, you're going to drive the 10. And thus, that's
where the 10 is coming from.
But to go back to what you said earlier, actually the lObus routes
that we're talking about, some of them already exist on this road.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. KANIL W A: So actually the impact that the buses are
causing is far less than what we're applying in the TIS.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in the TIS it says proposed year
2014 you're looking at peak hour, peak directional volumes of 10
project trips. But because of that calculation that they use to equate
two cars for every one bus, the 10 trips you're looking at are vehicle
trips, which are really only five bus trips then; is that fair to say?
MR. KANIL W A: No, no, actually, it's 10 bus trips.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm sure somebody in
transportation must have realized that too when they did the analysis.
MR. KANIL W A: In terms of vehicles, we're talking about 20
vehicles. And where the vehicles come in is when we're doing the
analysis now to see what is the impact of these so-called additional
trips doing to the capacity of Radio Road.
Page 111
January 7, 2010
But the number of bus trips is 10 based on 30-minutes intervals
for five routes.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the 10 that you're calculating
then don't take off for the existing background traffic. It's adding the
background traffic back in again.
MR. KANIL W A: Right, right.
MR. SWENSON: Mr. Strain, with your permission. Chris
Swenson.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, if you'd please identify yourself.
MR. SWENSON: Certainly. Chris Swenson. C-H-R-I-S.
S-W-E-N-S-O-N. I'm a senior engineer with Wilbur Smith
Associates, and I have reviewed the traffic study. I'm a registered
engineer in the State of Florida since 1988, hold a bachelor and a
master's degree from the Georgia Institute of Technology and I've
been doing transportation planning in Southwest Florida for more than
20 years.
We do see some increase also in use from this facility. And some
of the 10 trips are actually a decrease in headway. In other words, the
buses will be somewhat more frequent.
So while you are correct, we've had to do some double counting
because the requirements of the traffic impact statement look at trips
in and out of the driveway. And those trips that weren't coming in
were not there. We are looking at some increased service also, which
has increased the number of trips. And that's reflected in the traffic
impact statement.
Now, you made some very astute comments that we really aren't
impacting Radio Road that much. To take that even further, because
transit trips will encourage a modal shift, the fact is that while you
may increase bus trips in and out of that driveway, the impact on
Radio Road in terms of total traffic may in fact be negative.
Now, that's not something that we -- negative as in reduced
number of trips, not negative as in a bad impact.
Page 112
January 7, 2010
We did not take that into account in the analysis, as it's not
required. And the impact on Radio Road and Davis Boulevard is so
minor compared to the available capacity. But the fact is is that the
TIS probably does overstate the impact, perhaps significantly, because
we did not take into account the reduced automobile trips due to the
increased transit trips.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you were to put on that slide that
shows the red overlay on route five or six -- because I think I'm
understanding now where the additional trips are coming from. And it
helps to understand some of the other letters I've read.
That red overlay, that's the area that the additional trips are in; is
that correct? Well, as soon as it turns red. There it goes.
Now, the 10 additional trips, you're counting those as 10
additional trips because they're in that red area, is that an affirmative?
And on route six it's the same thing.
MR. SWENSON: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So additional trips past the red area,
there are none.
MR. SWENSON: That is essentially correct. The increased trips
are from the reduced headway on the purple route.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where the red routes are for five and
six, the red additional trips, are any of those past a residential area?
MR. SWENSON: No, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
Go ahead, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Ijust had a question on Davis.
Why are we not using that interconnect -- well, it's not an
interconnect. Why are we not taking routes five and six off of Davis?
MS. HORNE: Yes, ma'am. In the near future the Department of
State is going -- Department of Transportation is going to be
improving Davis Boulevard.
While the maintenance of traffic activities are going on, it is not
Page 113
January 7, 2010
our recommendation that it would be safe for buses to make a left
turning movement in a maintenance of traffic area during construction
activities. While we think it is possible in the future that it may be
appropriate to circulate using the existing driveway to Davis
Boulevard in the near term, in the period that we contemplated it did
not make for safe operations.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But what about just a right back
out?
MS. HORNE: That area --
COMMISSIONER CARON: Can't you get buses in there?
MS. HORNE: The secondary issue that we would be concerned
about is there -- the c.A. T. facility is fenced off behind -- in between
wherein the original dealership's showroom building is, if you will,
which we call building one, and where maintenance activities take
place. And it is fenced all the way down and around to the Davis
Boulevard entrance.
Today that is how operations occur. That area is kept secure.
The Federal Transit Administration has a preference for security, and
so we contemplated whether it would make sense to circulate in that
area, and for the time being we did not feel it was appropriate, for
those reasons.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. But that's really a matter of
just changing some fencing. If you were to -- I mean, eventually at
some point you're going to have a road that will go around that
property and come out onto Davis at some point.
MR. FEDER: And it exists today. The primary issue is as was
noted. You've got Davis about to go under construction.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. And I understand--
MR. FEDER: Just as we committed to the community, we
wouldn't pursue the conditional use until we had finished the
four-laning on Radio, that would be the same issue. We're looking at
a very minor involvement on Radio on those two routes.
Page 114
January 7, 2010
And we're also taking advantage of a signalized intersection
there. Because even though you can take a right out, it ends up being
a left in. And so right out's a possibility in the future, but again, why
push that through the construction site when you can go to a
signalized area during a construction activity.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick wants to usurp your comment
somehow.
Go ahead, Nick.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not at all.
I've been listening to the conversation for a while, and I'm trying
to stay within my new role and let them talk about it. But I've got to
point something out and be clear here. In 2014 there's over 1,000
vehicle trips available on both of those facilities. If you do the
multiplier or the denominator, there's 500 bus trips available for
capacity .
So I think the discussion between the residents and discussion of
capacity and traffic analysis needs to be brought up on the table.
There's plenty of capacity on those roads to handle the bus trips.
The question I think from the residents in the public meeting is
how many buses will we see from a perspective. But the roads have
plenty of capacity. It's not a capacity issue at all. Quite frankly, the
analysis they've done, and they've done a very good analysis, is
overkill. They've done an operational analysis for exiting and entering
the site, intersection analysis for minimal impacts to the roadway.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, by the way, we're the people you
need to be directing your discussion to.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sorry, I just --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you get interaction with the public,
we have a real serious problem, because that's not how these meetings
work so--
,
MR. CASALANGUIDA: My apologies.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- work towards us, please.
Page 115
January 7, 2010
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure.
So to keep that in mind, it's not a capacity issue, it's not an
operational issue, it's a discussion of how many buses you expect to
see. Typically we don't limit something like this ifthere's plenty of
capacity .
But on the record they've said how many buses, approximately
lOin the p.m. peak hour. There's enough for 500 on that road. So
let's be clear. I just want to make sure for the record it's not an issue
of capacity at all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many lanes is Radio Road now?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Four.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Four lanes. It just got finished, didn't it?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the king of six-lane roads, you, and
Collier County made that one four--
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's my boss.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How did you make it four instead of
six? Because I was told the county standard was always to be six
from here out. Not that I agree with you, but I'm just curious as to
why we didn't do it differently on this road. And you're even talking
about tearing down homes to put in six-lane roads in other parts ofthe
county .
MR. CASALANGUIDA: He had to go there.
MR. FEDER: He was only my compadre in that. I guess I'm the
king of that one.
What I will tell you is Radio Road is constrained further to the
west. And with Davis coming in at six lanes, there was only a need to
go to four. There's plenty of capacity, as Nick points out. There's
actually capacity in everything we're discussing when it was two
lanes, but the commitment we made early on to the community was
that we would wait because we had already started up the
construction. We didn't want to do it during construction on Radio
Page 116
January 7, 2010
either until we're finished with the four-Ianing on Radio Road.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you said in your previous statement
that you had I guess mentioned to the public or told the public that if
you could use Davis Boulevard sometime in the future, you would; is
that a fair statement?
MR. FEDER: I will tell you right now, what we're asking for in
this conditional use is on Radio, as you've seen the indications. But I
imagine in the future we'll be using Davis as well.
The primary reason for the Radio, though, is because you're
coming to a signalized intersection, and that's the safest operation. So
even after the construction in many respects that would be primary,
but I think Commissioner Caron correctly pointed out that right turns
out might be viable. It's the left turns even with the turn lane still are
better at a signalized. So right now we're focusing on Radio for this
limited number that we're asking in this conditional use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because if you use the right turn right
out even in the future when Davis Boulevard is six-Ianed, you'd cut
the use of Radio Road and the portion that you have to use it in for
those two routes by 50 percent.
MR. FEDER: Yeah. And again, it's a very small portion of
Radio Road that we're even proposing to use, but yes, that's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, that 10 number that
was thrown out there was for analysis purposes. It wasn't to maximize,
even though that's being used as a maximization number. It was to
say what's anticipated based on the routes that are distributed on that
network it would be 10 trips. It was never intended by the consultant
to say there wouldn't be 15 at one point in time, although it's being
construed as such right now.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, Nick, every developer comes in
here with a TIS, and we actually lock them into their TIS. We can't
treat government any differently. And so if you guys came in with a
Page 117
January 7, 2010
number you didn't really mean, you should have told us what you
really meant.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Understood. And just like the
developers do when they're on the dais sometimes and they ask
questions, you ask them questions, they clarify it. And that's the
appropriate time to do it is today is to make sure you understand what
we're asking for.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then I have one other
question.
In your presentation you have one chart, number 15, that refers to
a definition for primary and secondary, or is it -- I'm not sure if you
call it main, whatever you called it, entrance -- or uses. Back up, right
there. Major transfer facility and a secondary transfer facility.
In the staff report there was a reference to this as being a
non-primary transfer site versus the main county site. It would seem
to me that if you really want to be accurate in the way you refer to
this, this would be the secondary transfer facility and the county site
would be the major transfer facility. Is that a clearer statement? And
the reason that's important is if this succeeds and you have other
hurdles to get over here today, and we're only talking about traffic but
there are other issues that we need to vet out, any of that kind of
language that isn't defined becomes a problem. But you've actually
defined language in this slide that might be effective in curing that
issue. So -- and that would -- is considered a secondary transfer site
then.
MS. HORNE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of the
applicant before we go to the staff report?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ms. Caron.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm sorry.
Because I think you bring up a good point with that.
Page 118
January 7, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Because if this is going to be a
definition, then I think it's an incomplete one, based on what's
happening there right now today.
MS. HORNE: What would you like to see us clarify?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, are there not other uses
happening on this site right now today?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they're not part of the conditional
use.
MS. HORNE: There are, but they're not part of a transfer
facility. Those are uses that are currently permitted and that currently
operate on-site.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So we'll separate out the
two, okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay.
MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Norman Feder.
With your indulgence, just to clear up some of the discussion on
the traffic impact statement. Usually the developer is only coming in
to you with net traffic analysis. You've got gross traffic analysis.
Because we wanted to make sure that it was clear that with all issues
that the site would still be maintained, not just this increment that
we're looking for for these transfer activities.
But that being said, we're fine restricting ourselves to that, even
though that was only intended to be a five-year look at whether the
system could handle it. And it was on gross traffic, not on net.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Okay, if there's no other questions of the applicant, then we'll go
to staff report.
MS. DESELEM: Good afternoon. For the record, Kay Deselem,
Principal Planner with Zoning.
You have in your possession, and I did hear the applicant also put
it on the record, the staff report with the revision date of 12/22/09.
Page 119
January 7, 2010
And again, like the similar petitions, the applicant has made a very
thorough presentation, so I'll hit the high points of the staff report and
then respond to questions, ifthat's acceptable.
On Page 1 you have the requested action. This mirrors what was
advertised for the public.
You have the geographic location, which has been illustrated in
several documents from the agent.
On Page 2 you have the purpose and description ofthe project,
and we've discussed that at great length as part of the applicant's
presentation. And you have the surrounding zoning and land uses and
an aerial photograph that shows the relationship of those uses.
You have the Growth Management Plan consistency review,
beginning with Future Land Use Element discussion. Followed by the
transportation element discussion.
Staff does recommend that this be found consistent with the
Future Land Use Element and the transportation element, as those
elements are applicable in this case. And, therefore, we believe it
could be deemed consistent with the overall GMP.
Going on on Page 5 you have the analysis that is required by the
Land Development Code. This has the findings of fact in support of
staffs recommendation of approval, beginning with number one that
cites the LDC section that allows this petition to go forward as a
conditional use in this PUD district. Staff has provided our analysis of
that issue and believes that it is appropriate to do so.
And number two, it's required that this be found consistent with
the Land Development Code and the Growth Management Plan. And
staff does believe as conditioned and as those conditions have been
discussed and amended through today, we do believe that this petition
is consistent with both the Land Development Code and the Growth
Management Plan. And noting the details provided in that analysis.
Number three talks about ingress and egress in reference to
automobile and pedestrian safety, convenience, traffic flow, control
Page 120
January 7, 2010
and access in case of fire or catastrophe.
And again, transportation planning staff has evaluated this, as has
zoning, and we believe this petition is consistent with this requirement
as well.
Going on to Page 6, you have number four that talks about the
effects of the conditional use on the neighboring properties. There is a
discussion regarding this issue on that page, but staff is of the opinion
and has the general idea that this as conditioned would be compatible
with the neighborhood.
That goes into number five as well, talking about compatibility.
And again, staff has recommended, with the conditions that we have
imposed or are recommending be imposed, we believe this petition is
compatible.
We have provided as to the applicant an aerial photograph
showing this particular area in 1995 reflecting that the commercial
uses have been on this area for some time.
On Page 7 it goes on to talk of the Environmental Advisory
Council. There is no recommendation, because the project was not
required to go before that body.
There is a neighborhood information synopsis that begins on
Page 7 and continues on to Page 8. Also as part of the attachments to
the staff report, you had the applicant's more complete synopsis of that
neighborhood information meeting.
The County Attorney's Office has reviewed the document, as is
noted on Page 9, and the recommendations of staff begin at the bottom
of Page 9.
As was submitted to you as the last slide for the petitioner this
morning, we have had some modifications to that staff report. And I
have a draft dated 1/6/10(3) that references the changes to conditions
two and five. And also there were additional changes to condition six
that were not shown as underlined. I'll read those beginning after the
word 10, fixed route, p.m. peak hour, two-way is also additional
Page 121
January 7, 2010
language in that condition.
We do have other staff members here available for you, should
you have questions.
Most importantly, as already been noted, transportation staff is
here and they can address any questions you have regarding
transportation.
Other than that, I'm available for any questions you might have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there questions for Kay?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, let's take a look at their sheet
where they have requested changes to your stipulations. And number
two, they want to add the verbiage, the permitting requirements of the
Water Management District and any other applicable agency as well
as.
Now, they're adding that to your department's approval of minor
changes. Can you make changes without the approval of the Water
Management District?
MS. DESELEM: I'm not certain of that. To my knowledge it
would require changes to their documents. And as long as what
changes they may make to their documents are still consistent with
ours --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray? I mean, it seems like needless
language, because you all cannot do anything the other agencies that
we defer to don't allow you to do. So why do we need language in
there that says that, when again it's redundancy that I keep harping on?
MR. BELLOWS: I agree, we can't speak for that agency. And
they -- we defer to them anyways on those types of matters, so I think
it's redundant.
MS. DESELEM: The applicant had asked for this to be added.
We basically don't have any hard feelings one way or another. We
don't care if it's added and we don't see the necessity for it either, so --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And as far as the rest of their
Page 122
January 7, 2010
changes, I might have missed it, you didn't have any problem with
them?
MS. DESELEM: That's correct. I'm sorry in didn't make that
clear.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was trying to read something at the
same time, so -- Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, could you take that piece
off there and show us that last slide that was on there, please? Well,
you can just probably go right to the slide.
I want to understand something, if I can, please. You speak of a
major transfer facility, but in number four you hear -- there you speak
of a non-primary transfer site.
Now, I understand the word difference, but I'm trying to
understand what you're really looking for. If it's a major transfer
facility and then there's a secondary transfer facility, where is the
primary transfer site going to be?
MS. DESELEM: The primary -- what this has come from is the
neighborhood information meeting. In all candor, this is the first I've
seen these today. This is new language to me; I hadn't seen this.
We were trying with the applicant and staff to work through how
we can designate and differentiate between the fact that the transfer
facility at the main government complex is supposed to be the biggy.
That's the primary, the principal, the, you know, semantics trying to
come up with the right term. And this is what we had agreed upon, to
call that the primary or to reference that as the primary as it's done
through a lot of the documentation provided to this point by the
petitioner. And understanding that this site would never become that.
And the other conditions, like the four routes, the 10 routes, the
10 trips, that's all to support the fact that this is the non-primary.
That's how you can limit this to keep it what it's proposed now so that
it can't become the primary site.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Is there any reference within--
Page 123
January 7, 2010
because I read this, but I don't have a recollection in detail that we
ever discussed a primary transfer site. Or for that matter, a major
transfer facility. Maybe it's an unnecessary concern, but I have a
concern here that if we agree with stip four, when somebody goes to
try to figure out what that means, they're going to run into what?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Didn't we -- in our previous discussion,
that was what I pointed out, why don't we use the terms secondary and
major, since they're defined now by the slide.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, okay, maybe I didn't hear
what you were referencing. Maybe I was in la la land thinking about
this. But if that -- we've solved it, then fine.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. No, everybody seemed to think
that was a better way to define it.
MS. DESELEM: Yeah, and that's perfectly acceptable with us.
It's always better to make it more clear.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what I was --
MS. DESELEM: And I had never seen this before. And I'm, you
know --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My apologies in was -- I was
probably thinking about the question I was going to ask and wasn't
listening as intently. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff at this
time?
Ms. Caron?
COMMISSIONER CARON: In number two it says that the
zoning and land development review director can approve minor
changes, including things like siting and height. Is there any height --
what's the height restriction right now on this?
MS. DESELEM: I'd have to go back to the PUD document.
Right off the top of my head I do not recall. I'd have to go back and
look. If you want me to, allow me to take a minute?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before you do, the intent of what
Page 124
January 7, 2010
the zoning director could do were within the administrative limitations
of the zoning director. Meaning you already have latitude for doing an
administrative approval of a setback if it is so many inches or a certain
percentage.
Is that the intent here of number two is not to go beyond those
percentages, or are you -- is something being suggested in two that
would take it beyond that?
MS. DESELEM: The idea of this is to make it clear that this is
the limitations. It still has to be consistent with all applicable
development standards read into that. You still have to get a site
development plan approval. This doesn't supersede that. But as part
of that site development plan approval process, if something comes to
light that you need to tweak something a bit, it gives you some
allowances to do that through the administrative procedure.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. And usually, you know, or
at least for some things the code is fairly specific and you can only do
it by a certain percentage or whatever.
But we have run into problems in this county with somebody's
interpretation of a minor change versus the community's interpretation
of a minor change. So I just would like it to be specific to the code as
it exists and not create language for it.
I mean, if the code allows you to change the height by three feet,
then that's what the code says you can do. If the code allows you to
change a setback by 25 percent, then that's what the code allows you
to do. I don't want somebody else to be interpreting what a minor
change can be.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Ray, let's go back into -- I think it
solves Commissioner Caron's problem. The number two by the
approval of minor changes, wouldn't those mean to the extent you can
administratively do so?
MR. BELLOWS: Correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so --
Page 125
January 7, 2010
MR. BELLOWS: The LDC has a definition of that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that means you can't do something
beyond what you currently administratively can do --
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for setbacks and things. That's what
I'm getting at.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But that's what I'm saying, use the
language we've already got.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, the language placed in the conditional
use is just to make sure it's clear that what can be shifted as a minor
adjustment of a building footprint and not force it into some kind of
new conditional use or an amendment to a conditional use.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Subject to what staff can
administratively allow to be done now.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yeah, in that same item we're
here for a conditional use for a transfer station.
MR. BELLOWS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are we intending to locate
buildings, change the heights of buildings, add structures, or are we
really just putting either a block or a concrete or some kind of a
platform out there so that the buses can pull up and -- I thought
everything was in place already.
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows.
This is a somewhat unique situation. We have two different
types of zoning we're dealing with. One is this is properties within a
PUD which has a master plan which regulates certain development
intensities as pursuant to the master plan. There's language in the
master plan and in the LDC that allows minor changes to those master
plans without triggering some kind ofPUD amendment.
We also have criteria that says if you meet all this criteria for the
Page 126
January 7, 2010
changes or to an extent that meets the criteria for what's called the PDI
or master plan change, that requires approval by the Planning
Commission. So everything's defined in the LDC of how much you
can impact or change what's shown on a master plan.
The same concept applies to a conditional use. That's a use that is
allowed on the subject property pursuant to additional conditions of
approval or regulations or safeguards. And that's why we require kind
of a conceptual site plan to be attached to a conditional use.
Now, the current facility's operating under the auspices of the
PUD document, and they would not be locked into the conceptual site
plan format. But they are locked into the --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: PUD.
MR. BELLOWS: -- PUD master plan.
But they have now this second document that's locking them into
the facilities that are shown. This gives the assurance to the residents
who are coming to these meetings that what is approved by this
Commission and the Board of County Commissioners is what they're
locked into, and two weeks later there's not four other buildings
on-site.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So you're telling me that this
clause too doesn't exist in the PUD as it already is extant.
MR. BELLOWS: They're similar language, that's all I can say.
But similar's not quite the same.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm just suggesting you may not
need it at all in there, because of the fact that that's not what we're here
for. But that's not -- as long as Commissioner Caron's views are
appreciated and we go with the language that we're used to, I certainly
don't have a problem. It's often said we have things in here that are
not necessary.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. And this is --like I said, it's a very
unique situation. You don't get many conditional uses within PUDs,
and this is one of them.
Page 127
January 7, 2010
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But now I have a problem.
Because I was under the impression that they're going to be able to
cover these vehicles. They probably won't. Because in the auto
dealership master plan I'm sure that there was no cover out there in the
middle of that island.
So my question is why did they create a new island? Why didn't
they put this up against -- you know, reverse it 180 degrees and put it
up against the building where the people could use the cover of the
existing auto dealership and stuff?
Or I guess Kay, maybe you could make me comfortable by
saying yes, they would be able to build shelter out by those bus
drop-offs.
MS. DESELEM: Let me respond to say that I don't see why they
couldn't, because it's not going to increase impervious area. Because
it would be a cover going over an already impervious area. So it
wouldn't create any issues as far as water management or parking or
anything else that would require other alterations to the site.
So I would believe in my mind that the addition of a cover for
that would not trigger anything that would be above and beyond a
minor change that could be done.
This particular site already has site development plan approval as
an amendment, up to the point that you see now without that bus
transfer sawtooth design. So what they would have to do would be to
come in and amend that. And it could be done, like I said, as an
insubstantial change even. I'm not sure of that, I'd have to evaluate it.
But it's not going to increase things that would normally be looked at.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So when we get these
conceptual plans, to me adding another structure where we didn't think
one was would not be a minor change. I mean, we review these all the
time, we let these PUD plans go.
Page 128
January 7,2010
So what you're saying, the addition of a roofed area out in the
middle of that parking lot would not be an issue based on the original
PUD. Which is the conceptual site plan that we have up until this, or
what happens?
MS. DESELEM: Well, we've gone beyond the original PUD in
that this already has a site development plan that reflects the buildings
that are on-site. So, you know, it would be in conjunction with that
site development plan.
And like I said, I don't believe it would have impact as far as
what staff would normally review.
As far as I understand the application has been represented and as
I understand it to be, they're not proposing any more buildings as far
as like those that would house offices or the like. It's just they show
that sawtooth design on the site plan so you know it's going to be
there. And I think it's been pretty clearly articulated that they hope to
cover that to provide shelter to the passengers.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Have they added any
buildings to this site since the county's taken ownership?
MS. DESELEM: Not that I'm aware of. They can respond
perhaps better to that than I, but not that I'm personally aware of.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So we are essentially going by
the original PUD.
So this -- okay, so Ray, would this have to fall under the original
PUD conceptual plan if they change that plan?
And to me, in the building world a structure, an open structure's a
structure, as this site has open structures where they use to park the
cars under them.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, for the record, Ray Bellows.
The conceptual plan that you're reviewing today with this
conditional use is consistent with the PUD master plan, so no change
to that document would be required.
Now, ifthere is to be in the future some kind of covered area
Page 129
January 7, 2010
over the exis -- what's shown currently on this plan and if it's just a
covered thing, then that would fall under that language that was being
recommended in two as a minor change.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, so that's a minor change.
Because these people should be covered up by that. All right, thank
you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of staff?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kay, thank you.
Okay, Ray, do we have -- let's start with the registered public
speakers.
And by the way, everybody that is wanting to speak, first of all,
we need to be assured you've been sworn in. So if you haven't been
sworn in, please tell the court reporter that as you come up to the
microphone.
Second of all, we just need you to identify your name and
address for the record.
Go ahead.
MS. DESELEM: In may, I'm sorry, I forgot to respond to Ms.
Caron's question.
The height approved in the PUD, Nick was kind enough to pull it
out, it is 50 feet.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, first speaker, Ray. And we can
use either microphone you feel comfortable at.
MR. BELLOWS: There are four registered speakers. The first
speaker is Rudy Petorelli.
MR. PETORELLI: Hi. Good afternoon. And I'd like to thank
the chairman for moving us up rather than holding us till late in the
afternoon. Only downside of that is we've got to go back out into the
cold a little sooner. But we can put up with that.
For the record my name is Rudy Petorelli. P-E- T-O-R-E-L-L-I.
Page 130
January 7, 2010
And I'm going to present the position paper of the ENACTS
organization, which is a group of people around the -- on the Radio
Road and Davis Boulevard neighborhood. Not all of the residents,
naturally, but quite a few of them. And you have the signatures, I
believe, of959, they said, residents who are against this particular site.
Now, here is the ENACTS position, which we have sent to the
Commission I believe a couple of weeks ago. ENACTS is a group of
residents located in East Naples along Radio Road and Davis
Boulevard who are strongly opposed to the placement of a C.A.T. bus
transfer station at the C.A.T. operations center on Radio Road. The
surrounding area contains in excess of 15,000 residents who will be
most directly affected by placing the transfer station at that site.
At the outset we want to assure you we are not opposed to
expanding bus service in Collier County. In fact, we support the
expansion of bus service, of a safe, convenient, affordable public
transportation system.
What we are opposed to is placing this one facility in the middle
of a residential area. I've heard people here say it's not residential.
This board in particular should know, since the Morandi site until
now, that East Naples area has been one of the most built up areas
with residences. So it's a complete change from what it was even five
years ago.
In fact, our communications with other similar -- others similar to
Collier County. We had 15 other communities here. It's really 11, if
you want to change your report there. And we found that bus transfer
stations in most cases were not located in residential areas. The fact
that this site was previously used as a car dealership is not germane,
since as I said before the area has changed drastically.
Now, we found in our research that not only were transfer
stations cited outside of residential areas, but the use of nonresidential
sites was preferred to better accommodate and attract the main player
and bus transfer, and that's the rider.
Page 131
January 7, 2010
In 2005 the University of South Florida did a study at the request
of Collier County. In fact, they did Collier County and Lee County.
Although the study was a park and ride study, or analysis, the results
apply equally to transfer stations. Because the only difference
between park and ride and ride in a bus and ride is that you don't drive
a car in in one of them.
What they said is this: The facility must be conveniently located
to entice more people to use the bus. And I'm sure that's what C.A.T.
wants, that's what Collier County wants, that's what ENACTS wants,
we want increased ridership.
They also said the facility's proximity to activity centers is
important to attract commuters. Examples given were grocery and
retail shopping. Two sites on the list were Wal-Mart stores, personal
services like dry cleaning, video rental, restaurants. This allows
commuters to combine daily travel for a variety of purposes. That
makes an extreme lot of sense, not only to the people here in
ENACTS, but I'm sure to many other residents of Collier County.
The study identified 32 sites they felt were suitable. None of
those were in a residential area. They were all activity sites.
This type of incremental approach using development sites that
ENACTS is suggesting is exactly what the University of South Florida
said in November of2005 when they did the study for Collier County
and C.A.T. This approach they said limits initial investment since the
sites are already developed and can be expanded or contracted fast and
easily as ridership warrants. That's an important point.
Now, the Los Angeles Metro Transportation Authority, although
that is a lot larger than ours, the philosophy they have still applies.
They did a major study of bus and train traffic. Among their
recommendations were: The heart of the proposal was to develop
transit centers throughout the county. They recommended the creation
of 19 centers throughout LA County at popular destinations, like
UCLA, train stations, job centers, government buildings and the
Page 132
January 7,2010
Warner Center. They felt the creation of many of these centers saves
time, money, and makes bus transport more convenient and may
attract new riders. There's a second study that says, attract new riders,
which is what we all want.
We at ENACTS are recommending a similar system. We believe
that transfer locations, not transfer centers, can be disbursed
throughout Collier County to activity centers or destination sites along
existing bus routes to make bus travel more convenient and attractive
to existing riders and possibly attract new riders.
We feel this system can be accomplished with very little new
capital investment by the county, especially with the cooperation of
businesses at these new sites. And none of us can imagine that any
business center or mall or whatever would object to bus loads of
customers coming onto their site. In fact, we identified Wal-Mart
store on Route 951 as an attractive destination and an alternative to
Radio Road. That site is only 1.2 miles from Radio Road C.A.T. site
and one minute by car. Right in the area that C.A.T. wants to put a
transfer station.
Why Wal-Mart? If you do a Google search on the Internet of
Wal-Mart bus stops, you get 267,000 hits. The listed articles indicate
one, hundreds of bus stops nationwide are at existing Wal-Mart stores.
Two, requests for residents for stops at Wal-Mart stores where no
stops exist. And three, information for riders indicating which bus
stops at the Wal-Mart stores. People want to know that because that's
where they want to the take a bus.
This indicates that Wal-Mart truly is an activity center and a
destination site.
Now, here's a news excerpt showing why we talk about
Wal-Mart. What they did in Austin, Minnesota. July, 2008. Austin
residents will see benefits that go beyond low prices, one-stop
shopping convenience when the new Wal-Mart Supercenter opens
Wednesday. The store has taken steps to support local suppliers,
Page 133
January 7, 2010
improve road conditions and offer shoppers a product selection to fit
their needs.
In addition to uncompromising value and selection, the store
includes a number of features that promote easy access while building
on the aesthetics of the community. For instance, Wal-Mart built a
new road behind the store, three retention ponds, a bus stop, a bike
path, while adding two traffic lights. Evidently thousands of dollars of
investment that didn't come out of Austin, Minnesota's budget.
This is only one instance ofWal-Mart cooperating with cities and
towns in new and innovative ways.
Now, that's our main issue. There is a better site. We think the
site within a mile of Radio Road is a better site, not only for the riders
but for the county.
Other issues are safety and property values. We believe the
increased traffic noise, 24-hour lighting safety issues, including safety
of children using school buses, air quality issues, will negatively affect
property values in the area and increase security concerns.
Traffic. C.A.T. estimated in five years from our calculations,
over 200 buses a day will be entering and exiting that site. Also, they
mentioned the possibility of express buses coming off I - 7 5 and going
to that site. I didn't hear that mentioned today.
Add this to the normal automobile traffic increase and you have
what we consider a residential area not capable of handling this
amount of and type of traffic. It know the experts say it can, and they
talk about maybe you don't want to see that many buses. That's
exactly the point. We don't think we should see 200 buses, which may
be understated, by the way c.A. T. has grown from the beginning of
their inception till now; 200 may be low. But we don't want to see
that many buses on that road because we feel there's a better place for
it.
The justification for the Radio Road site. A neighborhood
information meeting was held on December 3rd regarding the
Page 134
January 7, 2010
proposed transfer center on Radio Road. One attendee asked the panel
whether Wal-Mart on Route 951 had been contact regarding the use of
their site for bus transfers. The answer was no, Wal-Mart was not
contacted.
Another asked whether it was true that one of the main reasons
for choosing the Radio Road location was the ability to sell bus tickets
and/or passes. The answer also was no.
The following e-mail, which was sent to ENACTS from the then
director of alternative transportation contradicts both of those answers.
From Diane Flagg to Bill Connie, dated January 7th, 2008, quote, we
did discuss the utilization of the Wal-Mart parking lot for passengers
to transfer to other bus routes with a Wal-Mart rep at Davis and
Collier Boulevard. And they were open to the concept.
This is an opinion -- this is an option, however. It does restrict
additional customer services that would be available to them at the
C.A.T. operational center nearby.
As many of Collier area transit passengers are transportation
dependent and have the additional services offered at the C.A.T.
operation centers are obtaining LD. cards, purchase of multiple bus
passes and transfer training. That I don't know what it is, transfer
training. I don't think you have to train people on how to transfer on
buses.
But anyway, the obvious question that comes to mind is why
can't these functions be done at the existing government center?
That's the main transfer facility.
Also, is there the distinct possibility that if the Wal-Mart site is
used, Wal-Mart would be willing and able to perform those functions?
We don't know, because they haven't been contacted.
It seems to us that the Wal-Mart proposal is a win/win situation.
The riders benefit because they have a pleasant, convenient
destination site from which to make transfers. They can shop, they
can rest in between trips. The county will probably benefit, because if
Page 135
January 7, 2010
this type of plan is viable, it could save the county thousands of
dollars in the future in infrastructure investment as the system expands
and possibly increases ridership. C.A.T. can follow the population
growth and the stores that go along with it.
The 15,000 residents around Radio Road and Davis Boulevard
will benefit by not having a disruptive service in their midst. We're
sure Wal-Mart is already convinced that this kind of development is
good for business. In fact, Collier County has innumerable activity
centers in addition to Wal-Mart as recommended by the University of
Southwest Florida study. We originally stated there must be a better
place. We think we have proven there are many better places.
Now, I just have one request from ENACTS that won't take long.
Just as an addenda. Because of answers we got at the December,
2009 meeting about Wal-Mart specifically, and the confusion in the
e-mails that we looked at before, we don't know and we don't believe
Wal-Mart has been officially contacted with a written proposal as to
what they might be willing to do to accommodate a station only one
mile from the current C.A.T. site. It might be substantial. They may
say no. But they have already -- after the confusion of these prior
e-mails, one of our members of ENACTS wrote to C.A.T. and said
since that meeting, yes, they were contacted and they indicated they
have an interest in increasing public transportation in that area.
Now, since we've been involved in this process for about three
years, we don't think it's an outrageous request to ask this Commission
to table this conditional approval permit for now, maybe a couple of
months, and let's get an official written in writing recommendation or
proposal from Wal-Mart as to what they're willing to do with a
comparison of what are the costs going to be to get this transportation
facility on Radio Road up and going?
I've gotten more confused today, because I thought -- first of all, I
thought because we're going to be really minimal. Now I'm -- for
capital construction. Now I'm really confused what I heard during the
Page 136
January 7, 2010
last part of that presentation. There's more to this than we realize.
But not only that, I heard about security. What are we going to
spend over the next five years with an estimated 200 buses a day?
What are we going to spend on security? How many people does that
involve? It's a 24 hours a day --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir?
MR. PETORELLI: But anyway--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so you know, we normally limit
speakers to about five minutes and ask that you try and limit that.
You've been going for almost 15. And --
MR. PETORELLI: Okay. Well, they told me 10 minutes and I
thought I could do it in --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. I just need you to kind of
wrap it up because we have other speakers --
MR. PETORELLI: Yeah, I'm all wrapped up.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
MR. PETORELLI: Thank you very much for --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, I --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray has a question.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question for you, sir.
Now, you clearly -- you folks are focusing on Wal-Mart as the
answer to this thing.
MR. PETORELLI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And you said you've been
organized now for three years.
MR. PETORELLI: Two to three.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Two to three.
Have you made any overtures directly to Wal-Mart to find out
the answers to the questions you pose?
MR. PETORELLI: Yes, we have, and I did personally. And
they said that has to come from the agency directly to the manager at
the local Wal-Mart and they would consider it from there.
Page 137
January 7, 2010
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And the other question
that I have relating to it, you've referenced a bus stop. I think that
might be considerably different from a bus transfer point.
And you, in your reading of many things, you talked about bus
stops and you talk about Wal-Mart desires greater transit
opportunities, et cetera. But I didn't really clearly understand anything
that you said in there to mean that they were in all the other parts of
the country that you referenced actually operating bus transfer points.
Are you saying that that's happening in other places?
MR. PETORELLI: No, I don't know that specifically. But
because of the number of references of buses going to Wal-Mart, I
would assume they're either going through there and not making
transfers and in other cases they may be getting off one bus and going
to another. I don't know that, but I'm just making an assumption. It
must be -- of those hundreds of sites, there must be some transfers.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm quite sure that every
business would be happy to have a busload of people coming in with a
potential for them to shop in the place. That's considerably different
than a bus transfer point.
I'm not going to go any further with it. I appreciate your
comments, and thank you for representing some folks.
MR. PETORELLI: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir.
Next speaker, please.
MR. BELLOWS: Susan Riedel.
MS. RIEDEL: My name is Susan Riedel, R-I-E-D-E-L. I'm a
resident, owner and board member at Sherwood Park on Radio Road.
I don't like nimbi arguments, but I found today's presentation
very interesting, because I'm more confused than I think some of you
were by the numbers that were thrown around in the earlier
presentations.
It looked like we were talking about three bus lines? Well,
Page 138
January 7, 2010
maybe it's really four bus lines, because there's an A and a B. And
then there were references to five bus lines, lObus routes. I've gotten
very confused as to how many trips, routes, lines we're really talking
about coming into that facility.
But even beyond the bus routes that we're talking about, what
seems to distinguish a bus transfer facility from simply having a bus
stop where people can transfer from one bus to another, which
apparently is the case at c.A. T. stops in the county, there was the kiss
and ride. And so far I've not heard anybody talk about the additional
trips in and out of that facility that the county transportation authority
expects from that kiss and ride capability.
In one respect it looked really nice that all this extra traffic was
being concentrated in a very small part of Radio Road, down in an
area where there was already commercial activity taking place.
But Sherwood happens to be right at that point. And I think many
of my fellow neighbors would be extremely concerned about not so
much the additional bus traffic, because clearly the bus drivers have
safety records that get evaluated and are trained to deal with traffic
congestion. But now we're talking about the potential for many, many
more private automobiles going in and out of that facility. And I
haven't heard anyone from either the presenters earlier or the
Commission ask what kind of capability we're really talking about,
what kind of traffic that we're talking about from that additional
function at that facility.
The suggestion that the presence of a transfer point there would
actually reduce local traffic on Radio Road struck me as kind of
strange, unless you all are talking about reducing or eliminating any of
the bus stops that are already present on Radio Road. As long as those
are in place, I can't see somebody walking from the developments
down near Santa Barbara all the way back to the transfer point at
Davis Boulevard in order to take a bus into town. So the suggestion
that traffic will somehow be reduced by that struck me as rather odd.
Page 139
January 7, 2010
But going beyond the traffic load and those kinds of vehicular
safety issues, I think many of us are concerned about the wait time
between buses and the activities and security that will actually take
place on the property . We didn't hear anything yet today. And
unfortunately I was out of town when the earlier neighborhood
meetings were held. Not as a seasonal resident, but simply on a trip.
We heard about vending machines. Are those going to be
available 24 hours a day or are those going to be closed up when
there's no bus traffic through there? What are the bus hours? How
will that facility be controlled when the staff who are supposed to
provide supervision -- although I would have thought they were doing
their jobs, not looking out the windows at the bus platforms -- how is
that supervision going to occur outside of the business hours of the
operations center? Those are the kinds of questions I hope you will
continue to ask. And I again thank you very much for the opportunity
to speak today.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Next speaker, Ray.
MR. BELLOWS: Marilyn Ormson.
MS. ORMSON: I don't need to speak now, thank you. my points
have been addressed.
MR. BELLOWS: Ken Ormson.
MR. ORMSON: I say the same.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there anybody here from the public
that would like to speak who hasn't been called?
Yes sir. Come on up and -- have you been sworn? When you get
up here, I need to ask if you've been sworn in.
MR. MOSER: My name is Scott Moser. And I thought I was
sworn in. I thought I gave you an affidavit.
THE COURT REPORTER: Would you spell your name, please.
MR. MOSER: Moser, M-O-S-E-R.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, sir, thank you.
Page 140
January 7, 2010
MR. MOSER: I'm here actually representing Rhonda Borden to
read a portion of an editorial that appeared in today's Naples Daily
News.
Rhonda is president of the Sherwood III Condominium
Association. She's a paralegal at the firm of Robbins, Caplan, Miller
and Ciresi. And I encourage the Commission to read the editorial in
its entirety.
The early portions ofRhonda's editorial is a sarcastic and clever
response to a December 8th editorial in the Naples Daily News. It
compared the Morandi Dealership a/k/a bus terminal a/k/a transfer
station to other projects and many of its aftermaths.
I would like to read into the record portions of this editorial that
raise questions regarding these decisions made during the progression
of this project.
This is Rhonda in her article: The argument that the residents
who are affected by the bus hub are trying to present is that the bus
hub is in a residential area. This area has been zoned in accordance
with the Land Development Code of Collier County. The present
zoning will not allow it to become a passenger transfer facility.
Therefore, the only way to circumvent the rezoning is to petition for a
conditional use from the county to allow it to become a true bona fide
bus hub under the category of essential services such as a school, a fire
station, or police station.
While the public transportation is an asset, important to
municipalities, to compare it to the requisites of education, public
safety and the public welfare is a stretch.
The Naples Daily News reported it was unsuccessful in finding a
transit system without centralized transfer positions. No one questions
that. The real questions that need to be answered are: Is this located
within 500 yards of residential dwellings? Are the surrounding
communities impacted by a potential 200 buses per day traveling to
and from the hub? Are property values affected by the increase in
Page 141
January 7, 2010
traffic, noise, diesel fumes and industry near their homes? Is one of
the access roads adjacent to the facility a state road with only two
lanes of traffic not slated for expansion any time soon? Did the
county -- excuse me, was the purchase of the property at this location
approved because it was not intended to be a transfer passenger
facility? Did the county flip-flop after this property was purchased
and say it was always intended to be a transfer station?
Residents fear the exact things the Land Development Code in
Collier County was written to prevent: Poor zoning and poor
planning. Residents want to preserve their quality of life and property
values. Zoning is the only mechanism in place to protect property
values and preserve quality of life issues.
Residents ask the County Commission and Planning Commission
to be true to the original zoning of the Morandi dealership. Do not
circumvent the original zoning by using terms like conditional use or
essential services.
Those are the essential elements of Rhonda's remarks.
Some thoughts of my own. Earlier during this morning's
meeting, one of the board members used a phrase, if it looks like a
duck, it's a duck. Another member chastised a petitioner about the
noncompliance with contractual obligations regarding a tower, and
voted no against the petitioner's request because of this flip-flop.
The testimony of and the presentation by the representation of
Wilbur Smith and Associates was full of statistics that are quite
divergent from other opinions.
I hope the Commission performs its due diligence to be sure that
the 10 additional buses entering or leaving Radio Road do not
multiply by 10 or 20 in 10 years. With all due respect to the
Commission members, judging the history of the proposed bus hub,
there are many varied opinions and many varied aspects of
information surrounding it. The bus hub is your duck. It is not the
duck being portrayed. Thank you for your courtesy.
Page 142
January 7, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Does anybody else wish to speak?
Yes, ma'am, please come on up and identify yourself. And were
you sworn? You'll have to answer that question when you get up
here, if you don't mind.
MS. MOL YN: And I also gave a paper.
MR. BELLOWS: They were on the wrong public hearing.
MS. MOL YN: Yes, I was sworn in.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
MS. MOL YN: My name is Karen Molyn. M-O-L-Y-N. I'm a
resident at Sapphire Lakes on Radio Road.
I'm really impressed with your task and your job that you have
here with all your ALF's and your TSI's and your PUDs. Well, I'm
from E-N-A-C-T-S.
And I'm going to present something for a gentleman named Bill
Kearney who went with me to a meeting two and a half years ago.
And the Morandi dealership had already been purchased and they
were now trying to explain to us why it should become a transfer site.
They said the dealership was purchased without any opposition. Well,
you can't oppose something that you don't know about.
So this has been a concern of Bill's for a long time. And he's met
with the transportation staff and Norman Feder and his staff. So I'd
like to read his comments. And I apologize if I'm being redundant
with some things.
He says, I have been involved with ENACTS since the beginning
of our opposition, well over two years ago. We have attended
community meetings called by our local commissioners, have met
with all commissioners on an individual basis, and have met with Mr.
Feder and his staff past and present on a regular basis.
All of these meetings that have been held over the past two years
were for one purpose: That being to express our strong opposition to
placing a bus transfer site at the op center on Radio Road and to share
Page 143
January 7, 2010
our reasons for this and to offer viable alternatives to this placement.
We have tried to maintain an environment that was cooperative
and cordial during these sessions, and I believe that was achieved.
Unfortunately it is now very evident to us that all we have shared and
all that we have suggested has fallen on deaf ears as far as the county
is concerned.
The county has given us very little if any seriousness to our
reasons for opposition and to our suggestions for alternatives. As we
look back, it surely appears that the county was merely going through
the motions to justify the time and service to the community members
it serves and that the decision had already been made that a bus
transfer site would be placed at the out center. In other words, it was a
done deal.
As a reminder of some of our concerns and information, you've
all spoken about that today, including traffic and congestion, the more
buses now that I'm learning we're talking about, parking. When I
drive by there now, that parking lot looks three-quarters full. What's it
going to be like when we have more people dropping off or parking
their car?
Noise impact on residents you've discussed.
Safety for pedestrians and our most prized possession, our
children. And Sherwood is right there. And I watch those children,
I'm a former teacher, I watch those children wait for that bus. I watch
for the children wait for their bus at Sapphire Lakes.
And we also are going to have increased residential construction
in the area. I'm not talking commercial; residential construction in the
area. More people, more vehicles, more traffic, more safety concerns,
et cetera.
Now, ENACTS has conducted surveys of at least nine other
counties, and you've heard about that, the size of greater Naples, and
found out that those surveyed, less than three percent of the total
number of transfer sites were located in residential areas.
Page 144
January 7, 2010
And we consider ourself a residential area. I drive down Radio
Road, I look at the bowling alley, I can't see it. It has a nice long road
that goes back and it's very well landscaped.
I look at the C.A.T. center, what is it 1,000 feet from the curb?
And they're going to have all those buses coming in? Now, 97 percent
were located in commercial areas for the convenience of the
passengers.
We do have some degree of hope. And that is to do all we can to
gain the support of the County Planning Commission today and the
County Commissioners in March when the final decisions will be
made.
You have our petitions. We presented them to the
Commissioners, and we're continuing to get petitions so that we can
show -- we have a few people here today, but there are many more
who feel the same way that we do.
We will continue to educate the members of our community who
will be most affected by this decision and show all in the county that
we truly mean business. People say we've been too nice, it is now time
to deliver a very strong message, that our opposition has the support of
all of our citizens most effective.
Please be aware that there is a better place for this transfer site. It
is time for the county to step forward and look at these viable
alternatives rather than to keep giving reasons why it can't be done.
There is a better choice. If the county really makes decisions
based on providing the passengers convenience at their transfer sites,
then how can the op center be justified as a viable location? It just
doesn't make sense. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Is there anybody else that wishes to speak?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, is there any -- would the
applicant like any time for rebuttal?
Page 145
January 7, 2010
MS. HORNE: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Please try to limit yourself to
about 10 minutes, okay?
MS. HORNE: Yes, sir.
I think I'm going to start with the USF study, if you don't mind.
You may have noted that when the representative discussed -- I'm
sorry, I'm -- Mr. Petorelli, presented the recommendations from the
USF study, you'll notice there were a number of parallels between the
presentation that I made on the guidance related to it. It's two ends of
the same transportation system. The passengers need to get from
where they live to where they either work or other destinations they
want to go through throughout their active day.
All of the presentations that we've heard about bus stop locations
that focus on Wal-Mart and other commercial uses are the
destinations. But transit trips begin, particularly in Collier County as I
indicated, based on the surveys that were done of your passengers,
begin at home and they are walk trips. That is the approach.
In fact, the Department of Transportation's tool that they require
all transit systems in Florida to use to estimate transit ridership is
called a transit boardings estimation tool. The reason that's important
is boardings are close to where people live.
And so that's point number one I'd like to rebut, that this is a
residential area. I'm just going to restate what I said earlier, this is a
mixed use area. It is not exclusively residential. It is within the
density band. I presented more on that earlier, so I don't want to
belabor that point.
In terms of the process, we made this application based on the
zoning letter that indicated the process that we should follow, and we
have done that. We have met with the community to describe the
form of development and hear if there are ways that we could make it
more acceptable.
Let's see. Specifically one of the larger points relates to 200
Page 146
January 7, 2010
buses. I disagree with that number. I do believe we presented that.
I do -- also there was -- the statement that it was confusing when
we start talking about routes versus trips. That is true; that's why I
brought traffic experts with me here today.
There are three routes: 3.A, 3.B, five and six which go by this
site already, and I illustrated that I think clearly. So that is the request
is those routes. And we grew the future routes by anticipating what
would happen if we improved service by reducing the amount of time
that a person waits at a stop for the next bus. And that's how we
anticipated future growth at this stop location.
The noise and fumes is another comment that was brought up.
Again, if you look at the number of buses that leave at the beginning
of the day and return at the end of the day, the hourly circulation that
would happen on this site is much lower than that. We're talking in
the future five buses that would exit the site. And that's the noise and
fumes that are related to that.
I also want to remind you that as we move forward, this system is
looking to become more energy efficient and have vehicles that make
less noise and produce less exhaust.
In terms of park and ride, when we -- the reason that the traffic
impact study -- and I will allow one of our experts to interrupt me if I
get this wrong -- is when you look at trips that are kiss and ride trips,
that you're dropping off your spouse, hypothetically, or you're
dropping off your son or daughter at a passenger transfer facility,
those are calculated as pass-by trips or diverted trips. In other words,
you're already driving by there, you're not going out of your way to go
to this location. And they are not counted separately. They're
considered background traffic.
Did I get that right?
MS. RIEDEL: Right.
MS. HORNE: Thank you.
The state road is slated for improvements. You'll see in the
Page 147
January 7, 2010
packet that I gave -- that we gave you with the application that part of
our analysis was to look at the improvements that are proposed along
Davis Boulevard.
Let me see. I do not believe this is poor zoning or poor planning
specifically. I think that's one of the areas where I'm uniquely
qualified to testify. As I said, I am a land use and transportation
planner. That is not very common.
What we look for in the future is to make investments in a
systematic way in a community that each investment reinforces the
other. The way that we plan land reinforces the way that we plan
transportation and back and forth. And that is the way that it should
happen. And in my opinion, based on your comprehensive plan, we
focus that investment in the urbanized area and would continue to do
so.
The last thing that I will mention relates to the Wal-Mart. This is
something we hear a lot. As I said earlier in my presentation, we
advise our clients against locating on private property because for any
reason. It could be a whim. But it's generally the highest and best
use. A property owner can change their mind about allowing you to
circulate on that.
As a case in point, I am planning a transit project in Jacksonville,
Florida right now that currently has one bus route, just like the
Wal-Mart on Collier Boulevard. Has one bus route that comes into
the site. Wal-Mart is happy with that, because it's about 19 to 25
passengers a day. And it's one vehicle that circulates through about
every hour, similar to what we're looking at here.
We are planning to improve their transit system and provide
what's called bus rapid transit. It's a lot like an express bus. It comes
through every 10 to 15 minutes.
When we talked to Wal-Mart on that case, they said in fact they
don't want us to come through their property anymore because it
creates too many conflicts. One bus circulating through their parking
Page 148
January 7, 2010
lot not so bad; multiple buses circulating through their parking lot is
not good.
And ifI could make the comparison, the business case, if you
will, for any retailer, whether it's Wal-Mart or somebody else, if
you're talking about 19 to 25 passengers a day, and the e-mail that
they referenced earlier from Diane Flagg estimated that Wal-Mart
would have to make improvements in the range of$30,000 to
accommodate the one bus route. And that just doesn't make good
business sense.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, before--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I have a question.
MS. HORNE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: There are two conditions. One is
kiss and ride, the other one is park and ride. Park and ride has been
referenced in your document.
I don't agree with you completely on your kiss and ride thesis.
People do in fact, if it becomes the attractant to go to a bus depot,
they're going to drive there on purpose. But it may be moot because it
may not be a lot.
But I do want to qualify further with the park your car all day and
ride transit. That was a very relevant question that was raised and I
don't think we had any testimony regarding what numbers were
projected. It's a key element in a major transfer facility, but we did
not hear any projection of numbers, whether in the near term or in a
horizon three to five years out. Have you got any information on that?
MS. HORNE: I do not have an exact calculation on that. I do
have some inferences that we can make. But --
MR. FEDER: I'll give you an easy answer. We're not planning
on having park and ride at this facility. At the major that you saw there
where we do have ability on campus with a parking garage and the
like, we will be utilizing that. Although we've been struggling
mightily to try and get park and ride with van pools, bus, car pools, I
Page 149
January 7, 2010
haven't seen a lot of that in the nature of this county.
But nonetheless, the intent is not to have park and ride at the
C.A.T. depot but rather at the government center--
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So I should --
MR. FEDER: -- major transfer.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I should strike a line through
that right here?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the secondary transfer facility is
what this. The secondary transfer facility doesn't have park and ride,
it has drop-off passengers.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm looking at major transfer
facilities.
MR. FEDER: And again --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, but this--
MR. FEDER: -- this is the secondary.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is the secondary.
MR. FEDER: The non-primary --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you for correcting that.
MR. FEDER: -- now defined as secondary. Correct.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right, I got that messed up
with the major, minor.
MR. FEDER: I'll be extremely brief, but I'd appreciate the
board's -- Commission's indulgence.
Norman Feder, for the record, Transportation Administrator.
What was noted, and I'll just follow up and I'll try not to repeat.
One facility, no, we're not looking at only one transfer facility. We're
looking at one major, one secondary, and we have some other transfer
activities within the county already today.
And going to Mr. Murray's comments, which I think were pretty
well to point, what has been relayed mostly on this issue ofWal-Mart
-- and we're utilizing K-Mart, Wal-Mart and others today where we
can -- are basically a destination where we have a route that stops
Page 150
January 7, 2010
there, people get off, go to that destination, later another bus comes,
they get back on and they go on their way.
They are not structured. And that's the real critical part for
transfer activities, whether they be a major or a secondary. Even on a
secondary, which we're talking about here, you've got more than one
bus coming in. And from safety and operations, you don't conflict
with parking lot and people moving, you've got to have safe
operations. That's why the sawtooth. And it becomes more
constraining.
As a matter of fact, even on the single bus application where we
tried it at Coastland Center and we had on the property at Coastland
Center, and that's the biggest mall we have here, they've asked us, and
we now are doing it out on the street, because they found that it
conflicted.
Will Wal-Mart tell you every single time that they want
increased transit opportunities for people to get to their shopping area?
Of course they will. But it's more of a bus stop issue.
And then the other thing, because there were five definitive
things said by Mr. Moser. One was that within a residential area. I
need to point out that the C.A.T. facility's both on, basically adjacent
to and across from commercial. The routing that you saw there was
coming off of Davis and not going past the commercial general area
here. And the routes 3.A, 3.B, that route basically combined is
already traveling on Radio today. The only thing you would be doing
is not having it stop at the transfer area on the roadway where it's more
dangerous for vehicles and others.
Number two, the issue of two and three -- 200 buses and then
properly done by the traffic figures and the like. No. And actually,
many of those trips are already there, we've already had that
discussion.
And again, what we're dealing with as far as capacity, especially
since we waited till the four-laning of Radio Road, is minuscule to the
Page 151
January 7, 2010
impact capabilities or the capacity.
State road? Yes, it is being widened. And we had that
discussion as well.
And then last, was properly intended to be transfer. And to the
discussion of well, they came out and then later told us we're going to
do transfer, we bought it for both, presented it to the board in purchase
for both, but acknowledged based on the determination that transfer
would require conditional use. And we told the board that we'd go at
that and meet with the community.
I do want to thank the community, and I do agree with the last
speaker that the effort has been cordial, and it's always intended to be
that and it will continue to be. We want to be a good neighbor, we've
tried with the operation so far. I'm pleased that we haven't had
concerns raised with everything we're doing there now. We're going
to try and make sure that stays the way things are, even if we get this
conditional use approved.
I thank you for your time.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you.
Mr. Schiffer, then Ms. Caron.
Norm, I think you may want to stay up here.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, or Michelle's team.
You know, one of the questions someone brought up that I
brought up too is I'm under the impression that the transfers are going
to happen rather quickly. My concern for this may be not the same as
the neighbor.
But essentially how long do you think somebody would be
waiting for their transfer in this condition? I mean --
MR. FEDER: Maybe about a half an hour, probably, at most.
MS. HORNE: It does depend on scheduling, but we would
recommend that the scheduling be what we call pulse scheduling so
that the vehicles come in at the same time and depart at the same time.
If you were to stand at the appropriate time of day here at government
Page 152
January 7, 2010
center, you would see what is a pulse system where the buses come in,
people get off of one bus onto the other. It's between two and six
minutes.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So there won't be large groups
of people hanging around --
MS. HORNE: For long periods of time.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You only have two spots, so it
can't be that large, so --
MS. HORNE: We have more sawtooth spaces than that. Four
spaces we have.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where are they then? Because I
can see two.
MS. HORNE: There's two --let me -- whoop, going the wrong
way.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I see two.
MS. HORNE: There we go.
Are you going to be able to see the mouse if I move it on here?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes.
MS. HORNE: Okay. This is one space, this is another space,
there's another space here and another space here.
Also, regarding the shelter that was discussed earlier, I believe,
and I'll have to look at the original plans back at my office, which is
larger than the one I have in my binder. I'm sorry I can't read it at this
scale.
I believe it had a note that said we were going to put shelters, but
I will verify that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But there is no sawtooth
on the left-hand side of that, correct?
MS. HORNE: Right, it's a pull up straight and discharge
passengers out the right side of the vehicle. So there's two spaces on
one side of the sawtooth and then the other buses go around and come
into the spaces.
Page 153
January 7, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I got it, thanks.
Cherie', are we doing okay for you? Another -- Donna, would
you mind waiting until we get back from break?
COMMISSIONER CARON: No, I'll wait.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're a little past the time we normally
give you a break, so why don't we take and 15-minute break and come
back at 2:30 and finish up.
(Recess.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, we're back from our
break.
Are you all set, Cherie'?
THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Norm Feder, I think you were up there.
And Ms. Caron had a question for you and so -- I think it was for you.
Let's start there.
COMMISSIONER CARON: The picture that's up on the screen
right now on the left-hand side, is that an actual picture of the site? I
know it's in there for the --
MR. FEDER: The left-hand side is a picture of the site, yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So it looks like the site is--
there's a wall against where the apartments would be and landscaping.
That looks like that's quite significant.
MR. FEDER: That was put in after we took over the site, yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. It looks like there's
significant landscaping out to Radio. That would be Radio in front
there, correct?
MR. FEDER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER CARON: So landscaping and buffering
around this site is pretty significant. Is it to code or maybe even above
MR. FEDER: It's actually above--
COMMISSIONER CARON: -- what is required?
Page 154
January 7, 2010
MR. FEDER: -- code, we believe. It's above code requirements.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, good.
One of the main issues for the community is the fear that while
they're dealing with 54 trips a day today, they're concerned that that's
going to morph into 200 trips a day.
If you go to the hierarchy of the facility types, and we get back to
the secondary transfer facility definition, what we are going to now
use as a definition for that, it says that this site should be able to
handle between 25 percent and 40 percent of your overall bus routes.
Now, while this particular site is going to be limited to the four
current routes, what does that 25 to 45 percent represent? What can it
morph to?
MR. FEDER: Before I tell you wrong, I'm going to transfer that
over to someone that's worked on that number to begin with.
But what I will tell you is first I want to make sure that it's clear,
right now you've got three routes utilizing that site; 3.A and 3.B is a
single route and then the other two routes.
The only thing we looked for on this, because we went through
severe restrictions that weren't because of traffic but we're trying to
respond to the community, was only to four routes. So that's the first
part I'll tell you.
As far as to the other, I'll defer to people that work the numbers
up.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, thank you.
MS. HORNE: I'm sorry to ask you to do this, but I want to
respond appropriately. Could you repeat the question?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, in your definition here it
says that a secondary transfer facility can handle between 25 and 40
percent of the routes. Now, we're limiting the site to only four.
Where on the spectrum of 25 to 40 does that fall?
MS. HORNE: I need to do a count. I should know that from
memory, but I'm afraid I've been awake a little too long this week.
Page 155
January 7, 2010
COMMISSIONER CARON: That's okay. I just want to--
MR. FEDER: We're just under 20 routes. You're at about 25
percent at four.
COMMISSIONER CARON: At four?
MR. FEDER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Would that be--
MR. FEDER: So that gives you a frame of reference.
And again, if you approve this request with the conditions, then
it's no more than four. So I can answer the question what the max is.
But in answer to your percentage question, four routes -- or
there's three routes today, excuse me, on 18, so you're not quite 20
percent.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay.
Go ahead, you can continue.
MS. HORNE: I think Norman answered the question.
COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. Well, I just -- because
the percentage is great. But a percentage of what it is today and a
percentage of what you expect it to grow to, and that's the number that
people fear. And so what I'm trying to do is give the community a
sense of what that number will be so that they are not sitting here
thinking that they're going to end up going from 54 bus trips a day to
200 trips a day, if that's not your intent. If that is your intent, then
state it and so be it.
MS. HORNE: I'm going to ask Norm to stick by me a sec just to
keep me on track.
MR. FEDER: The intent was gross trips.
MS. HORNE: Right. And we were talking in terms of routes in
our definition that we have up here, that you would have multiple
routes.
And I guess when I read the condition, and correct me if I'm
wrong, I see you've already put a limitation. So then this percentage
definition is somewhat moot. Am I with you still?
Page 156
January 7, 2010
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. No, that's good. Because
you're right, we were talking about routes here and not buses. But let's
get back to the overall --
MR. FEDER: Commissioner, best way I can answer your
answer honestly is we didn't come up with the number 200. That was
presented.
COMMISSIONER CARON: I know.
MR. FEDER: Okay. We are telling you that the nature of how
you would split it overall depends on the size your operations are,
okay?
Now, realistically what we agreed to, if that's what this board
endorses, approves, is limiting it to four. So that's the best answer I
can gIve you.
Because again, 25 percent of what size system and how many
routes and how many buses. Today I'm running 18. But ifI'm
running 36, it's a different number.
COMMISSIONER CARON: But the community here is
protected because you've limited it to four, and we're also limited by
the --
MR. FEDER: The 10 peak, yes.
COMMISSIONER CARON: The 10, yeah.
MR. FEDER: And again, we did that not because we felt the
system couldn't handle it, but to respond to the community.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Understood.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I believe you're done with your rebuttal.
And with that, then we will close the public hearing and we can
certainly have discussion if the Planning Commission feels before a
motion's made. Or if someone feels like they want to make a motion,
then we're up for that too. It's the time we're at right now.
Mr. Midney?
Page 157
January 7, 2010
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'd like to move that we approve
this petition, subject to staff recommendations.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I guess discussion.
And Mr. Midney, there's quite a few things that went on here
today that we probably need to talk about in regards to conditions.
The staff conditions were submitted by us in our original packet,
but the applicant has submitted some alternatives. The staff doesn't
have problems with the alternatives, but even the alternatives have
problems.
And through our discussion, for example, numbers one through
six and number two, it was redundant, so the additional language there
was suggested to be dropped, it wasn't needed.
Number four, where it references non-primary it was supposed to
now reference secondary. And where it references main, it was
supposed to reference major transfer facility.
And at the same time I think it would be appropriate on number
four to add the criteria that you see on the slide that was just in front of
us for a secondary transfer site, since this is what it's been committed
to be. And that would keep the definition then consistent with the CU.
And number five there were some changes on that that staff
accepted, they're just clarifications.
There was another -- Norm had said that the use of Davis -- the
Davis entry was to the extent the FDOT designs would allow the
necessary turning movements. I believe that was something that
would be acceptable to the transportation department, but it's
contingent upon the FDOT design of that final six-lane configuration.
Is that fair to say, Norm?
MR. FEDER: Make sure that I'm very, very clear here. I was
asked by Commissioner Caron whether or not we could utilize that.
My orientation was yes, obviously we wouldn't look at that right now
Page 158
January 7, 2010
because it's going to be under construction.
But also even in the future, unless operations change with what
we presented to you, the idea is to utilize the signalized intersection,
possibly using some right turns out on Davis over time. But
predominantly to keep it as is proposed to you to utilize the
intersection with the signal at Radio and Davis.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So do you have any concerns
with the stipulation that says you'll use the Davis entry to the extent
the DOT designs and allow you the necessary turning movements?
MR. FEDER: And operational -- DOT designs and operational
safety allows or warrants, if that's what you're requesting.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it needs to be in there, because
just the fact you would even use it for 50 percent, and that's the right
in/right outs, which are rather safe turning movements under most
conditions, would save 50 percent of the additional traffic --
MR. FEDER: For two of the --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that is on that one little segment to the
east of Radio Road.
MR. FEDER: Yeah, for two of the three routes. And again--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right.
MR. FEDER: -- right now if you have the signal moving and
opening, you're a lot safer under signalized. So I'd like to note that
obviously we're going to work for that improvement. It's an option,
but we're still emphasizing use of the signal.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anyway, those are a couple of the
conditions that we talked about.
Mr. Midney is nodding his head, he has no problem with them.
Mr. Murray has no problem.
Is there any other --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In number four, what is theþ
Page 159
January 7, 2010
reason for the second sentence? I mean, wouldn't the first sentence be
enough? I mean, it's --
CHAIRMAN STRAIN : Yeah, I don't --
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- stating that in the future if
you ever -- I mean, it will end up being semantics. I think let's just
make it clear with the first sentence.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we leave the first sentence in,
then the problem becomes if the county changes its main transfer
station -- oh, no, this says any designation of this site as Collier
County's main transfer station is prohibited. Why wouldn't we want to
say that?
COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, you need to say that.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I just don't think it's necessary,
but okay.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, it doesn't hurt. And we're going
to define the secondary station as we had in our handout, Page 15.
Is there any other comments from the Planning Commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I will be supporting the motion
for the following reasons: This was referenced as an essential service.
A question came up that it's not like a school or a fire station. Well, it
isn't. But essential services can be governmental facilities. And that's
exactly what this is.
The current facility is a C-4 use, which is a high intensity
commercial use. There's -- I don't see though the testimony of the
public where a car dealership is any better than a transfer station in
regards to the uses being put forth here today and the testimony from
the staff and the applicant that provided that there are actually less
trips on the road.
I didn't -- I heard a lot of comment from the citizens that they
don't want it here. And that's fine, we understand that. But a zoning
basis is not simply we don't want it here. You found other places
Page 160
January 7, 2010
where you'd like to see it. I can tell you right now, I'd like to see
Nick's road system going a lot of other places than my backyard, but
that's unfortunately sometimes where it ends up.
So without providing lack of compatibility reasons, it's real hard
to find a zoning reason why this is such a bad place. There's going to
be less traffic. The additional parts of not in the middle of a
residential area, as I heard testified to, it's clearly not in the middle of
a residential area. It's surrounded on two or three sides by
commercial.
So for all those reasons, and for the lack of any significant
detriments that I could hear, I'm going to be voting in favor of the
motion.
Anybody else have any comments before I call for the vote?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0.
Thank you.
(At which time, Commissioner Wolfley exited the boardroom.)
Item #lOE
PETITION: RZ-PL2009-469, EAST NAPLES FIRE CONTROL
Page 161
January 7, 2010
AND RESCUE DISTRICT NO. 26
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next item up, which I know
some people have waited patiently for, members of the fire
department. Of course there's been no fires, so I guess you're lucky
today.
Petition RZ-PL2009-469, East Naples Fire Control and Rescue
District No. 26 for a new station -- or a new site on East Tamiami
Trail.
All those wishing to participate in this item, please rise to be
sworn in by the court reporter.
(Speakers were duly sworn.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any disclosures on the
part of Planning Commission?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I had a discussion with Mr.
Duane, and at the time I didn't have a lot of information that I had to
discuss with him, but I think he knows that I let staff know and the
planner know that I had a problem with the way the references were to
the conceptual site plan, because that's definitely in conflict with the
release of not having an EIS. So I think we're going to -- hopefully
you've got a new plan to give us today.
With that, it's all yours.
MR. DUANE: For the record, Robert Duane, representing the
East Naples Fire District.
I've been advised that the plan I am sharing with you is really an
access management plan. We were initiating the permitting process
for this fire station, which is located on East Tamiami Trail depicted
on the aerial photo here at the intersection of Lake Park Boulevard.
The zoning of the property is C-3, an agriculture. We're going to
the P district.
We have a recommendation of staff approval.
Page 162
January 7, 2010
The EIS waiver was granted for several reasons, one of which I
just mentioned to you. We were initiating the permitting process at
that point and wanted to get a little further into it.
Secondly, your comprehensive plan is changed in the recent past
where sites of this size are no longer required to have an EIS, but your
land development code is catching up in this cycle to codify that
change. So it may very well be when we do come in for site plan
approval that an EIS may not be required if the code does not change,
and obviously we will be preparing an EIS at that time.
And I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there questions from the Planning
Commission?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER CARON: You have to go with your--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I am.
Bob, if you were told about my concern, it could have been
simply rectified by changing the plan that you have up there and
passing a new one out today that took the words conceptual site plan
off it and left access management plan. Why wouldn't you have done
that?
MR. DUANE: I had been -- only was advised five minutes ago
by Mr. Bellows that he was calling the plan an access management
plan and not a conceptual site plan, so I did not have the benefit of
having that information before I came to the podium today.
MR. BELLOWS: I couldn't get ahold of him earlier to ask him
to bring one. But I thought we could get that put on as a consent when
it comes back.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So there's not going to be an
objection to changing the language on the plan that you produced?
MR. DUANE: Not at all.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Ray, do you know why
staff would have referred to it as a conceptual site plan, knowing that
Page 163
January 7, 2010
ifthey did it would have required an EIS?
MR. BELLOWS: I'm not sure what the planner was thinking
when they were dealing with Mr. Duane on this. But in my opinion
they should have been following our past examples where we've had
straight zoning with a map of development area or access area. That
is what we're calling these maps or additional documents attached to
standard rezone ordinances. The code doesn't require these types of
development maps to be provided, but it is useful for planning
purposes. And we are going to be looking at the code requirements
for standard rezonings to require such maps of development areas or
access areas.
There is a concern with environmental staff that sometimes these
maps might show, depict preservation areas, such as the one used in
this case. And the concern is that somehow they're going to be --
county will be approving some kind of a preserve area when it's not
really been vetted through the EAC. And that's what we want to avoid
by calling it a map of development area. And I apologize for Ms.
Zone not catching that earlier.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay.
The reference to the fact that an EIS isn't required and that the
LDC is going to be changed, do you know specifically what the
language is for the LDC change?
MR. BELLOWS: Say that again?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a reference that this site would
no longer have been required for an EIS because of its size. Do you
have -- are you familiar --
MR. BELLOWS: Well, it's under 10 acres, so--
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the way the change is coming
down --
MR. BELLOWS: We have environmental staff to explain that.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- anything under 10 acres is not
required for; is that what you're telling us?
Page 164
January 7, 2010
MR. BELLOWS: Yes.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner? Nick Casalanguida,
for the record.
There's an LDC cycle amendment coming forward from the
planning staff to document that.
MR. KLATZKOW: If the compo plan's been changed so it no
longer requires it, that's the end of it. I mean, that trumps the LDC.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you.
MS. MASON: Excuse me. For the record, maybe I could clarify
a little bit.
The Growth Management Plan change took away the arbitrary
acreage requirements that are currently in there. But it just says that
they will develop criteria. It isn't necessarily saying that an acreage
would kick it in or not.
And it did just -- the first hearing of the EIS requirement went
before the EAC -- I'm sorry, I forgot to say my name for the record,
Susan Mason with Environmental Services section.
It did go to the EAC just yesterday, and there were some
concerns, and they're going to be talking about it a little bit more. But
it will certainly be coming before your board. It's gone before many
stakeholders' meetings. And who knows what the final outcome will
be. But it mayor may not -- for this site mayor may not require an
EIS.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you don't know yet.
MS. MASON: I don't know yet.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you.
Now, are there any other questions of the applicant?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about staff report? Is that you,
Ray?
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, boy.
Page 165
January 7, 2010
MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager.
I'm filling in for Melissa Zone on this item.
Mr. Duane did provide a good overview of the project. It is a
rezone to the public use zoning district, which includes a safety
service facility, such as fire stations.
The project is consistent with the comprehensive plan. All
reviewing staff has recommended approval. I'll be happy to answer
any questions.
It looks to be a straight forward rezone. We have conditions of
approval and we're subject to the change to the conceptual -- not
conceptual plan, the map of development and access to make that
reflected on the revised resolution when it's brought back to you.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ray, number two, what exactly
does that mean? It states, the applicant has agreed to go before the
environmental advisory commission with the Environmental Impact
Statement prior to site plan approval.
Does that mean that the final approval of this is based on the
EAC?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good question, Brad.
MR. BELLOWS: That is reflective of the current requirements
that -- at the time of site development plan review is the way I would
have written it. This project would be required to submit an
Environmental Impact Statement and go to the EAC. At the time of
site development plan review, not prior to.
I'll have Susan Mason clarify the last part.
MS. MASON: Excuse me again. For the record, I just wanted to
clarify that it would be whatever requirements were in effect at the
time they come in for SDP. It may be something like provide
necessary environmental information to do the evaluation or it could
be an EIS or it could be an EAC hearing, I just don't know. But if we
could make it reference whatever is in effect at the time of SDP, that
Page 166
January 7, 2010
would be appreciated.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the EAC would be reviewing. It's
not the rezone request today. That would be done through this
process. They were simply reviewing the SDP that would follow the
rezone process.
MS. MASON: They would be required to review -- at this point
they would have to review and approve the EIS.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If one's required.
MS. MASON: If one's required. But if there's no EIS
requirement or review by the EAC, it would just be an administrative
staff review.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have a question.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If the language had -- if the
language had not yet been determined and you used a phrase to
describe where you wanted to go with it or where it was going to go,
and they're ready to go and it's site development plan, are they going
to get held up because we don't have the LDC qualified? Mr.
Klatzkow indicated, I thought with definition, that if the GMP
changed it and then you came in and you said well, it's not quite that,
so now we're going to go into Never Never Land with this thing and it
could sit there for God knows how long.
MS. MASON: Well, I -- you know, they could come in and do a
formal request for like an interpretation from the appropriate staff
member of how the LDC should be applied right how.
My understanding of reading the language that's in the Growth
Management Plan, it just opens it up to not always require it for
certain sites. Right now it says for coastal high hazard area. Or
previously the GMP said for coastal high hazard area anything 2.5
acres or greater had to have an EIS, unless it met some exemptions.
And for everywhere else it was 10 acres or more.
But now the GMP says that staff -- or the LDC shall be amended
Page 167
January 7, 2010
to require an EIS or environmental information as necessary. And I'm
paraphrasing what it says. But, I mean, it's --
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I recognize that. And
maybe we should be looking for the GMP language to see in fact what
we are talking about. Because I find that to be an impossible situation.
We will have said what we've said and it could hang out there for
months and God knows how long, and then it could be going around
and around.
MS. MASON: I'll go look up the GMP section and find the exact
words.
But what I would say, how I would apply the code would--
currently if they came in today, they would be required to do an EIS
and get that approved prior to the SDP approval; however, if the LDC
is amended, to allow them to be exempted from that. Because the
LDC is very specific with what's required and what's not. And it's still
consistent with the Growth Management Plan, it's just more specific
than the Growth Management Plan.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Except -- and I appreciate that's
what the intent is, but my understanding of this conversation is that it's
not yet a known what's going to be said, and B, we don't know
whether that will put something into even a worse situation, because
you're saying there is a speculation of it could be several possibilities.
MS. MASON: Right. It hasn't gone through any -- except for
the EAC, they haven't even finalized -- at least I don't recall that they
finalized a vote on it yesterday. And after it goes through your board
and then into the Board of County Commissioners, they'll have the
final say on who has to do an EIS and who doesn't, or if an EIS is even
still existing. I mean, there's all kind of -- it could go from what exists
today to anything that's consistent with the Growth Management Plan.
What I'm just trying to clarify is the LDC today, the requirement
for when an EIS is required and when it's not, it is still consistent with
the current language in the GMP. The Growth Management Plan was
Page 168
January 7, 2010
amended to allow some changes to the current Land Development
Code.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The intent being to make
something easier, not more difficult, correct?
MS. MASON: Well, I think the intent was not necessarily to
make it easier, but to only require the process when there's value to it.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, would you help us out here.
MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, I think I have the solution.
Because the LDC will apply no matter what's in effect now or
what's going to be in effect at the time the amendment is approved, I
don't -- therefore, I don't see the purpose of having two in there at all.
One way or the other the LDC has language that's going to apply,
whether it's the current language or the amended language.
So I just recommend taking two out altogether. It's kind of
redundant anyways.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does that get you guys--
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Brad and Bob, where you want to be?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm happy.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I thought Ray would have a
solution. So I figured ifhe could just express it we would be ahead of
the game.
Okay, are there any other questions of staff?
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: None?
I can see there's not a lot of public speakers.
MR. BELLOWS: No speakers.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you want to rebut anything, Bob,
that the public didn't say?
MR. DUANE: No, sir.
Page 169
January 7, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we'll close the public
hearing and entertain a motion.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll make a motion.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, sir.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I would move that we forward
with a recommendation of approval RZ-PL2009-469, with the
removal of condition number two and the changing on Exhibit C, the
title, from conceptual site plan to access site plan.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded.
Is there any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It passes, 6-0.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Six?
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, Mr. Wolfley left about an hour
ago. And -- or half an hour ago, I can't remember which, and Mr.
Vigliotti left at noontime.
So do we have any -- well, that's it, we're over with. You guys
can stop talking now.
Item #11
OLD BUSINESS
Page 170
January 7, 2010
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Old business. We have none. Thank
you.
Item #12
PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Public comment? I don't think there's
any left.
Item #14
ADJOURN
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to adjourn?
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Second.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms. Caron. All in favor,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye.
COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye.
COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye.
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye.
Anybody opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Thank you.
*****
Page 171
January 7, 2010
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:58 p.m.
COLLIER COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARK STRAIN, Chairman
These minutes approved by the board on
as presented or as corrected
Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by
Cherie' R. Nottingham.
Page 172