The URL can be used to link to this page

BCC Minutes 09/08/2005 (CRA & CRA Advisory Board) September 8, 2005 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CRA-BA YSHORE/GATEW A Y CRA WORKSHOP Naples, FL September 8,2005 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Community Redevelopment Agency and the Bayshore/Gateway CRA in and for the County of Collier, having been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3 :00 p.m. in WORI(SHOP SESSION in Building "F" of the Government COlnplex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Donna Fiala Jim Coletta Fred Coyle Tom Henning Frank Halas ALSO PRESENT: Jin1 Mudd, County Manager Leo Ochs, Deputy County Manager Marjorie Student-Stirling, Assistant County Attorney Steven Griffin, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING BA YSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE AREA SEPTEMBER 8, 2005 3:00 - 4:30 PM 1. Roll Call 2. Adoption of the Agenda 3. Adoption of Minutes of Joint Workshop May 11,2005 4. Communications Á. CRA Local Advisory Board Chairman Update 5. Consent Á. Budget Amendment - Davis Blvd. Median B. Budget Amendment - US4l/Davis Blvd. Intersection Landscape c. Budget Amendment - Purchase of Computer Systems D. CRA Office Lease Renewal 6. Old Business Á. Site Improvement Grant - Resolution and Program Update B. Sugden Park Public Access - Botanical Place Easement 7. New Business Á. Corridor Analysis - Byshore & Shadowlawn Drives B. Gateway Streetscape Project - Shadowlawn Drive & Linwood Avenue C. Bayshore Streetscape Project - Lakeview & Riverview Drives September 8, 2005 Page 1 D. Bayshore & Gateway Overlays - Redevelopment Incentives E. Gateway Triangle - Thalheimer Redevelopment Proj ect F. Approval for New CRA Hire - Project Manager 8. Citizen Comments 9. Adjournment September 8, 2005 Page 2 September 8,2005 MR. MUDD: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats. Madam Chair, you have a hot mic. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Will the meeting please come to order. Our first meeting of this new year, or back from recess, anyway. Would you please all stand with me and say the pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. And I've started the meeting a little bit early. Commissioner Coyle is here, and he's hung up on a phone call back there. He'll be here with us shortly. But I'd like to have somebody take the roll call, please. MR. HENNING: Commissioner Henning here. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Fiala here. It says roll call, so I'm calling for roll call. You're going to call your guys, right? You can see who we are. Go ahead, roll call. MR. NEAL: Well, we'll have each one introduce themselves. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. MR. NEAL: So Steve? MR. MAIN: Steve Main. MR. GARNER: Rod Garner. MR. GUNTHER: Chuck Gunther. MR. FOWLE: Ron Fowle. MR. MEARS: Bill Mears. MR. NEAL: I'm Bill Neal. And this is David Jackson. MR. JACKSON: I'm David Jackson. Mike Valentine is out of town, and Phil McCabe said he would be here and has not arrived. MR. NEAL: We have Phil sitting over here by,himself, because he's late. Page 2 September 8. 2005 ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA - APPROVED CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, I see him. Okay, fine. Now, I would like a motion to adopt the agenda as written. MR. COLETTA: So moved. MR. HALAS: So moved -- oh, second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have a motion on the floor from Commissioner Coletta, second from Commissioner Halas. Any comments or corrections? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. COLETTA: Aye. MR. HENNING: Aye. MR. HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. Opposed, like sign. (No response.) ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES OF THE JOINT WORKSHOP MAY 11,2005 - APPROVED CHAIRMAN FIALA: And the minutes, do you have any additions or corrections to the minutes? If not, may we have a motion to approve? MR. HALAS: So moved. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Motion to approve by Commissioner Halas -- MR. COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- second by Commissioner Coletta. AJI those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. COLETTA: Aye. Page 3 .._----r-" September 8, 2005 MR. HALAS: Aye. MR. HENNING: Aye~ CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. Opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: And now under communication, Mr. Neal? CRA LOCAL ADVISORY BOARD CHAIRMAN UPDATE- PRESENTED MR. NEAL: Thank you very much. Yes, good afternoon, CRA board. As chairman of your Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA Board, I speak for all of our members when I say we appreciate the confidence that you've placed in our ability to fully represent the community. We also certainly appreciate you taking time today to set aside to exchange information and decisions that we've been working on that will bring us up to speed. There will be -- we will bring you some sweeping changes to make this part of the county a special location. We're progressing quickly to remove the blighted area connotation that we've experienced and lived with for years. We're already getting a little attention and recognition. The landscaping and beautiful job we've done on Bayshore is being recognized by the Collier Health Department, under their health promotion coalition. And we will be presented with an award for that next Tuesday. Next Tuesday. So we'll be recognized for some of the things that we're doing there. Today we're going to present significant projects for your approval and funding, and we sincerely hope you'll ~upport our recommendations. We've done our homework and we've researched each proj ect with the appropriate county department. And the county Page 4 September 8, 2005 folks are here to kick in, if we need some help. Each project supports the CRA redevelopment plan. And more in1portant than that, they are -- these plans are all investments in our cOlTImunity. They will improve the area and increase the quality of life for those who live, work and play in the CRA community. Before I get into specific topics on today's agenda, which you have in front of you, we remind you as a board that we conducted a goal session program in April where we discussed redevelopment, strategies, set goals and objectives, and mapped the road to a better fuhlre. In May, we came before you in a joint workshop to review our past accomplishments and establish past things that we had done and where we're going to go from today, that day and the present, and to plan our future. And in June we presented our proposed budget that you approved and supported wholeheartedly. With that said, today we're here to take action on several proposed proj ects and start checking off the goals on our list so we can n10ve on to others. The first: Growth comes with growing pains. Now, I know that shocks you to hear that statement. But we want to look at the growth in1pacts to our transportation corridors. And that will be discussed \vith you today. Secondly, to further our road beautification programs, we want to expand our efforts into other neighborhoods in the CRA. And third, to grow in an intelligent way, sometimes called smart gro\vth, by the way, we are offering overlays mandated by the c0111prehensive plan to establish guidelines and standards with a streamline rezoning process that is an incentive for redevelopment. Don't forget, we are a community redevelopment agency, not necessarily a development agency. And fourth, as an incentive, to rehabilitate and upgrade existing Page 5 September 8, 2005 structures, we recommend approval of an improved site redevelopment program. . And fifth and last, we're going to accomplish these proactive programs of redevelopment. We will be requesting from you an additional staff person to help carry the load and get more accomplished in less time. I forgot which one of you in our last meeting mention that how long was the CRA going to last and were we going to end up paving the streets with gold. We said we'd like to sunset it as soon as possible and so we're trying to accelerate our programs as quickly as possible. We're as anxious to sunset the CRA as you folks are. So I'd like to turn the floor over to David Jackson -- we call him Action Jackson -- to present the items that I've just reviewed with you, and the things that are on your agenda. So David, if you would -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Excuse me just one minute, gentlemen. MR. NEAL: Sure. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have two points. If anybody is warm in here, because our heat is -- I mean, we don't have the air conditioning on as low as we normally would. If anybody feels uncomfortable, please feel free to take your jackets off. I know I'm going to. And that anybody else also, I want you to feel comfortable in here. And the next thing is, it says consent agenda for number five. Normally the way we handle a consent agenda is we don't listen to anything, we just approve it all with one vote. Is this something that you want us to hear presentations on and vote on each item? MR. NEAL: No, no, I think those are just routine things that we've already talked about and -- MR. JACKSON: No, by ordinance this is the agenda that the CRA is supposed to follow. As far as I am concerned, I am very confident that the items that are in the consent agenda can be Page 6 .~ September 8, 2005 approved. If you feel that you need to talk about any of them, Commissioner, you may do so. I would be comfortable if you -- there was a motion to pass all five -- four parts of the consent agenda, that's your option. CONSENT - APPROVED AND/OR ADOPTED W/CHANGES CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioners, do you have any comments or would you like to just pass this consent agenda with a vote? MR. COLETTA: Well, motion to approve the consent agenda? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure. Motion to approve the consent agenda by Commissioner Coletta. Second? MR. HALAS: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Second by Commissioner Halas. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. COLETTA: Aye. MR. HALAS: Aye. MR. HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. Opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. Now we move on. MR. NEAL: But Donna, as a point of order, please, don't forget -- and I don't mean to lecture, you're acting as the CRA board and not as the commissioners. But if you want to bypass the CRA and go ahead and okay these things as a commissioner, you can do that. You see 'vvhat I'm saying? CHAIRMAN FIALA: No. MR. NEAL: We're reporting to the CRA board. Page 7 ... 1 September 8, 2005 CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think we're just meeting as the CRA- board. MR. NEAL: This is the CRA board. MR. HALAS: This is the CRA board. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right. MR. NEAL: And you're calling them commissioners. And I hope that doesn't go on -- I mean, I don't think you want that to go on the record as the commissioners okaying that until it's brought to them later on. You follow what I'm saying? This is a CRA board, it's not a commissioners meeting. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I know that. MR. NEAL: It's a technical point. I don't know whether we're violating anything by putting this in here -- MR. MUDD: No, no, you're fine. This is a meeting of the CRA board and you work through -- those items will come back and you do the budget things before the regular board. MR. NEAL: Okay. Just wanted to you remember, that's - CRA RESOLUTION 2005- 286: SITE IMPROVEMENT GRANT AND PROGRAM UPDATE - ADOPTED MR. JACKSON: Okay, moving on on the agenda item. Six is old business. There's two items under old business. The items that you've talked before as the CRA board in the past. Discussions: The minutes reflect on those back in 2003 -- 2002, 2003 and 2004. The first one is Item 6-A, the executive summary. Is to approve a resolution to amend the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle re-development are site improvement grant program. (At which time, Mr. Coyle enters the boardroom.) MR. JACKSON: This program has been 100keØ at, after two and a half years of operation, and been modified to make it a little bit more streamlined and also to cover up a few loopholes where there was Page 8 September 8, 2005 some inadequacies as far as the legal standpoint on the operation of the organization, and also the checklist that the executive director will maintain. And essentially what we're recommending is the CRA board approve the attached resolution and the amendment for the site -- amended site improvement program for the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle redevelopment area. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do we have any comments from staff or anything? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any speakers on this subject? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any questions from board members? MR. HALAS: Just going over the revised resolution here, because it was just given to us here a second ago, and just looking to see if there's been any changes we maybe need to be aware of. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would you like to explain those to me? MR. GRIFFEN: Yes. Madam Chair, Steve Griffen with the county attorney's office, assistant county attorney. There had been some language in here superseding a particular resolution. I think that if anything, you probably need to put in there an1ending the Ordinance 2002-38. Because we are not in -- you would not in effect be superseding any old resolution. So that if anything, that probably should be amending the Ordinance 2002-38, which is also referenced in the first whereas. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you. MR. GRIFFEN: Other than that, I don't have anything else to add in terms of the language in here. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. MR. JACKSON: The advisory board is recommending approval, so that the resolution can be approved and we can get the program started, starting 1 October and start funding some of the grant Page 9 September 8, 2005 programs that are waiting on my desk right now. CHAIRMAN FIALA: . Okay. Do I have any comments, or may I hear a motion to approve? MR. COYLE: So moved. CHAIRMAN FIALA: A second? MR. COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, I have a motion to approve by Commissioner Coyle and a second by Commissioner Coletta. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. MR. HALAS: Aye. MR. HENNING: Aye. MR. COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. SUGDEN PARK PUBLIC ACCESS- BOTANICAL PLACE EASEMENT-APPROVED MR. JACKSON: Yes, ma'am. In the old business Part 2, 6-B, Sugden Park public access, some discussion item here. The executive summary is to approve a four-way partnership to fund 25 percent each of the four-way construction and operate a public construction and operate a public access parkway -- pathway, excuse me, from Bayshore Drive to Sugden Park. And then recommend for the CRA board to recommend to the Collier County BCC to accept an eight-foot easement from the Botanical Place development. And this program has been underway and been modified from its initial conception when the developer proposed the pathway to be in a Page 10 I - September 8, 2005 separate and different location. It's been staffed through the applicable parks and recreation division, public services division, Ms. Ramsey. She's talked about it. I believe she's here, if needed for any questions. The developer is Mr. Phil McCabe, who is also one of our board men1bers, and has been in those meetings. And we're willing to turn the thing over to Mr. McCabe. If you look at your visualizer up there on the screen, this is the location of the Botanical Place, off of Bayshore. And can you see Lake Avalon behind it. The proposed pathway is an eight-foot pervious asphalt pathway that goes from Bayshore to Sugden Park, and it is going to be public access, a deeded easement to the county. Here's an aerial that shows where it would go. It would go behind the homes that are on J eepers Avenue and behind the condominiums that are being built by Botanical Place. It starts basically pretty close to where the fire station is. To give you an idea of why the local advisory board is recommending this is that, you can see on the graphic, each one of those circles and the number inside of it is the number of homes that are within walking distance of the entranceway off of Bayshore. That's a lot of people. And 208 or 218 from Mr. McCabe's property and 108 fro111 Cirrus Point, which is in the SDP process right now, will be con1ing out of the ground and be finished within the year and a half. The Bayshore Apartments across the street on Bayshore there, right now there's 200 apartments there, but right now they're planning, \vith an SDP there, to make that jump up to 400 residents. And so you can see it's going to be quite an impact. And if we can get people \valking and enjoying themselves, rollerblading, riding their bikes, \vith access to Sugden Park, they don't have to get in their cars, they don!t have to go to 41 and they won't be taking up parking spaces on the other side. So it's an access, you know, from that part of it there. When it gets to -- there is a stormwater drainage ditch. We have talked with the stormwater engineering department, and as long as we Page 11 ----r--- September 8, 2005 can satisfy their concerns, and I believe we have, and -- that there will be a pedestrian foot bridge ~cross, similar to the one that's on Republic Drive that goes to East Naples Park down on south -- on Bayshore Avenue. So our recommendation here is for the CRA board to approve the expenditure of CRA funds, not to exceed 25 percent of the total construction cost for the walkway. Recommend -- you recommend to the Board of County Commissioners to accept the eight-foot public access easement and authorize the county a 25 percent cost share. And direct me, the director, to monitor and report the progress back to you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. I have some questions from commissioners. Commissioner Halas? MR. HALAS: I was -- what is the distance from the farthest development to the park? Would you give an idea, a rough idea, approximate distance? MR. McCABE: I don't know what that would be, Dave. MR. JACKSON: Well, on the graphic there, that yellow line is 1,056 feet, okay. So just up to -- just past Moorhead Manor, that's less than 1,000 feet. MR. HALAS: So we're looking at somewhere less than a quarter of a mile? MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. MR. HALAS: Okay. MR. JACKSON: And on a good walking day, you know, if you're going to get your heart rate up, you're up there, you're talking about a mile, mile and a half, two miles for some people. MR. HALAS: Great. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? MR. McCABE: I'm sorry, Madam Chair. Go ahead. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? MR. HENNING: And I'm sure you talked to the parks and rec Page 12 September 8,2005 department of Collier County. What's their input about the interconnectivity of this pathway? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Marla, would you like to come up and respond? MR. JACKSON: I'll let them speak for themselves, because essentially we've -- I believe we've met all their concerns. MR. McCABE: Tom, we've met with all of the different disciplines in your county government, including parks and recreation. And the concept here was to give this public -- was to give -- MR. HENNING: Is there any concern from parks and rec? MR. RAMSEY: No, we have vetted this quite a lot. And originally the plan was for this to go through the center of this development. And we were opposed to that. But now that it's coming off to the side and is truly a public access and the gates will match those that we have over on Aladdin and at the entrance at Otter Drive, we're fine with the proposal. MR. HENNING: It's a great idea. The 25 percent cost share, I'm l10t understanding. Who's the 25 percent? MR. JACKSON: It's a four-way partnership: The CRA, the Bayshore MSTU, the developer and the county. MR. HENNING: Okay. So the county will be the 25 percent? MR. JACKSON: It would be the last 25 percent of the four partway. MR. HENNING: And the recommendations, does the 25 percent CaIne out of the MPO's pathway get on that list (sic)? MR. JACKSON: Wherever the Board of County Commissioners decides to fund it. MR. McCABE: And the cost is going to be approximately $200,000 total. MR. HENNING: Total. MR. McCABE: Total. So it's 50,000, 50,000, 50,000. That's \v hat -- Page 13 ,,< ,._,-,~,-""..,._-~-""-"...,,.". September 8,2005 MR. HENNING: Is that on yesterday's prices or today's prices? MR. McCABE: Well,.I have the most up -- you know, you're right. It's unbelievable. MR. HENNING: It's crazy. MR. McCABE: Pricing is crazy is right. Now we've got Katrina. MR. HENNING: It's like the gas. MR. McCABE: Now we've got Katrina. But the latest I got is $205,000, so -- MR. MUDD: It's on your computer right now. MR. HALAS: I think with the amount of pedestrian -- oh, I'm sorry . CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, I have Commissioner Coletta and then Commissioner Coyle. MR. COLETTA: Yeah, I was just a little bit concerned on my agenda package. I couldn't find anything relating to the cost. So this is the cost? MR. McCABE: Yeah, it's right up there, Jim. That's the budget right now. The latest estimate is $205,000. MR. COLETTA: Was that going to be included as part of the agenda package so that we know what we're talking about, as far as a commitment goes? Not to exceed 205, is that what we're talking about? MR. McCABE: Well, it's not a firm number yet. I think -- if I'm not mistaken -- MR. COLETTA: What am I approving? MR. McCABE: -- I think what we're asking for is that we agree in principle that we'll do this, first of all, that you agree that we'll do this. And by the way, we'll be back in front of you, because we need a variance in the setback. I have a -- what is required, a 15-foot setback off of my now property line. And I built into this 20 feet. And we're putting an eight-foot sidewalk in that 20 feet. So we're going to be in Page 14 . r September 8,2005 front of you. If you agree today, we'll be in front of you again asking for another three-foot variance. MR. COLETTA: That's fine. But I just wanted to check with the county attorney, if I could. Can we approve an expense that isn't listed? MR. JACKSON: No, sir, we're not asking for an exact dollar amount to be expended. Before we can go on and he draws up his easement documentation in the budgetary part of it there, we're looking for approval to proceed. And we'll bring back to you, as the CRA board, the exact amount for you to approve the budget amendment. And also, as a Board of County Commissioners, when you accept the easement, you will then know what the exact cost will be and will determine, like Commissioner Henning says, where's it from. MR. COLETTA: But as the CRA board, we're going to get another shot at this with the -- MR. McCABE: With the numbers. MR. COLETTA: With the numbers. In other words, what we're doing is we're telling you that based upon what we see, we think it's a great idea; however, we're waiting to hear what the final cost is going to be. MR. McCABE: That's right. MR. COLETTA: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? MR. COYLE: I think the motion should incorporate that language, that you are asking for preliminary approval, subject to a final cost determination. Because without the final cost determination, probably the CRA board -- neither the CRA board nor the Collier County Commission would approve the motion. So it would be very helpful, I think, if you included -- if the n10tion included a statement that it was contingent upon the final cost determination. Page 15 September 8, 2005 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Maybe after Commissioner Halas has-his question, you could make that motion. MR. COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, Commissioner Halas? MR. HALAS: Yeah, I have concerns on the same front. Ifwe approve 25 percent cost share and then we find out that this thing escalates up to 400,000 before this gets built, then, you know, we're in a pickle, because we've made somewhat of a commitment to you but not realizing the full cost of this. So I really think that we need to look at some way to put a lid on what the cost is going to be total. MR. McCABE: Sure. Actually, it was $400,000 at one time. We got it down to -- MR. NEAL: We went from concrete to asphalt. MR. McCABE: Yeah, right. MR. NEAL: It was a big savings. MR. McCABE: Yeah, we went from concrete to asphalt. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, any other questions? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Do I hear a motion? MR. COYLE: I will move that we grant approval, contingent upon the final cost estimates for this proj ect, and also approve a recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve this in concept also. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And do I hear a second? MR. HALAS: And do we have a cap on what we're going to extend our finances to? MR. COYLE: No. It's actually contingent upon whatever the final cost is. So if we don't like the final cost, we don't approve it. MR. HALAS: Okay. Just so long as we -- they have an understanding that -- I'll second that, by the way. , CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, I have a motion on the floor by Commissioner Coyle and a second by Commissioner Halas. Any Page 16 ... I September 8, 2005 further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: There weren't any speakers, right? Do we have any speakers at all for this meeting? Anybody know? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. All those in favor, signify by saYIng aye. MR. COLETTA: Aye. MR. HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. MR. HENNING: Aye. MR. COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. That passes unanimously. And now, Mr. Jackson, on to the next one. CORRIDOR ANALYSIS - BA YSHORE & SHADOWLA WN DRIVES - DISCUSSED MR. JACKSON: In new business we have six items to cover. Iten1 7-A, corridor analysis for Bayshore and Linwood Avenue. We're recommending the CRA board approve the executive director to advertise an RFB to perform a corridor transportation parking study for Bayshore and Shadowlawn Drive, and consider whether the team 'vvith the effort with the Collier County transportation division (sic). One of the things that we're concerned about and we're hearing fÌ'on1 many of the residents and people that drive there is -- and they're shotgun, it's a shotgun pattern. They're all over about what they would 'vvant to do. What are we going to do when Sable Bay opens up with 1.099 new homes, which is at the end of Bayshore. Will they be connected? We don't know. What happens when all the rest of those Page 1 7 -."-.-,,",,.......,.;.-,",.'" September 8, 2005 residential developments get finished -- when they're finished? Commercial growth along there. There is some vacant land at probably upwards of 15 to 20 acres of commercial land that may be redeveloped, and what will that drive in the way of traffic? Ideas on traffic calming. Do we want to keep Bayshore and Shadowlawn neighborhood streets or do we want them to be car movers, like Airport Pulling or something along those lines? Do we want to put up traffic lights? Do you want to put up four-way and two-way stop lights. Do you want to do traffic calming? Do you want to neck it down and make it two-lane or four-lane? Those are things to consider. What about turn lanes and decellanes? Those are other items that are also to be concerned. I mean, the MSTU over the last five years has put $4.6 million into beautification. And every time a development comes in, the beautification is being removed, and what's bringing the people to the area is being removed and won't be there when they get there. So those are things to consider. If we've got a lot of commercial property going to be redeveloped and developed in the area, we need to probably look as the CRA on maybe buying some surface parking lots. Or maybe a nice area and maybe a couple mini parking garages to facilitate the growth of the commercial side of the house there. So those are things that I think could and should be discussed. We need to make some type of a partnership with the transportation division. I would thoroughly enjoy an ongoing working relationship with them, as the CRA. Because we've got money, and we've got an area. And our findings of blight said that we had inefficient road structure, they were not built correctly, they need to be fixed, safety and all those things were identified in the findings. And we are now executing the CRA plan to eliminate the blight and correct some of the roads. And you'll see more of that here in the part of it. So up for discussion, and with the transportation development, it's over to the CRA board, do you want us to go it alone, or do you Page 18 September 8, 2005 want us to team up with the Collier County transportation division. and come up with a workable plan, have them be maybe the sponsor for the RFP and we provide funds or we control it. Those are things that I think you as the policy board should make the decision on. Mr. Neal? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, Commissioner Halas. MR. HALAS: I would think that our transportation department needs to interface with you so that whatever planning you come up with we can see how that plays in with the whole big plan or the whole big picture as far as when it ties into U.S. 41 and the other streets in the community there. And I think that's important, because I think we have the traffic engineers, and I think that you need to correlate with those people there. MR. JACKSON: Sir, or ma'am, Chairman, would you iecommend that the transportation division take the lead and we take the second on that, or -- MR. HALAS: Yes. MR. JACKSON: Do you have an idea about that? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? MR. COYLE: I do, if you don't mind. I like the idea of you taking the lead. I mean, you're a smaller organization, you know what your goals are. I think you can move n10re quickly on these particular issues. But I don't think you should do it independently of the transportation department. I believe that they have some plans or ideas which would be relevant to anything that you would like to do, and it's best if you work those together. I'm just a little confused about the sequence of actions you're proposing. You're proposing to put out an RFP to study this corridor, and then you're asking if you should work with the transportation department. I don't see those as mutually exclusive or sequential operations. I would hope that you wouldn't first put out the RFP without Page 19 r .. September 8, 2005 establishing a working relationship with the transportation department. I would hope that you wou~d do those together. And that's just my thought on the issue. I believe that we can solve some potential future problems if you work together from the beginning. MR. JACKSON: I agree wholeheartedly. You have to establish the team, then you write the scope, then you plan, and then you plan the plan, and then you execute the plan. Okay, and then RFP and then we follow that whole sequential process. MR. COYLE: Good. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? MR. HENNING: In the executive summary, it's stating that the transportation division controls are remove (sic) hundreds and thousands of taxpayers dollars through the MSTU. Now, you're talking about landscaping? MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. MR. HENNING: Can you elaborate how -- you know, what's happening out there? MR. JACKSON : Well, I'm probably better said by the advisory board chairman. But the only example I have as, you know, I've only been here a short period of time. And I don't know that there necessarily has been anything prior to this. But with all the development that's going on in that area, on your screens there, you'll see the prime example is the PUD for Botanical Place. There was a line of 12 royal palms -- 10 to 12 royal palms in a medium that was put in by the MSTU. The second graphic, it shows what it looks like at ground level and then you can see, follow the graphics there. Seven or eight of them were removed to put in a 180- foot, I believe was the distance, thereabouts, stacking lane for the residents of that development. I don't know, I'm not a transportation expert, b~t Wind Star has more residents than the 218 and they don't have a turn lane, they don't have a stacking lane, it's a 35 mile an hour road. You know, I just Page 20 ~----r- September 8,2005 kind of think maybe we need to make sure that anything that happens in that area, that the Bayshore MSTU is advised and brought on board with it. Same thing with the CRA. I'm not saying that it was incorrect to do that or not to do that, but I know that it was -- like when the trees were being removed, then they were informed. So Mr. Neal is also the chairman of the Bayshore MSTU and maybe he can give more insight on that. MR. HENNING: I think I know exactly what you mean. And I don't know what the standards are out there. That's why the county commissioners has the experts to deal with that issue. I mean, there was a marina down there that had to put in a turn lane, and there was a question whether it should be done. So what you're asking for is just a little bit more communication between when the median is broached -- or yeah, the landscape median is broached that, you know, come and talk to us about it before you do it. MR. NEAL: And that's really what we're asking. This is the second incident that we've had of this nature. And there's been no recourse. I'm not being critical, I'm making an observation. There's been no recourse in the transportation department. It is that's the way it is and that's the way you have to do it. We tried to get a hearing to prevent Mr. McCabe from taking out the seven or eight trees that he did. But it died in the water because the department was exercising the code the way they saw it. N ow we're asking to open up that window a little bit and let us talk to these folks before they start taking out all that beautification. And we continue to spend money on that beautification. That's strictly the MSTU. The CRA hasn't spent a dime on beautification. So it's the lVISTU that's coming through the CRA to say come on, let's work together on this. MR. HENNING: Can I suggest something? Just on this topic. I Page 21 -~-~_~._ _. . iii ----r--- September 8, 2005 know where you want to get on the other stuff. You, as chair, can you get authorization from the members of the MSTU to write to the Board of Commissioners and say hey, we've got an issue and we would like some more dialogue between the transportation department and MSTU? MR. NEAL: I'd like to say it this way, and we can change any procedure that we've done. The MSTU and the CRA are working very close together on making sure that it's best for our community. There's CRA funds to spend there, there's MSTU to spend there. So as a result of that, we have a coordinated effort. David Jackson attends the MSTU meetings, and so what we're doing to sort of keep it simple, and maybe just one pathway to travel, is to bring this particular issue -- issues with the MSTU through the CRA. And if we'd rather do it through the MSTU, then that would require MSTU appearing before you to do the same thing we're asking right here today. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So what -- did you answer Commissioner Henning's question? MR. HENNING: He did. He exactly did. We may not dis -- we may not agree, but he answered my question. MR. JACKSON: May I add something, ma'am? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. I have a couple more commissioners here to -- MR. JACKSON: Directly on that subject, you know, nobody should be casting blame on anyone. And I mean, my position, when it was not filled, left a gap there. And my position should be going to these SDP and the PUD meetings and to these site planning things and making that input when the plans are drawn up. There was a gap there and stuff happened and there was nobody to represent the CRA or the MSTU. I will come to the defense of the transportation division, is that they have made head nods, yes, we need to talk about this when these Page 22 September 8, 2005 things come along. I don't know that we necessarily need a fOnTIal document or formal order, but we are two government agencies, separate and distinct. We just -- you know, as long as we are allowed to 'vvork it out as best we can and we make sure in all good faith that all communication lines are open, then I think we may be okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? MR. COYLE: Well, the person who can make this happen is here. Don, is there any impediment to communication directly with the advisory board concerning any changes of this nature in that area? MR. SCOTT: No. In fact, when -- we did meet before and we talked about doing the study, I actually talked to one of our consultants, we're looking at doing it through one of our general planning contracts. Essentially one of the issues that was raised is do we need all thêse turn lanes at every location, or can we focus them in at certain locations and then essentially ignore the others and not remove all the landscaping. One of the things, I guess I don't necessarily like the way it was written, because those trees weren't just taken and thrown out, they were taken and replaced in medians along the corridor. And some of the trees that were dying, some of the less healthy trees. So they weren't just thrown out either. So it's -- I know where we're trying to get to, but that's what we're trying to do is work together on that. MR. COYLE: Is there any problem consulting with the advisory board prior to the decision concerning any removals of this type or any other modifications to work already done? MR. SCOTT: No, we can do that. And I think part of -- during site development and also PUD reviews, I can work -- I mean, I can send 10 documents to them and say this is coming and this is what stafI is saying, what do we want to do about the issue too as we go for\vard. MR. COYLE: If the board agrees, you know, I would like to at Page 23 "...~----,~. September 8, 2005 least ask that the staff do that -- MR. SCOTT: Okay. MR. COYLE: -- in the future and establish that as a policy. MR. SCOTT: Right. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Don, would you be the one that they communicate with? MR. SCOTT: Norman or I, yeah. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas? MR. HALAS: Don, the removal of these trees, was there any discussion at all with either the MSTU or with the CRA in why you were going to remove these trees? MR. SCOTT: I just -- I'm reading the e-mail here. I would assume -- from the person that sent this, works with the MSTU, I would assume they had a discussion with the MSTU about it. But I'm just reading the follow-up as to what happened. MR. HALAS: Thank you very much. MR. NEAL: Well, I can speak for the MSTU, and there was no discussion about it, until we found out that it was going to happen. And we were forewarned by Mr. McCabe that that was happening. And so then we tried -- MR. HALAS: Was that because they did a traffic study and found out that it warranted an initial turn? MR. SCOTT: It was a stipulation as their development to put a turn lane in. Obviously they're at some development point where they were -- and that's why it was done now. What we need to do, if we want to catch these early is -- MR. HALAS: Yes. MR. SCOTT: -- during the PUD review and during the site development review. MR. McCABE: Let me just respond to that fo~ a minute. Mr. McCabe. I'm the developer. And it's 180-foot deacceleration (sic) lane, and we tried to not put it in from the very Page 24 September 8, 2005 beginning. And Donna and I know -- I mean Donna knows I'm into landscaping and medians, and no way did I want to do this and no way was this needed for this project for 218 units. But it was an FDOT standard that Collier County transportation department was applying to this. 180 foot lane of setback. And it simply was not necessary. And we tried, and I had my engineers try to get this thing either reduced or eliminated. And they stuck with their FDOT standards. And that's what we ended up with. So that's a little bit of history of it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, it looks like what's done is done. It could have been done better, probably. MR. SCOTT: And I think if there's a disagreement, we can al ways come back to you guys and -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. So in essence, what we've discussed here is that maybe things could be improved as to the way we handle them, and we will now be working with the transportation department and also you'll be attending these PUD meetings and so forth in advance so that there's advance notice, rather than after the fact; is that correct? MR. JACKSON: That's the way I understand. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And there will be a liaison to work 'vvith you in a cooperative effort from transportation department. MR. JACKSON: Yes, ma'am. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. So do I hear a motion from the board to approve? MR. HALAS: I make a motion that we approve this, but with the idea that the CRA has to work directly with the transportation department. And hopefully that with that open line of cOImnunications, we won't run into these particular problems. But I think it's important that you work with the transportation department. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And do I hear a second? MR. COYLE: Second. Page 25 -- I September 8, 2005 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, I have a motion on the floor by- Commissioner Halas and a second by Commissioner Coyle. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. COLETTA: Aye. MR. HALAS: Aye. MR. HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. MR. COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign. (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, passes unanimously. MR. NEAL: Donna, before we close this issue, and I don't like to beat a dead horse, but is it -- I don't know that the transportation department can make an adjustment at all. The meeting is there. We don't mind putting the royal palms back in on a more limited basis. Is there any hope that we can open discussions with them to remedy the situation that exists right now, or is it too late? CHAIRMAN FIALA: You mean in order to -- let me just see if I understand what you just said, okay? In other words, rather than strictly going by the book, are there ways to work with the transportation department to modify some of these openings and some of the landscaping requirements so that it is more in keeping with the redevelopment of the Bayshore area. Is that what you're trying to say? MR. NEAL: Right. And I'm hoping it's not too late to, because the decel have not been done there yet, see, so -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm sure it's never too late. Don, would you comment on that, please? Don Scott. MR. HENNING: Commissioner, while he's co~ing -- I'm sorry, member Fiala. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Whatever I am. Page 26 --.-¡- September 8, 2005 MR. HENNING: I just won't call you sweetheart, I promise. - MR. COYLE: Chair chick. MR. HENNING: Yeah. We don't know a lot of information, and I'm not sure the MSTU knows a lot of information about what's the projected traffic on Bayshore. And, you know, I'm all for beautification, and I think that everybody wants that on there, but we also need to plan for the future. So is it that the property owner does it now, if it's going to be needed in the future, or does the MSTU do it? I think that's a good question to ask. MR. NEAL: It is a good question. MR. SCOTT: As in regards to dealing with us with the county roads, yeah, I think that's what we can get to is say -- one of the things we were talking about studying was this strict access management side of it. Where is an opening going to be, where will we -- definitely from a traffic needed turn lane. And then kind of, you let's not have them at certain locations. What I can't speak to is if it turns out to be a state road. And I know there was an issue previously about a right turn lane off of Davis. We can talk to FDOT, but, you know, we don't have control over saying no in some of those locations. But in the county road system, I have no problem working into that. And I think part of what you're touching on, we do need to model it specifically with all the growth with Sable Bay and some of the other things. I know there's some things that were raised before about on-street parking, whatever, do we need four lanes in a certain location, can we leave with two lanes, those issues like that. That's part of what we were talking about doing with this study. MR. MUDD: Commissioner, just -- I don't want to say much in this meeting, but Commissioner Henning brings up a good point. I 111ean, it's a very good point. Because when I first got wind of this and David and I talked, I wrote down a memo down -- or a little e-mail Page 27 ~- I September 8, 2005 down to Norman, I said, you know, Norman, what they're basically talking about is exactly what sits on the main road in Marco Island. Okay, you don't have a lot of decellanes that sit there, you have little openings and medians where folks are going. It just so happens that Marco Island, at this particular juncture, are putting decellanes in all of those particular instances. But it was something that was done in time, okay, it wasn't something that was needed initially and they kept it small openings and things like that on their four-lane roads, two and two, and that's what you're basically talking on Bayshore. And then later as it grew up, there was a need to have the lanes because you were basically taking a lane of traffic out, because somebody was making a left or multiple people were making a left. And we've all been down Marco to see that. So it's something I believe Don needs to take a look at with David in this particular process. But it gets down -- it boils down to a particular issue. In the future, okay, now we're there and it's no long -- it no longer has that limited traffic that's on that particular road, and there are people that are now losing lanes of traffic as they're going, because people are taking left or rights or whatever. Now those decel lanes are needed, who's going to pay for it? And it's something that needs to be addressed, I believe. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, Commissioner Coyle? MR. COYLE: I think Mr. Neal's question earlier was not directly addressed. And I believe that he was asking if it is too late to ask the county not to put in this deceleration lane or to make it shorter and thereby reduce the impact on the landscaping -- MR. SCOTT: I thought we were talking about future ones. I don't know if that one is -- I can see a picture where the trees are out, but it's not built out yet? , MR. JACKSON: The curbing is in. The trees have been removed and the curbing is in. It's just waiting for paving. Page 28 '---r-- .. September 8, 2005 MR. COYLE: I think that answers Mr. Neal's question. MR. NEAL: I didn't know they had gone that far yet. But even with that. MR. JACKSON: Commissioner, I think that we're on the track that we need to be on here, is that -- to make an intelligent decision, you need intelligence. And that's where I think we're going with this study, to really get in there and work with all these future development plans and come up with a plan in advance. And if we can deflect and redirect traffic to another area to save what is there, then we'll work on that. MR. HENNING: Madam Chair, did I hear that this is a state road? CHAIRMAN FIALA: No. MR. SCOTT: No, what came up previously was a turn lane off Davis at one point. That's my only caveat to it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle, did you have -- MR. COYLE: No, I'm good. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Phil, you just said something that was kind of interesting. Just an offhanded little tiny remark. And I thought I'd like to bring that forward. They were saying the curbs and gutters were already in, and you kind of smirked and said something about does it really have to be that long? I mean, it was kind of whispered, but I was wondering, I'd love to hear the answer to that question. MR. SCOTT: It's minimum length for the turn lane, but then we get back to is it really needed. I don't know where I have to process, but I sure can look into it and see. CHAIRMAN FIALA: That would be just great. I would just love that. You know, the guys are right here. Maybe even today after this meeting you all could just sit down and begin sqmeone type of con1illunication or set up meetings or something. That would be just terrific. Page 29 .-Y--_O September 8, 2005 Thank you very much. MR. NEAL: Thank you. MR. SCOTT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, now, let's see, we're on to Item 7-B. I'm sorry, would you come up to the mic, please? MR. GUNTHER: I'd like to add something to that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would you state your name, please? MR. GUNTHER: Chuck Gunther. On Shadowlawn, we had a sidewalk put in. This is back now about a year ago. The sidewalk was put in. Nobody knew about it. They surveyed it, and I was out there looking and I said, what are we doing here? Nobody would say. I went to the CRA, at that time, it was Aaron Blair. Had no idea. He checked around, he couldn't find out. What happened, they put a sidewalk in with a piece of grass that wide, about eight inches between the street and the sidewalk, with no curb. It's the most danger sidewalk I've seen in this county. Should never have been put in there. My idea is it should all be alleviated. If they'd just get the county to work with the CRA. Anything that's being done in the CRA area, work with us, let us know what's going in beforehand, before you plan it. As the planning starts, let's work together. That would take care a lot of the problems. We could work back and forth. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I absolutely, totally agree. I think that's what we need to establish now is to work together before projects have begun, rather than after the fact and we're all aghast. Okay, on to Gateway streetscape project. GA TEW A Y STREETSCAPE PROJECT - SHADOWLA WN DRIVE & LINWOOD A VENUE - APPROVED W/STIPULATIONS , MR. JACKSON: Correct, Item 7-B. Page 30 ----r--- . September 8,2005 Mr. Gunther is a great segue into Shadowlawn and Linwood. streetscape. The local advisory board is recommending that the CRA board approve the executive director to advertise an RFP, when the scope of work is decided on, for a consultant to design an urban section streetscape design for Shadowlawn Drive and/or Linwood A venue. Would like to put in some urban sections in there. On the visual you'll see that this is an overhead shot of the Gateway triangle area. This has been determined an area in the neighborhood that's in need of redevelopment and improvement. We specifically wanted to look at two roads: One was Shadowlawn Drive which is a two-lane now and has got two major churches on it with a lot of traffic on the weekends, and an elementary school. There's also a couple issues is that Linwood Avenue has an eight-inch force main, I believe, or sewer line that runs in it which lleeds to be addressed, and that's been identified in the past. Shadowlawn, we want to do a streetscape design on it, and Linwood, the residential section of it, just before the commercial area to the west of Shadowlawn. This currently is a picture of Linwood Avenue, existing development area. And we were looking at something in there as to work something with a stormwater, if we can, to cover up some s\vales, and we could do the stormwater, address that situation, maybe SOlne pedestrian sty Ie lights and some trees in that neighborhood. Of course, this would all be at the expense of the CRA. Another one, this is Shadowlawn, and this is what Mr. Gunther was talking about, is that sidewalk is there. And every evening and every morning, this is packed with kids from the neighborhood going to school. Good thing it's a 25 mile an hour zone, but it's also heavily used by commercial activity trucks and other people who don't always Inind the speed limit. We looked at this and we think that we can make it an urban section and we can make it match Bayshore, which is just on the other Page 3 1 .-.._-- - September 8, 2005 side of 41. We're not real sure what we want to do with it. But this is a conceptua~ of what it could look like. A little bit of a median for traffic calming in there, the sidewalks further displaced from the road, slowing the traffic down, maybe bringing in some pedestrian style lights and trees and shrubberies in there. And maybe even some calming islands, whatever we may need to do with it. But essentially where the CRA advisory board would like to go with it is to recommend that the board approve advertising an RFP for a scope of work to design this section. Obviously with the previously element. We'd be working with the county transportation and right-of-way division there, because we need to talk with them, and is to come up and find out what kind of a design we can come up. And then after the design is complete, then we'd come back and we'dRFP for construction installation. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas? MR. HALAS: I have some concerns, you already brought them up briefly, and that was addressing the stormwater needs in that particular area. Especially Linwood and Shadowlawn. I believe that's an area that floods now. Have you gotten any preliminary estimates of what you think it's going to cost to address the stormwater issues? To me I think that would be probably one of the biggest ticket items. MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir, on Page 3 of your item in your book there, at the top, it says, cost estimates to design and install streetscape on Shadowlawn and Linwood Avenue. This was completed at the request of these stormwater department of the transportation division. Currently the transportation division has got a contract with HDR, Incorporated to survey the entire area. And as you know, the county has purchased some acreage there for a stormwater pond, and we're trying to find out how much water will be coming to it, is it big enough, and whet;"e the water and where the pipes should go. It makes sense, sir, that whenever they went in and decided Page 32 - I September 8, 2005 where the pipes were going to go, when they dug it up, instead of .. paving it and coming back and tearing it up again, we'd come back in and we'd pave it and make the street in an urban section right after the pipes are laid. But we have to have a design completed prior to so that we're not behind the curve. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? MR. COYLE: David, I appreciate the fact that these designs that you're showing us are preliminary. MR. JACKSON: Conceptual. MR. COYLE: Conceptual. But here's my concern. In order to have a streetscape anywhere that's similar to what you're portraying here, you're going to have to take a considerable amount of what people now consider to be their front lawns, you're going to have to underground the drainage, which is currently in the swales, and if you're going to put a sidewalk, it's going to have to be in the front yards of people's homes. Now, having had considerable experience with this in the past, it is always wise to get the permission of the residents before we start spending money on the consultants designing something. Has there been a survey of the residents along these streets to make sure that we have a majority of residents who are willing to consider such a thing? MR. JACKSON: The direct answer is yes and no, and let me qualify both of those answers. Yes, when we had our overlay meetings -- we've had five of them since I've been here -- talking about both the overlays in both Bayshore and Gateway. Numerous sign-in sheets. There was a place for comments. People wanting to protect their children. They wanted to get rid of the standing water in their front yard. They were worried about stormwater. They wanted sidewalks. They wanted lights. Those type of things. However, there went wasn't a professional documented type of survey, but there's enough interest there. Second thing is -- so we haven't done that part of the survey. Page 33 September 8,2005 However, part of the RFP process said whoever comes in to design it, they must include the neighborhood. It must include the property owners and the residents of that section of the street, and they will give the input and do a charette. And maybe they want green poles instead of blue poles. And maybe they want a double light instead of a single one. Maybe they only want one sidewalk on one side of the road. And let them choose which side it's on. Maybe keep a swale on the other one. A lot of options there. So let the neighborhood design their neighborhood. And that would be part of the RFP scope of work, that whoever comes in to design it has to work with the people, such that when we install it, it's what they want. MR. COYLE: That sounds like a very good process. Unfortunately what you will find is that only a handful of people will actually participate in that process, and once a design is approved, you're going to have hoards turning out saying they don't like it. And, you know, we've gone through that process before. We've spent lots of money on design plans for another neighborhood, and it all went down the tube. MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir, but we've got to try. MR. COYLE: Yes, we try, but I would rather see us try by first polling the individual residents, to make sure you've got something in writing for a majority plus a -- a 50 percent plus one that says yes, we are interested in exploring these opportunities. I know that you can't tell them exactly what it's going to look like. But if you gave them some conceptual drawings, it would prompt some thought on their part as to whether or not their problems are so important to be solved that they're willing to sacrifice a portion of what they now consider to be their property, although it probably is right-of-way. , MR. JACKSON: Okay. What I'll do then is I'll go out and we'll poll, we'll get some numbers and we'll come back and bring this back Page 34 .- I September 8, 2005 to you at another date. MR. COYLE: I would even be willing to give you preliminary approval to go ahead, subject to the poll. Subject to the poll, providing a majority of people who are approved. I wouldn't want to delay you in the process. MR. HENNING: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, I have a motion on the floor and a second by -- motion on the floor by Commissioner Coy Ie, second by Commissioner Henning. Commissioner Halas is waiting in the wings here to ask a question. MR. HALAS: Yes. The other thing you want to do is make it very, very clear to the people in that neighborhood, how much is going to be paid by the CRA and how much is going to be put forth by the MSTU. I think that's very important. And the time frame that they're going to have to pay this back. CHAIRMAN FIALA: There's no MSTU in that area. MR. HALAS: There's no MSTU in that area? Okay, just in case there was. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Chuck, did you have a comment? I'm sorry . MR. FOWLE: Ronnie Fowle. I think this is on your nickel, because the stormwater management is going out now doing the research and the money that you've allocated to do the drainage work in that area. And then we were asked to follow up with the streetscape program, would the CRA participate in the streetscape. Drainage I believe is yours, or stormwater. MR. HALAS: Okay. MR. COYLE: This is another joint proj ect, right? MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. MR. COYLE: Good, good. CHAIRMAN FIALA: But still, as far as the front lawns go and Page 35 September 8, 2005 so forth, the motion is on the floor to make sure this polling is done first. MR. JACKSON: Correct. This will be a work in progress, and it's going to take a few years to do, because the stormwater won't be resolved within the next three to five years in the whole area. MR. COYLE: And if you decide you want to have a park there, you must name it best friends park. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would you repeat your motion again? MR. NEAL: Is that official? MR. COYLE: No. I make a motion to approve your request to send in an RFP to develop a streetscape in coordination with the Collier County stormwater management people, contingent upon getting a positive endorsement of 50 percent plus one of the residents -- property owners along this street. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And that is the motion that you seconded, Commissioner Henning, correct? MR. HENNING: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. We have a motion on the floor and a second. All those in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. MR. COLETTA: Aye. MR. HALAS: Aye. MR. HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. MR. COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign. (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. That passes unanimously. And we're on to 7-C. BA YSHORE STREETSCAPE PROJECT - LAKE VIEW & Page 36 September 8, 2005 RIVERVIEW DRIVES - APPROVED W/STIPULATIONS MR. JACKSON: 7-C in new business. This is a carbon copy. It's exactly the same but different, if you're with me still on that one. This was in the Bayshore area. Again, it's a couple of residential streets. However, we have a couple more players to play in this area. Again, recommend from -- the local advisory board is recommending the CRA board approve advertisement of an RFP for a consultant to design an urban section streetscape design for the street's lake view and river view drives, and approve a private developer participation and a contribution to the project. Amount of work and amount of effort to be determined. And to go through the -- here's another aerial. This is the aerial there that -- two major -- one is a development project and one is a redevelopment project. VK Development for Treviso Bay Properties has acquired a marina there on Bayshore, and that is going to be entirely redeveloped. And so they're coming in to do an SDP and they'll be sinking some money in there. And also there will be an impact to the neighborhood. In the red area is where the Haldeman Creek dredge spoil site is to be, if approved by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday. And this is the Antaramian Development Group. They're going to put in a residential, and using part of the lake view drive to construct the project. And I believe that will be a neighborhood exit through that area. What we'd like to do is to get the Antaramian Development Group and VK Development to come in with some support, monetary or effort or construction consultants or some kind of thing to partner in \vith this. And you end up with a six-way partnership. And it's on the graphic there in your book that you'll have Antaramian Development Group, VK Development, the Bayshore/Gateway CRA, the Bayshore lVISTU, and of course county right-of-way, because it's a residential Page 37 ----¡--- September 8, 2005 street, we need to play with transportation department again to make sure that they're on board with what we do, and is to go in and work it. And similarly to what we had before, Riverview Drive, which is a short street, we'll look at it. We're not sure if it's feasible or not, but we need to study it and look at it. Essentially this is Lakeview Drive, and you can see when it rains, water pools, the swale system, you know, stormwater again needs to be addressed. And people have to park in the swales and walk in the street because there's no sidewalks. It's not a real residential section urbanized. And here's a couple more pictures of it there. And essentially again with a conceptual thing is to work this neighborhood street in either one or two sidewalks, trees, lights, whatever the neighborhood would like to have done there. So we're recommending again to RFP this project as a separate project. I don't want to combine it with the other one, because you're not sure what you're going to get and the cost factor. We may be able to work it out that way to design that, and also to work with the two development groups that are working in the area and see what we can get in a cooperative partnership. MR. HENNING: Good job. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'd like to ask a question, please. I found something just a little bit of concern to me. Under considerations, it says that the Antaramian developer will be somewhere through here tearing up the streets as they bring all of their construction equipment in, not only to remove some of the sediment, but then to move forward with the construction. But it says here under considerations, however, nothing will be done to correct the streets damaged. MR. JACKSON: To the best of my knowledge, that is -- that's my statement. That's directly from me. I don't have any working data on what the requirement will be for the developer for the PUD portion of that. Page 38 ----~-,. September 8, 2005 As I believed, when I talked to a representative from the developer this morning, it was that his sole requirement would be to put in a sidewalk. But that doesn't address the asphalt, the 20- foot drive that -- where the trucks are coming and going. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Boy, that doesn't hit me real well at all. MR. JACKSON: No, I'm talking on limited knowledge here, because I don't work in that section of the county. But I know that what I'd like to do is I'd like to draw some more out of the developers in a greater participative mode and a written contract of something to even more than what the either CDES or transportation's going to be able to get out of him. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, I need to follow up on this. Does anybody know the answer to this, whether it be Susan or Don? Anybody heard anything about that at all? Is there any kind of requirement that if the street is torn up, that he has to repair it and also put in a sidewalk? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Nobody knows anything. So you just wrote this in here because you were jumping to a conclusion? MR. JACKSON: No, ma'am. The developer told me this morning that he has been told that his requirement will be to install a sidewalk. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Only. And not repair the street. MR. JACKSON: That's all he told me he was being told that he would be required to do. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Folks in CDES, we do need to address this, okay? Not during this meeting, but we certainly do need to address that. We can't have this street left like that for these people to repair, and it's not their responsibility, nor should it come out of the CRA funds. MR. JACKSON: Correct, ma'am. And that's the whole impetus here, is that since there is activity in that area, why don't we go ahead Page 39 -.. .._.....~..~~---- September 8, 2005 and plan the street and build it back in a better way than what it is.- CHAIRMAN FIALA: . Well, let them build it back, and they could probably add a sidewalk as well. But yes, and then you can work with them. MR. JACKSON: Right. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Just want to put that on the record here. Okay, Commissioner Halas? MR. HALAS: Again, since Commissioner Coyle opened the door, I hope that you'll do the same thing in this particular neighborhood also, and that is to make sure that you have a full understanding and a full cooperation of the people who are property owners there in regards to all the updates that you would like to do. MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. And again, I have received direct comment phone calls and e-mails from the people that live on that street. They want to participate. So I'll take the poll and we'll make sure that we get some numbers. MR. HALAS: Thank you very much. MR. COYLE: Now, David, you know, you are relatively new here and you haven't experienced some of the things we've experienced. I'd just like to share with you some of our knowledge. What generally happens here is that you send out a survey, and there's a lot of controversy about the way the survey is written, whether it's a leading question, whether it reveals all of the necessary details and things like that. So great care should be put into creating this written survey. There will also be many property owners who will allege later that they never received a copy of the mailings. So you might want to send it certified mail. The other problem we have is that you might initially get the majority people who approve of this, but then after spending the money and spending a couple of years or more in planning and getting ready to go after this, you will find people who rise up in opposition to Page 40 . -r· September 8, 2005 it, because other property owners have moved into the area. It is a complex process, so I just encourage you to be as thorough and precise as you possibly can. Document all of the approvals, and not let this, the process, drag on too long. Because the longer it drags on, the longer there's going to be a change in attitude. MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. MR. COYLE: The more likely there will be a change in attitude. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's the voice of experience speaking. MR. HALAS: Yes, all of us. CHAIRMAN FIALA: From five of us. Well, do I hear any other comments, commissioners, or a motion? MR. HALAS: I make a motion that we approve this, but again with the same stipulations that we did in the prior motion. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And a second? MR. COYLE: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. A motion on the floor by Commissioner Halas, a second by Commissioner Coy Ie. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. MR. HALAS: Aye. MR. HENNING: Aye. MR. COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Opposed, like sign. (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Now we go on to 7-D. MR. JACKSON: Yes, we have 23 minutes left before I believe you have to adjourn, and we've got a couple of important issues here. Page 41 ····..r- September 8, 2005 If I may, Madam Chairman, could I go to item 7-F out of order -- it's a very short one -- to preclude it being dropped off the end because of the time constraints? If I may? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Sure. APPROVAL FOR A NEW CRA HIRE - PROJECT MANAGER _ APPROVED MR. JACKSON: Item 7-F is recommend for approval for the executive director to advertise for a project manager a new hire for the CRA. As you can see, as we get -- MR. HENNING: Move to approve. MR. COYLE: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, I have a motion on the floor to approve and a second by Commissioner Coyle. Motion was made by Commissioner Henning. Any discussion? (No response.) CH.i\.IRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. COLETTA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. MR. HALAS: Aye. MR. HENNING: Aye. MR. COYLE: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any opposed, like sign. (No response.) MR. HENNING: And we addressed this at our workshop. MR. NEAL: Yes, we did. BA YSHORE & GATEWAY OVERLAYS - REDEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES - STAFF GIVEN DIRECTION MR. JACKSON: Thank you. Page 42 . "---~~.._,._.... ---.- I September 8, 2005 Then back to 7-D on the new business, item 7-D, Delta. Bayshore and Gateway overlays. The local advisory board has been working and has funded an overlay writing process with HDR, Incorporated to update amendment three to the Bayshore overlay and an initial overlay for the Gateway triangle area. In there we found in our travels talking with the commercial property owners, residential owners and the people that work in the area, future developers, potential investors in the area, that we'd like for the CRA board to consider recommending approval to the Board of County Commissioners at the appropriate time, when the overlays come to you, for the Bayshore and Gateway overlay options to a fast track option for rezoning for mixed use redevelopment projects, and a division level administrative deviations of county code for stressed or difficult properties, and provide guidance to me, the executive director, on how you want me to go about that. This is the schedule, as you'll see on your screen there, the process of which we're going through, the process that CDES has for the land development code cycle two amendment process. To go before the Board of County Commissioners on October 12th. If not, it will go in November, depending on what happens before that. However, the thing that's somewhat -- it's not controversial, however, it's broached a lot of discussion which has to do with the overlay. It's going to overlay a zoning category over commercial property, specifically C-4 and C-5. And Commissioners Coletta and Halas and Henning have talked about that before in our further discussions in the workshop. But essentially what will happen is when it gets passed by the Board of County Commissioners, each C-4 C-5 piece of property actually in the Gateway and Bayshore area will have a -- kind of a duel zoning. They'll be C-4 or C-5, and they have the option for mixed use designation, which is authorized by the comprehensive Page 43 .-"1 September 8, 2005 plan. And then they get some density bonus factors if there for residential if they do a mix~d use proj ect. The developers and the potential people that would come in there and work on this stressed area, the CRA area, have concern that after we put this mixed use designation on it, that they have to go through a 10 to 12-month process and many thousands of dollars to rezone something that the Board of County Commissioners has already authorized to be zoned mixed use. So we're looking for administrative procedures such that if somebody does buy a piece of property at C-4 or C-5 and says I want to go to mixed use, that when they submit their site development plans they submit a letter, legal letter, that says I am opting in to the mixed use category and forever give up my underlying land use zoning, whatever that language would need to be, that C-4, C-5, in perpetuity and never go back to it. That speeds the process. What that does is becomes a CRA incentive for people to invest in the area to build, rebuild and renovate. That's one of the subjects. The other one is that we're finding a piece of property. In fact, we have a -- right after this, the next subj ect has to do with a piece of property I call it stressed. Stressed meaning that it's like a balloon. It's as far as it's going, and if you try to stuff another ounce of air in, it's going to pop. It can't handle the requirements for landscaping, the requirements for stormwater, the requirements for parking on an existing site. And they're asking for hey, somebody help me. You want me to come in here and spend money and invest and make it better, I need some help. So we're looking for some incentivized things at the level of the division administrator of CDS and below, that they can administratively waiver some of those requirements, which they can't do now. And what that does is become an incentive. However, it isn't just willy-nilly anybody can come in and do it. They must come to the local CRA advisory board and plead their case Page 44 September 8, 2005 and get their support before it goes forward to work those numbers. So there's people here to talk about that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'll just move it along just little bit, because we don't have too much time left. Susan, did you want to speak to that? MS. MURRAY: Susan Murray, zoning director. And forgive me, this is my first experience with the CRA, so I'm still learning myself the ins and outs and the relationships here. But this is actually in process for the Land Development Code cycle two. And in fact, it hasn't even been heard by the planning commission yet, at least this portion of the amendments. Just to give us a little background, I'll be real quick. Unfortunately this is a pretty comprehensive amendment. Of course, the triangle is totally new language, and then the Bayshore area is an amendment to existing language. And we did not get the information until just before the deadline. And I guess HDR was working on it all along and there had been no interaction with the county staff, for whatever reason, and we're finding it very challenging to work through the amendments. I think some of the things that are coming out -- and again, it's not necessarily the standards they're proposing or the use changes or anything like that. I think there needs to be quite a bit of work done further, though, on clarification, application of the standards. I think what we as staff are recognizing is if these were adopted today, it's going to be extremely difficult for us to interpret and apply them. And we have been working a little bit with David, but again, being as this came in at the beginning of the process instead of \vorking through prior to submittal, it's been very challenging. One of the things I just want to bring to your a~ention with respect to the standards that are proposed for administrative deviations that David spoke of, one of the difficulties, for example, we have there Page 45 H_--¡-- September 8,2005 is they want administrative deviations from landscape and parking- requirements, which I thinkis great in concept, but there's no standards to find. So how do I as a director determine who should get a deviation and to what extent and for what reason. The parking standards, there are actually administrative procedures in place now where we can do waivers with, and we have sets of criteria. And you've actually got many options with parking, including an administrative waiver. So I'm not sure how this is different. Again, there are no standards specified here, so I'm -- other than a percentage. And so I'm not really sure how we're to go about doing that. A lot of what they propose, we will be required to develop processes for. For example, the opt in-opt out process. Which is not really a rezoning, it's basically an administrative paper trail, if you will, where the property owner has the option to either apply the standards, the new standards, or stay with the current code standards. So then it becomes well, how do we administer that process? Of course, that runs with the land so that has to be recorded and has to be tracked from a staffing perspective. So there's a lot of things that while I think the ideas and everything are good, there's just a lot of things that need to be thought out, a lot of processes that need to be developed and a lot of standards that need to be clarified so that we have the opportunity to make those decisions. Not arbitrarily, but by applying a specific set of standards so we treat everybody fairly. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Would at the same time -- you've brought up many good points, but would -- at the same time, can we move this along? One of the problems with redevelopment, especially in this particular area, is the length of time to get there, esp~cially if there's some problems. How can we work on it so that if it's a fast track, it actually is fast Page 46 September 8, 2005 tracked? Especially with some of these little -- is there one person,-like yourself, for instance, or one person that you can assign to this particular group to work with them so that they're not bouncing from different people? MS. MURRAY: I see what you're saying. I think that's a really good question, and it's probably outside the scope of the amendments themselves. You're talking about a resource issue -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Is there something you can work -- MS. MURRAY: -- or an organizational issue. And that's something I'd have to discuss with Joe Schmitt, you know. But the door is certainly open for that discussion, yeah. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have Commissioner Halas, Commissioner Henning and then Commissioner Coletta. Oh, and then Commissioner Coyle. Sorry. MR. HALAS: I have some concerns when I read in here that under considerations it said that what they wanted to do is to -- the triangle redevelopment zoning overlay, to allow additional neighborhood commercial uses and higher residential densities that will promote the assembly of commercial uses and higher residential densities. Isn't this considered an area of a coastal high hazard area? And why would we want to increase density as far as residential? I have some concerns on that. And then as I was reading in here, in the proposed overlay, it sounded like it was almost going to be an open book in regards to reducing the parking by 25 percent. And then what you proposed as some of your ideas, or that the CRA has proposed, that they want to have on-street parking and then have some buffering with that. It seems to me that all you're doing here, you decrease too much parking and do it as an open book thing, and I hope there's some real controls over it, that you're going to end up with a situation as they have it on Fifth Avenue, and that is in regards to parking. And so you're going to have to some way or another supplement it. Page 47 -----¡- September 8, 2005 And I think where you're going with this 25 percent of reduction is to accommodate the needs for stormwater management. Is that where this is coming from? MS. MURRAY: David would have to answer that, because again, this is their proposed amendments from there and we're just simply -- they submitted them to us and we are actually reviewing them. MR. HALAS: David, did you get all those different questions that I asked there? It's kind of a multitude. MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. We've been asking the same questions. It's kind of like writing it in a -- you know, it's kind of like a mushroom in a cave. We have to guess what would be acceptable. So we're proposing this. Now, all we're looking at for today is an opportunity to sit down -- and I know that they're over tasked -- to sit down and come up with -- and make an agreement. Compromise with what could be there. We're putting these things as we see they best fit, knowing full well that not everything fits hand in glove very well. The 25 percent, the goal for it would be a property that obviously cannot put the total required amount of parking on it. MR. HALAS: So if you had 10 properties that fell under this guideline, what would we do then for additional parking to supplement the parking then? Have you come up with any ideas or -- MR. JACKSON: Discussion at the local advisory board has been acquiring property and building a parking garage, public parking spaces. There's a whole myriad of other things you can do to alleviate the pressure in certain areas. MR. HALAS: I'm concerned that -- your idea is great, but if you don't have the parking facilities there, you're not going to get people down there. MR. JACKSON: Absolutely. MR. HALAS: So that you don't -- I don't think we want to cut Page 48 --¡-. September 8, 2005 our nose off in spite of our face and try to -- and make this across the board. Because as I read it, it looked to me that almost anybody that couldn't meet the needs would automatically have a 25 percent reduction, and that threw a flag up to me. MR. JACKSON: Well, it isn't automatic. It has to go through the review process. And again, it can still be denied by the -- Susan Murray or Joe Schmitt at their level. MR. HALAS: And the other thing that really concerns me is adding too much density, residential density, especially in a coastal high hazard area, I have a real problem with that, okay? MR. JACKSON: This is your comprehensive plan, and you'll have to change that, sir. Or excuse me, the Board of County Commissioners will have to change that. MR. HALAS: One other concern that I have is you're talking about a buffer type A and using a six-foot fence. And maybe Susan can answer this. What is applicable at this point in time? MS. MU·RRA Y: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the last part of your question. MR. HALAS: What is applicable at this point in time? You're talking about a buffer type A with a six-foot fence. MS. MURRAY: Without knowing exactly what section you're on, it really depends on the adjacent property. So buffering is dependent upon what the use or zoning of the property is adjacent to it. So it could be -- normally you would get like properties, like if you had single-family residential to a single-family residential, you might have a type A, which is your minimum buffer, one tree every 30 feet. And then as you increase in intensity or densities, your buffer requirements would increase in width and density for required plantings. MR. HALAS: And you're talking about a six-foot fence. Is there maybe the capability of having a four-foot fence? MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. We picked six foot. The objective Page 49 . '--.--r---- September 8, 2005 was to screen. Six foot is kind of an eyeball screen. And those numbers were numbers that we put out there for discussion, to go through the DSAC, to go through the planning commission. And I just wanted to make the CRA aware that we're asking for a loosening of the rules, some of those, that make sense to do for the area. MS. MURRAY: Commissioner, I think you hit the nail on the head. And that is I think the ideas are great, but they're not thought out in the long term, and there aren't specific standards that we need to apply. I mean, I don't know what a stressed property is, and a 25 percent reduction because you can't do anything else. I mean, I'm not really qualified to determine that, and an engineer would have to tell me what they could or couldn't fit on a site with respect to water management. And then what do we do, eliminate landscaping for parking or vice versa ? You see what I'm saying? In order to approve things like that, you need to have spelled out certain conditions that say, well, if we're going to administratively reduce parking, here's what you need to look at to determine if that's appropriate or not. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I think, though, What they're asking to you also have is some type of flexibility, because we're talking about properties that just don't conform to -- and so what they're saying is although you want strict guidelines, also there has to be a little of flexibility . MS. MURRAY: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I'm talking about redevelopment, which is a whole horse of a different color. MS . MURRAY: And I think one of the other issues is that a lot of these standards I think are developed for new properties. And one of the difficulties we have as staff -- one of the great~st difficulties, if you have an existing nonconforming property. I don't think the standards speak very well to how you apply these development Page 50 "- I " September 8, 2005 regulations to what context when you're redeveloping versus brand new development. Brand new development, piece of cake; redevelopment, very difficult, if you don't clarify. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Commissioner Henning? MR. HENNING: Well, I'm going to play Bill Neal at this time. The Board of Commissioners a few years ago created the CRA in this area, and the reason they want to do it is to redevelop this area. If we apply the standards of the Land Development Code, that will never happen. That's why they're asking for an overlay, ladies and gentlemen. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Bingo. MR. HENNING: So -- and it needs to be incentivized by the overlay. And I think if we allow it to go through the process, the vetting process, a lot of things will be straightened out in the planning commISSIon. And I feel very confident in that. And I know there's concerns out there, I've heard them and I agree with some of them. And the __ but I think at the end of the day when it gets to the final Board of Commissioners, all those concerns would be vetted. If not, we'll take care of it -- or they'll take care of it at that time. My concern is we know the fast track system doesn't work. So I would like to see the CRA direct the attorney for the CRA to see if there's a mechanism for the CRA board to approve site plans. And that way that would be a venue where you would spur it. Not only, you know, get out of regular process and the fast track, which we know it doesn't work, but let the CRA do it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's thinking out of the box. Great idea. Commissioner Coletta? MR. COLETTA: Yes-- Page 51 September 8,2005 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Did you need an answer from the county attorney first? MR. HENNING: No, we need to give that direction. MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie student, assistant county attorney. That would have to be researched. So we'd be happy to do that. MR. HENNING: Yeah. And, you know, I think if we're going to say this is an important redevelopment area, we need to try to get in and get out, like Commissioner Coletta wants to do, you know, in the CRA, it's all done. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And with that, Commissioner Coletta? MR. COLETTA: Yes, a couple of questions. There's a lot of give and take going between staff and the CRA. I'm a little confused on the fact that it doesn't seem like it's been too well worked out between staff. And also, too, why didn't our staff members also sign off on these agenda items? I'm curious on that. You know, we have transportation, we have our planning department. It seems like nothing but your signature's on there and that's about it. MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir, I report directly to the CRA board. I'm a staff member and a staff of one. The CRA is a separate and distinct legal government entity. The Board of County Commissioners has thousands of people that work for them. There isn't a thing in your packet that has not been vetted through those appropriate divisions, one-on-one, by me, face-to-face with them. Not e-mail, not phone. There's no surprises here. Now-- MR. COLETTA: I understand what Commissioner-- MR. JACKSON: They're more than willing to provide input and comment. They have a daytime job that they've got to do for the county. You know, so they work around and give ~e the best advice and their knowledge when they have time and they can get to it, and there's timing in there. Page 52 ~._---"" .-..-.-.,-. September 8, 2005 MR. COLETTA: So in other words, we're supposed to workout all the fine details in this meeting and in future meetings when we have the county staff here and you. None of this can be done beforehand. I'm just a little bit disappointed that things aren't flowing a little smoother. There seems to be a lot of bumps along the way. It's not as orderly as you normally see with these type of items. In other words, I'm looking at it and I see that the only signature on it is yours. MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. The Board of County Commissioners' staff works for the manager. They don't work for me. Anything I get, I have to request and wait in line. Now, it's not that they don't respond. They do. But the part of it here, I can't test them. And we are at the point in time now, most of these things that have been vetted before you today have gone as far as they can be taken by me as a single staff person. I'm bringing them to my employers and asking them for direction and help. That's all I'm doing. MR. COLETTA: So in other words, you wanted us to direct our staff to start working with you? MR. JACKSON: I'd like for you to direct the Board of County Commissioners to talk to the county manager about having the people that work for him help. MR. COLETTA: I like the direction we're trying to go. MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. MR. COLETTA: It's just how we're getting there is making me very, very nervous. I'm used to cooperation taking place. MR. JACKSON: Yes, sir. MR. COLETTA: I've never seen a one-man show before. And not that you're not doing a fine job as one individual, but I'm sure with the resources available in the county, we should be ~ble to direct it. My other question would have to do with if we can't go -- if we can get around the fast track somehow where it's going to be less Page 53 September 8, 2005 intrusive upon the staff needs, that might be an interesting way to go. I mean, he's got to research it, I understand that. I'm glad Commissioner Henning brought up that idea. Thinking out of the box is a good idea. If we can't, if we do have to go the route of the fast track -- and I know that our staff is way over extended in trying to get it done -- how do they arrange the order of the fast track? You already have a number of things that are on fast track. Is it just fall into place again behind the other fast track -- MS. MURRAY: There's a fast track line, just like there's a line for everything else. Yeah, to answer your question, it just gets (sic) in line. If we have 10 fast tracks, whatever fast track came in first is taken in order. MR. COLETTA: Could I could Mr. Joe Schmitt to comment on my concerns on this and the fact that there doesn't seem to be the cooperation between county staff and the CRA? MR. SCHMITT: For the record, Joe Schmitt, Administrator, Community Development, Environmental Services Division. David and I talk all the time. There is cooperation. However, as you well know, when I look at the department of zoning and land development review, they're a fee for service organization. Most of what they do are applicants who come in and pay for reviews and pay for services, so that's the way I have to employ them. When they're doing work such as what David is asking for, that takes them away from I'll call it what David said, their day job, which is basically to provide those kind of reviews. So it's not that we're not working together. We are. David knows my staff and the comprehensive planning staff have put a lot of effort in supporting and helping him and his contractor in reviewing the LDC amendment that you'll be seeing later this year in regards to the overlay for both the Bayshore/Gateway and for the triangle, and for these recommendations. In fact, David and Bill Neal and I spoke Page 54 September 8, 2005 about these in particular. What David is asking for is for you as a CRA to of course turn around and recommend to yourself as the Board of County Commissioners to advise the manager to -- and to have me provide the resources to continue to work with him. So it is somewhat of a convolute, but it's the way the structure's set up. David works for you directly under contract as a CRA employee. He is not a -- he does not work for the manager and he's not tasked by the manager. So you're the authority that makes those determinations. And then you put the burden on me in regards to providing the support. Then I have to figure out how I'm going to have to pay for that. MR. COLETTA: And a little while ago we asked the question of transportation, and Don Scott back there shrugged his shoulders, you know. And we've asked other questions, and we see staff sort of fumbling over their own feet. And I understand. I don't want to belabor this. It's just that -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, because -- MR. COYLE: It's already been belabored. CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- we've got a 5:00 meeting. MR. COLETTA: I understand, I understand. It's just that I do want to bring these concerns up. How we address them in the future is going to just be something that we have to work -- MR. SCHMITT: Can I make one issue, though, I would like to point out about these deviations. Just so you understand, I mean, the deviations, if you want to make this simple, apply the deviations carte blanche across the entire overlay. Of course, we have to deal with the second and third order impacts of that. Reduced parking is going to cause problems with not enough parking. And what Susan was trying to tell you is in order to make those decisions, without being arbitrary and approving or disapproving. Or we usually have criteria, we have evaluation criteria. That's what Page 55 September 8, 2005 David is asking for, to have us work with him to help develop that criteria. But the easy way to do it, what Commissioner Henning is asking for to bring the SDP in here, I really don't know if you want to go through a planning board type of review process. But if you do, that's certainly your prerogative. To make this easy, you can just across the board and say it's applicable throughout the entire CRA. And that makes it easy for staff. We just reduce the parking requirements by 25 percent, based on maybe a recommendation of the advisory board and of the executive director. The difficulty here is our applying what Susan said, the rules __ and we know we have this problem in our LDC, applying the rules that exist in our LDC -- that we mandate for development are economically prohibitive for redevelopment. And Clark is here tonight to talk to you basically about the issue he's facing. It's a building that is being redeveloped that the site is what the site is. The site is not going to get any larger unless he's able to acquire adjacent land. And basically he's restricted. The parking we can deal with administratively. The landscape requirements he cannot meet. MR. COYLE: We can get to that. We're running short of time. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So many Commissioner Coyle? MR. COYLE: Yeah, David, I would like to commend you for this fine job of planning you've been doing. Contrary to the opinions of another Commissioner, I think this is probably been the most productive period in the CRA's history as far as planning is concerned. And I think it's for that particular reason that we're struggling with some of the details now. So I think the planning has been done quite well. And I commend you on what you've been doi~g. The issue here is that what you have asked for has not been completely studied by all elements, by the Board of County Page 56 September 8, 2005 Commissioners and all of their advisory boards. And I think we can make a recommendation, a positive recommendation as a CRA board, but it has to go through this process. But I would like to ask Joe or Susan, do you have a person designated as a fast track coordinator for CRA's? And if not, can we MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, we have two fast track programs. One are (sic) the EDC, which there is no ordinance for. I'm coming back to you this fall with a specific ordinance for EDC sponsored CRA -- or for fast track. The other is affordable housing. There is no CRA fast track program. There is none. MR. COYLE: I'm not asking for a program. I'm just wondering if it's possible -- MR. SCHMITT: Certainly, certainly. MR. COYLE: -- before we make a recommendation to the board, to designate a member of staff as a CRA fast track coordinator who could function in a couple of different ways. It gets very close to what Commissioner Henning was after earlier. You could -- I understood Susan to say that some of these administrative approvals already exist, and this fast track coordinator could help guide the CRA through that process. And the other kind of function that this coordinator could serve is to perform or at least channel these administrative decisions to the right person in your department so that they could get some consideration. MR. SCHMITT: Commissioner, we're working that right now with SONA (phonetic). It is working. I have one dedicated principal planner that Mr. Russell and his team have been working with, and he's come in with the deviations. What this request is, is to simplify that a little more. Because I'm faced with a couple of deviations. I don't have the authority, neither does Susan to make a decision. It's going to have to come back to you Page 57 September 8, 2005 as the Board of County Commissioners. MR. COYLE: But I uI).derstood Susan also to say that many of these provisions that are in this particular recommendation are working their way through the system now. MR. SCHMITT: Only one we have is parking. There are no deviation procedures for landscaping. MR. COYLE: With respect to parking-- MR. SCHMITT: Yes. MR. COYLE: -- I want you to know that as a CRA board member, I am opposed to reducing parking requirements by 25 percent, unless there is a plan to provide the adequate parking, either through parking buildings or some other method. And I think those things must come hand in hand. We must not issue a blanket approval of a 25 percent parking, without understanding how we're really going go provide for the parking in the future. MR. SCHMITT: Yes. MR. COYLE: Okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Let me move this along again. Commissioner Halas? MR. HALAS: I'm done. CHAIRMAN FIALA: You're done? MR. HALAS: Yes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? MR. HENNING: I do. I would hope that we wouldn't take any action on this item. But I do want to say, if it is a walkable community by the neighbors, why do you need the parking? So let's not rule out everything. I would like to give direction -- Brad Schiffer's here, part of our planning. I want you to get out I would hope that th~ planning commissioners would deal with this in the overlay and give us recommendations on how we get it done in a reasonable fashion when Page 58 ---,----" " September 8, 2005 you have a -- you know, an application for a permit. And, you know, if there's other ways that we can do it, let's explore it. MR. JACKSON: Madam Chairman, the local advisory board was wanting to hear your thoughts. I think they hear you loud and clear. I don't think we need any motions on this. We've heard your thoughts and we can go do our homework now. GA TEW A Y TRIANGLE - THALHEIMER REDEVLOPMENT PROJECT - APPROVED CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Thank you. And to the last item. That is 7-E, and that's Gateway Triangle. Thalheimer Building. MR. JACKSON: Yes. This is one of those terms that I use which I call a layman's term, a stressed property. That's very difficult. On the visualizer there up on the screen, you'll see it's called the -- I call it the Thalheimer project. It's to be an upscale lounge. It's a strange shaped piece of property. Several takings from 41. Widening. This is basically what the overhead looks like. And they're asking for some deviations and variances. And Mr. Schmitt's talked about those, and that's all in that process there; however, there are a couple of things that he can't do at his level, which is what the previous conversation was about. And I'll go ahead and turn this over to Mr. Russell for a minute, Mr. Neal, if that's okay with you, for him to capsulize, because you've only got a few moments left, about what his project is going through. MR. NEAL: Okay, yeah. MR. RUSSELL: Good afternoon. Good to see you all. Thank you very much for the opportunity for the advisory board, for yourselves, Manager Mudd. . My name is Clark Russell, for the record, representing the petition near in this case. Page 59 <_.__.,.."<,-,.."._,,,~ September 8, 2005 Real quick, I know you're short on time, for landscaping, it's an old site, it's tight. There are four areas that we're seeking relief. Your staff has those areas. The 15 feet in the front, there was a taking from 41 years ago. We can't meet that. Perimeter landscaping, current code requires 10 feet. We've got six. We're going from three to six, but we can't get to 10. Some interior landscaped islands. We need the parking, we need the stormwater first. Can't meet that. And then the percentage for native landscaping. We're -- it's 75 percent native trees required. We can't meet that, because we have constrained size requirements. That's the sum of it. We have Gail Borman here, if you do have any questions for her on any real plant stuff. The issues we've been working through, your staff has been incredibly accommodating with their time and with their help to sort through this. We know it's difficult, and we want to make sure it's viable and that we make the contribution to the area. I think the really brilliant vision that we've achieved here is in the stormwater solution. We've worked with your consultants, with the residents, the advisory board to put together something that will not only let this property remain viable in its redevelopment, but also let us contribute to the future infrastructure in a way that is going to help weed the area into the vision that you and the community have. Hopefully that is something we can support today, recommend it to the board and get this proj ect moving. I'd like to be open for season. There's some fundraisers planned. And would like to just see what we can do for the area. If you have any questions from me, I will certainly be available. Otherwise, I would quick turn it over -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Stay right there. Commissioner Henning? MR. HENNING: I don't believe that the full-- this commission was on when we were considering a master plan in this triangle, and a talk about eminent domain, so on, so forth. Board turned it down, or Page 60 ....,..<---_."".."'"'".~..,",,.,_..__. September 8, 2005 bottom line, the CRA. You know, this is the only way that we're going to get where this triangle needs to be, and that is a deviation from the code. Just like Mr. Schmitt said, that on bare property, you can do what you can do, but you can't here. The road took most of the area away from landscaping. And, you know, the improvements are going to be made for stormwater. I think is a better thing to do, it's a public health, safety, instead of an aesthetic thing. So I'm very supportive of the consideration of the deviations. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, thank you very much. I know all of these pieces are very odd-shaped pieces in that whole triangle. Commissioner Halas? MR. HALAS: Clark, can you tell me about what year this building was built? MR. RUSSELL: Neighborhood of '72 or '73, if my memory serves. MR. HALAS: Okay. And by consense (sic) then, there's been a lot of increasing of the roadway of U.S. 41 at that time-- MR. RUSSELL: Correct. MR. HALAS: -- when they before six -- that building was built and then later the six-Ianing of U.S. 41. MR. RUSSELL: Right. And it also was built before site development. So the setbacks are all interesting and it's -- it's old style. MR. HALAS: You said it was built when? MR. RUSSELL: Around '72 or '73, I think. MR. MUDD: Before site development plans and issues like that. And so your setbacks and stuff are a little bit odd. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? MR. HALAS: Great. Thank you. MR. COYLE: Yeah, I agree with Commissioner Henning. The only problem I see, the Board of County Commissioners would appear Page 61 ~~'~-""'-'---''''-''''''''''''''' ,-...""'-.--..........----", ""---¡-' September 8,2005 to have authority to grant exceptions to the landscaping requirements and parking requirements. Exception to stormwater is a problematic issue, I think for us as well as for the Board of County Commissioners. But the stormwater problem is a problem for this entire triangle, and it clearly is a responsibility of Collier County government, in partnership with the CRA. And I would certainly be happy to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners consider a partnership and to see if we can't address all of the storm water problems here on a more expedited basis. It is not likely to happen before you would need approval for this property, however. So that might remain a sticking point. I don't know how that will turn out. But it's something I think we'll all have to investigate. MR. RUSSELL: Thank you, sir. And I believe Mr. Hagan actually has a really good proposal-- MR. COYLE: Good. MR. RUSSELL: -- that would work to address all of our needs __ MR. COYLE: Good. MR. RUSSELL: -- and enter that partnership. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So Commissioners, do I hear a motion? MR. HALAS: I make a motion that we approve this agenda item. MR. COLETTA: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, I have a motion to approve by Commissioner Halas, a second by Commissioner Coletta. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. MR. COLETTA: Aye. MR. HALAS: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. MR. COYLE: Aye. Page 62 " "'''--r-- September 8, 2005 MR. HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: , Opposed, like sign. (No response.) CITIZEN COMMENTS CHAIRMAN FIALA: Move forward. Good luck with you. I hope you can open by season, season's beginning. Okay, and the last on our agenda is citizen comment. Do we have any citizen comment? MS. STUDENT: Madam Chair, I have two speakers that handed me speaker slips. The first is Sharon King. MS. KING: Due to time constraints, I'll rescind my request. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thanks, Sharon. MS. STUDENT: And the second person is Filippo Mastrocola. I think. It's M-A-S- T -R-O -- MR. MASTROCOLA: Close enough. I own some prop -- Phil Mastrocola. I'm on 3101 Terrace Avenue. I'm a property owner. At the beginning of I guess about three months ago, the issue of regarding the C-4, C-5 down zoning was -- you know, became apparent to me as a property owner, and I just wanted to get it on the record that there is going to be almost like a duel citizenship, if you will, for C-5 zoned property owners, that we will be able to retain our C- 5 or C-4 zoning. And that the overlay is just that, it's an overlay, and not a mandate for to us be relegated to adhere to the new, you know, whatever the new -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Mixed use. MR. MASTROCOLA: -- mixed use would be. We want to make -- I want to make sure -- and a lot of the people that were at the meetings are not here. Because I even -- I'm ill prepared this evening, because I got caught off guard. My wife ended up reminding me that I Page 63 September 8,2005 had a meeting this afternoon and I totally neglected to do my diligence. , So I just wanted to get it on the record that it was made clear to us by these people, the advisory board, that the overlay is just going to be that, it's not going to be, you know, where we're going to have to be mandated to adhere to the new mixed use and that we can retain and we can sell our property as the C-5 or the C-4. And again, people have been telling us that that's what's going to happen. But I don't want there to be this board or the future Collier County board is going to, you know, interpret it a different way. I think that should kind of be put in like stone, if we could. So I just wanted to raise that as a comment, if we could. MR. MUDD: May I address that? MR. HENNING: The time -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Excuse me. Yes, Commissioner Henning. MR. HENNING: The time to see that process through is the Land Development Code changes. MR. MASTROCOLA: Okay. From what I understand, that's already been written into the Land Development Code. MR. HENNING: It has not been. MR. MASTROCOLA: It hasn't? Okay. MR. HENNING: It hasn't been read through the planning commission, citizen advisory board. That will be what date? The 21 st of September. MR. JACKSON: September 21st at 2:00 here in this room. MR. HENNING: And our final hearing on the Board of County Commissioners -- we're sitting as the CRA -- MR. MASTROCOLA: Understood, yeah. MR. HENNING: -- would be in November. B~t if you want to get together with Marjorie Student, she can give you those dates. MR. MASTROCOLA: Thank you. Page 64 I -- September 8, 2005 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you very much. No other comments? Okay-- MR. SCHMITT: Ma'am, I have one item, if I could ask for your indulgence, to clarify and amend your motion in regards to Mr. Russell's petition, that you could direct the manager to have this come back as a regular scheduled item during the Board of County Commissioners. What I'd like to do is we've been working very closely with Mr. Russell in regards to working this project forward. He has a very ambitious schedule. We have those points that need to be approved by the board. I'd like to bring them back as a regular scheduled item so as you as the CRA can direct the manager. We'll bring those back as a regular scheduled item. This is a very unique situation in regards to this project, because it deals with redevelopment with the CRA. We want to make it happen. I think it's the catalyst that's needed for this area. But there's some decisions that you're going to have to make in regards to stormwater. I think you're going to have to hear them as the Board of County Commissioners, plus development -- developers cooperation agreement and some other things that need to be done in order to deal with future stonnwater development. So again, I would ask if you could amend your motion to bring those items back that Mr. Russell would like to address for approval of the Board of County Commissioners. MR. HENNING: Are we directing the county manager, or are we directing the director of the CRA? MR. SCHMITT: You would go back -- you as the Board of County -- you as CRA would direct yourself as the board to direct the county manager. MR. HENNING: Okay, we're going to come b~ck during the budget process and direct the County Manager, because we're sitting as the CRA board. Page 65 ,~"."~,,,,,-- . .. ---'''1-''-- September 8, 2005 MR. MUDD: Sir, the best way -- Commissioner Henning has a good point. The best way to do this is Mr. Jackson has the ability to get on your agenda, as the Board of County Commissioners, okay? And I believe that we will bring that item back, with Joe's help, and we will get it on the regular agenda and we'll be doing great things. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great. MR. HALAS: Will that work for you? Joe, will that work? MR. SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, fine. Then as the board ofCRA, we are adjourned, and we will be back at 5:05 as the Board of Commissioners to discuss budget. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:54 p.m. BOARD OF CRA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL. ~ .~~ DO rrrAtA, Clluü¿nan 0,( . Page 66 September 8, 2005 These minutes approved by the Board on 1Jckh.L (I ~Œ) as presented / or as corrected ~ TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' R. NOTTINGHAM. Page 67