The URL can be used to link to this page

Backup Documents 01/12/2010 Item #16I 16 1.1 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE January 12,2009 I. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO FILE FOR RECORD WITH ACTION AS DIRECTED: A. Districts: I) Ave Maria Stewardship Communitv District: FY 09/1 0 Meeting Schedule. 2) Verona Walk Communitv Development District: FY 09/1 0 Meeting Schedule. B. Minutes: I) Airport Authoritv: Minutes of October 12,2009. 2) Animal Services Advisorv Board: Minutes of October 20, 2009. 3) Collier County Citizens Corps: Agenda of July 15,2009; August 19, 2009; September 16,2009. Minutes of July 15,2009; August 19,2009; September 16,2009. 4) Collier County Code Enforcement Board: Minutes of October 22, 2009. 5) Collier County Planning Commission: Minutes of October 15,2009; October 19, 2009, October 20, 2009. 6) Emergency Medical Services Advisorv Council: Agenda of April 17, 2009; May 22, 2009. Minutes of April 17,2009; May 22, 2009; September 25,2009. 7) Environmental Advisorv Council: Minutes of October 7, 2009. 8) Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Committee: Agenda of November 2, 2009. Minutes of October 5.2009. ,._-~--"" . ""~'~"'.".<_-_,_____"mL, 9) Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board: Minutes of September 17,2009; October 22,2009. 10) Immokalee Enterprise Zone Development Agency: Agenda of November 18, 2009. II) Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisorv Board: Agenda of November 18, 2009. 12) Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee: Agenda of November 18, 2009 joint w/CRA. Minutes of October 21, 2009 joint w/CRA & EZDA. 13) Parks and Recreation Advisorv Board: Minutes of October 21,2009. 14) Radio Road Beautification Advisorv Committee: Agenda of November 17, 2009. Minutes of October 20,2009. 15) Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Advisorv Committee: Agenda of April 2, 2009; November 5, 2009. Minutes of March 5, 2009; March 9, 2009; October 15, 2009. C. Other: I) Code Enforcement Special Magistrate: October 16,2009; November 5, 2009. 16/.2 16/1 f A . RECEIVED DEe 1 5 2009 AVE MARIA STEWARDSHIP COMMUNITY DISTRICT c/o Special District Services, Inc. 2501 Burns Road, Suite A Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 (561) 630-4922 Fax: (561) 630-4923 80ard of County CommiSSiOners November 13, 2009 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Clerk of Circuit Court Dwight E. Brock Collier County Courthouse 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Building "L", 6th Floor Naples, FL 34112 Re: Ave Maria Stewardship Community District To Whom It May Concern: Pursuant to Florida Law, enclosed please find the Fiscal Year 2009-2010 (October I, 2009- September 30,2010) Regular Meeting Schedule for the Ave Maria Stewardship Community District as published in the Naples Daily News on September 18,2009. If you have any questions and/or comments, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES, INC. J~~ Enclosure MISC. Corres: DateD l l!em#: Copies to: 16/1 AVE MARIA STEWARDSHIP COMMUNITY DISTRICT FISCAL YEAR 2009/2010 REGULAR MEETING SCHEDULE At NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of Supervisors of the Ave Maria Stewardship Community District will hold Regular Meetings in the Ave Maria Master Association (office/fitness center) located at 5076 Annunciation Circle, Suite 103, Ave Maria, Florida 34142, at 9:00 a.m. on the following dates: October 6, 2009 November 3, 2009 December 1, 2009 January 5, 2010 February 2, 2010 March 2, 2010 April 6, 2010 May 4, 2010 June 1,2010 July 6, 2010 August 3, 2010 September 7, 2010 The purpose of the meetings is to conduct any and all business coming before the Board. Meetings are open to the public and will be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Florida Law. Copies of the Agenda for any of the meetings may be obtained by contacting the District Manager at (561) 630-4922 or toll free 1-877-737-4922 five (5) days prior to the date of the particular meeting. From time to time one or more Supervisors may participate by telephone; therefore a speaker telephone will be present at the meeting location so that Supervisors may be fully informed of the discussions taking place. Meetings may be continued as found necessary to a time and place specified on the record. If any person decides to appeal any decision made with respect to any matter considered at these meetings, such person will need a record of the proceedings and such person may need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made at his or her own expense and which record includes the testimony and evidence on which the appeal is based. In accordance with the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, any person requiring special accommodations or an interpreter to participate at any of these meeting should contact the District Manager at (561) 630-4922 or toll-free 1-877-737-4922 at least seven (7) days prior to the date of the particular meeting. AVE MARIA STEWARDSHIP COMMUNITY DISTRICT PUBLISH: NAPLES DAILY NEWS 09/18/09 16 /1 /]4 VERONA WALK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 2 ., RECEIVED c/o Special District Services, Inc. 2501 Burns Road, Suite A DEe 15 2009 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 ROdld of Coun" Comm<SstOners (56 I) 630-4922 Fax: (561) 630-4923 November 13, 2009 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Clerk of the Circuit Court Dwight E. Brock Collier County Courthouse 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Building L, 6th Floor Naples, Florida 341 12 Re: Verona Walk Community Development District To Whom It May Concern: Pursuant to Florida Law, enclosed please find the Fiscal Year 2009-2010 (October I, 2009 - September 30,2010) Regular Meeting Schedule for the Verona Walk Community Development District, as published in the Naples Daily News on September 23, 2009. If you have any questions and/or comments, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICES, INC. l~W)A/-- Enclosure ~:: ~r~71 J-L! 0 Item #.lii[[ \'\j\ d- CopieS to 1611 A 2 , VERONA WALK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FISCAL YEAR 2009/2010 REGULAR MEETING SCHEDULE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of Supervisors of the Verona Walk Community Development District will hold Regular Meetings at 10:00 a.m. in the Town Center at Verona Walk located at 8090 Sorrento Lane, Naples, Florida 34114, on the following date: October 9, 2009 November 13, 2009 December 11, 2009 January 8, 2010 February 12,2010 March 12,2010 April 9, 2010 May 14,2010 June 11,2010 July 9, 2010 August 13,2010 September 10, 2010 The purpose of the meetings is to conduct any business coming before the Board. Meetings are open to the public and will be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Florida law. Copies of the Agendas for any of the meetings may be obtained by contacting the District Manager at (561) 630-4922 and/or toll free 1-877-737-4922 five (5) days prior to the date of the particular meeting. From time to time one or more Supervisors may participate by telephone; therefore, at the location of these meetings there will be a speaker telephone present so that interested persons can attend the meetings at the above location and be fully informed of the discussions taking place either in person or by telephone communication. Said meetings may be continued as found necessary to a date and time certain as stated on the record. I f any person decides to appeal any decision made with respect to any matter considered at these meetings, such person will need a record of the proceedings and such person may need to insure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made at his or her own expense and which record includes the testimony and evidence on which the appeal is based. In accordance with the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act, any person requiring special accommodations or an interpreter to participate at any of these meeting should contact the District Manager at (561) 630-4922 and/or toll free 1-877-737-4922 at least seven (7) days prior to the date of the particular meeting. VERONA WALK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PUBLISH: NAPLES DAILY NEWS 09/23/09 I V ~:~ 16 J 1 81 R~CEIVED Henning DEe 0 2 2009 Coyle ~COLLIERCOUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY BoardofCountyComml8slon"", ColettaM-rNUTES OF REGULAR MONDAY, OCTOBER 12,2009 MEETING MEMBERS Byron Meade Michael Klein Dave Gardner Lloyd Byerhof PRESENT: Jim Murray Frank Secrest STAFF: Theresa Cook Jim Kenney Debi Mueller Debbie Brueggeman PUBLIC: Floyd Crews Penny Phillippi Tracy Crowe John Jones Mike Taylor Mark Minor Beth Jones Darrel Kehne Ted Brousso Pat Vanasse Bob Sorter 1. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Meeting called to order at 1 :00 p.m. A quorum was present throughout the meeting. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Klein made a motion to approve the agenda. Mr. Byerhof seconded, and the Agenda was approved by a 6-0 vote. IV. APPROVAL OF SEPTEMBER 14,2009 MINUTES Mr. Byerhof made a motion to approve the September 14, 2009 minutes. Mr. Murray seconded, and the September 14, 2009 minutes were approved unanimously. Following approval of September 14, 2009 minutes, Mr. Klein made a motion to move Agenda items V. Finance Report and Vi. Work Order/Agreements Status Report after the presentations, Agenda items VIi. through IX. Mr. Secrest seconded, and it was unanimously approved to move Agenda items V and VI until after Agenda items VI through IX. V. FINANCE REPORT FOR AUGUST 2009 Staff will provide the Authority information regarding fuel taxes at the November 9,2009 meeting. No action required. VI. WORK ORDER/AGREEMENTS STATUS REPORT The work order status report provides an update of the outstanding work orders and contracts/agreements, including payments made to date. No action required. VII. COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION The Collier County Sheriff Department provided an overview of their "T ee,",r~hallenge" program. The program consists off our (4) hours of class and eight (8) hou~fhands-on 0 \ driving. Students use their own vehicles and gas and receive certificates uP/M' Itllm #: \ Ie 1..( \ C~pies 10 CCAA Minutes October 12,2009 16 , 1 J Page 2 completion of the program. On Saturday, November 7, 2009, the hands-on driving portion of the Teen Driver Challenge course will utilize the Runway and Taxiway at the Everglades Airpark. The Sheriffs Department is working closely with the Airport Manager to ensure adherence to safe operating procedures. Mr. Klein made a motion that the Airport Authority approve and support the use of the Everglades Airpark for this activity. Mr. Gardner seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. VIII. GLIDERPRESENTATlON Mr. Ted Brousso provided a tutorial about glider/soaring contests, and a synopsis on the dynamics of gliding, tow planes and winch launches. He presented the possibility of holding a glider event at the Immokalee Regional Airport and provided the Authority with his contact information. No action required. IX. LAND DESIGN INNOVATIONS (LDI) PRESENT A TlON Mr. John Jones, Land Design Innovations, presented the concept of various stakeholders in Eastern Collier County, such as Collier Enterprises, Barron Collier, the Immokalee Community Redevelopment Center, the Economic Development Council Ave Maria, the Seminole Casino and/or the Immokalee Regional Airport, developing marketing materials as one united entity. He also provided samples and an overview ofLDI's capabilities. No action required. X. IMMOKALEE COMMUlTY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (CRA) IMMOKALEE BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CENTER (lBDC) PRESENT A TION Ms. Penny Phillippi, the Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency CRA, presented an overview ofthe proposed Immokalee Business Development Center (IBDC) and the necessary partnerships to help ensure success of the IBDC. As a part of the partnership, the Airport Authority is being asked to commit to providing space, receptionist services, and to maintaining the current level of outside landscaping/maintenance. Mr. Byerhof made a motion that the Airport Authority support the CRA's proposed IBDC. Mr. Klein seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. XI. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Updates and discussion of the following took place: USDA 20,000 Square-Foot Manufacturing Facilitv. The low bid is approximately $700,000. The bid award needs to be approved by the USDA. The Authority discussed the possibility of working with the low bidder/contractor to incorporate environmentally friendly features into the building. Mr. Byerhofwill be the Authority's liaison with the contractor and potential suppliers of environmentally friendly/green materials. XII. NEW BUSINESS Alternatives for acquiring the land necessary to extend Runway 9/27 at the Immokalee Regional Airport were discussed. The appraised for the 103 acres necessary for the near-term extension is approximately $1.2 Million. Ms. Cook will work with the County Attorney's Y: \AdministrationlAA Board\Minutes\/O-12-09 minutes. doer CCAA Minutes October 12,2009 16111 BJ j Page 3 office and Real Estate Services to draft an agreement for the purchase. of the land necessary for the near-term extension of Runway 9/27. The BCC approved advertising an amendment to Ordinance No. 2004-03, the Collier County Airport Authority Ordinance, to provide for the appointment of an alternate member to the Airport Authority Board on September 29,2009. Mr. Byerhofmade a motion to approve Resolution No.1 0-01 affirming the Executive Director's approval and execution ofURS Corporation Southern Work Ordcr with CCAA Tracking #URS-FT -3889-09-02 in the amount of $ I 0,000 for follow-on engineering and consulting services for the 1mmokalee Regional Airport Master Plan. Mr. Murray scconded, and Resolution No. 10-01 was approved unanimously. Mr. Murray made a motion to approve Resolution No. 10-02 affirming the Executive Director's approval and execution of URS Corporation Southern Work Order with CCAA Tracking #URS-FT-3889-09-03 in the amount of $18,500 for engineering services required for permitting the Marco Island Executive Airport Apron Expansion (North) and Parking Lot Relocation project. Mr. Gardner seconded, and Resolution No. 10-02 was approved unanimously. Mr. Klein made a motion to approve Resolution No. 10-03 approving and authorizing the Authority's Executive Director to execute Change Order #2 to Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. Work Order # QGM-FT-3969-08-02 in the amount of $20,015 for engineering consulting services required for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the Immokalce Regional Airport, increasing the total amount of the Work Order from $37,730 to $57,745. Mr. Byerhof seconded, and Resolution No. 10-03 was approvcd unanimously. Mr. Klein made a motion to approve Resolution No. 10-04 approving a DBE Goal of2.7 percent for FAA funded Airport Improvements Projects at the Immokalee Regional Airport during fiscal year 2010, and a DBE Goal of3.8 percent for FAA funded Airport Improvement Projects at the Marco Island Executive Airport during fiscal year 2010. Mr. Byerhofseconded, and Resolution No. 10-04 was approved unanimously. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was then adjourned "without objection." COLLIER COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY COLLIER C()~TY, FL A // //' ByrbnMeade,' h ./ L (/ ,?/c'e . - / Y: lAdministrationlAA BoardlMinutes\1 0-1 2-09 minutes,doer RECEIVED NOV 2 4 2009 Fiala Halas Henning Coyle . Coletta =.1E[<u'P 161182 . October 20, 2009 . f-<,-,arrj ot counry Cornmi.s$i0n6rs MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DOMESTIC ANIMAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, October 20, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Domestic Animal Services Advisory Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:30 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at Domestic Animal Services Resource Training Room, Davis Blvd., East Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Michele Antonia VICE CHAIRMAN: Marcia Breithaupt Dr. Ruth Eisele Sergeant David Estes Tom Kepp, Jr. Sabina Musci Jim Rich ALSO PRESENT: Amanda Townsend, Director ofDAS Kathlene Drew, DAS Volunteer Coordinator Nan Gerhardt, DAS Shelter Manager Hailey Alonso, DAS Administrative Assistant ::.~ I ;)-l.\t) Item#JIe"tU)~ 161182 ... October 20, 2009 I. Call to Order: Chairman Michele Antonia called the meeting to order at 6:35 P.M. II. Attendance: Roll call was taken and a quorum established III. Approval of Agenda: Add to Old Business: Ideas for Breeders- handout for future discussion (item G) Dr. Ruth Eisele Add to New Business: Proposed support to entities offering low-cost solutions to animal related issues (item B) - Amanda Townsend Marcia Breithaupt arrived at 6:37 pm. Sgt. David Estes moved to approve the Agenda, as amended. Second by Sabina Musc;. Carried unanimously, 7-0. IV. Approval of Minutes: September 15,2009 Corrections: Pg. 3 item C - Cat Coalition (spelling) Pg. 3 item C - 1st sentence- replace clarification with a report Pg. 3 item C, Pg. 4 last sentence and Pg. 5 under Speaker Michele Antoni! (spelling) Pg. 4 item VII I st sentence - clarification - the 50 cents refers to the euthanasia agent used not the cost to euthanize. Dr. Ruth Eisele moved to approve the minutes of September 15, 2009, as amended. Second by Jim Rich. Carried unanimously, 7-0. V. Old Business A. Directors Report Amanda Townsend: . Referred to two documents included in the information packets which she had been asked to prepare for the new County Manager, Leo Ochs. I. A "White Paper" on DAS Services which are mandated by the State versus those governed by local Ordinances and those which are elective Public Services. o A series of data and graphs ofa four-year snapshot of Departmental Statistics from FY '06 thru FY"09. o Preparation of a comprehensive financial and enforcement statistics package will presented next month for discussion. 2. A summary of adoption program animal outcomes over the last four years and a bulleted list of promotional efforts for adoptions. o 15% of all adoptions go to rescue groups (20% last year) She noted the data collection and reporting process was to help improve statistics and use them to make improvements as well as to make good decisions with business practices. . Asked the Board to review all documents for discussion for next month... 2 16 1,1 '1 B 2 October 20, 2009 . B. Departmental Statistics and Reports (September, 2009) Amanda Townsend provided the statistical graphs and reports for the past month, Review and discussion ofthe monthly statistics followed. Suggestion was made to provide the statistics on a quarterly basis rather than monthly; thereby providing a better evidence of trends. Jim Rich moved that the DAS statistical charts be provided quarterly instead of monthly. Second by Sgt. David Estes. Carried unanimously, 7-0. C. 2010 DAS Potential Projects (handout) Jim Rich distributed the list of Potential Projects showing the polled number of votes for each of the ten (10) Projects, providing the DASAB with a priority list for addressing the various issues. The prioritized list and its current status follows: . #1 Revised animal control ordinance to accommodate the practice ofTNR (trap neuter & release) Already submitted to BCC and looks to be implemented by January . #2 Improved enforcement (revise animal control ordinance to include anti- cruelty measures such as anti-chaining) In progress and looks to be implemented by January . #3 Support spay-neuter programs Too vague at this point and needs a plan . #4 Regulate dog and cat breeding Too vague at this point and needs a plan . #5 Improve licensing enforcement policies Already assigned to staff person as part of their action plan for the year . #6 Foster Program Item not wholly in DAS control. Consult needed with Risk Management . #7 Improve licensing process (Implement WebVet and WebLicensing services through Chameleon) Already assigned to staff person as part of their action plan for the year . #8 Offsite Adoptions Staff has several ideas to be discussed on this item . #9 Strengthen local pet lemon laws Too vague at this point and needs a plan . #10 Humane education program Already assigned to staff person as part of their action plan for the year Each item was discussed at length. The original votes of each Board Member were filed with staff. Shot clinics and their locations were discussed Six other voted items having lesser priority will be part of a longer-term, ongoing process. The 10 items above will be worked on simultaneously. Asked what the DASAB could do to assist staff in accomplishing the list of projects, Amanda said a vote for item VI A-2. New Business would be a good start. 3 1611 R 2 October 20, 2009 D. LDC Regulations regarding Animals Amanda Townsend, having consulted with the County Attorney's office will present a General Executive Summary proposing changes to three areas of the Animal Control Ordinance (finalized language and action plan to follow) to the BCC, for their direction, on their November 10, 2009 agenda. (Priority item #1 TNR). It will go into effect, upon BCC approval, January, 2010. Licensing fee policy for non-altered animals will be on the agenda for Nov 10. Added Agenda item B under New Business was discussed next as part of policy changes discussions. Amanda Townsend spoke about a proposal to the BCC for policy level decisions regarding publicly supporting entities offering low cost solutions to animal related issues. Discussed were: . Allowing promotion of vaccination and licensing at Spay & neuter and shot clinics; DAS issued 14,000 licenses last year. . If cost is a deterrent need, low-cost alternatives for licensing compliance . Officer in fields can promote low cost alternatives. . Encourage establishment of on-going relationships with local veterinarian . Rescuers sell license at adoption . Rabies shot required to get license -Questioned if physical exam is required Amanda will check into the last two items G. Added Agenda item (G) was discussed next with animal issues discussion. Dr. Ruth Eisele distributed a handout regarding some ideas for breeder regulations for the DASAB to review and comment on at the next meeting. She had met with several legitimate breeders for their input. An informative discussion ensued. Future input was requested. This item will be put on the November DASAB agenda. Amanda Townsend provided the DASAB with a copy of a Memorandum from Zoning and Land Development Director to her staff regarding an interpretation of 'kenneling" in the Estates area, as indicated in the LDC, for review and future comment. The three dog limit appears to be reversed, leaving DAS an issue with enforcement and with hoarding cases. E. Microchip Research Policy (handout) A Draft was distributed of Microchip Research stating the Policy, Effective date and Procedure regarding DAS efforts to re-unite impounded animals with their owners; and the micro-chip policies, taken from part of a larger project regarding the Shelter Manager Policy and Procedures Manual updating... 4 1611 B 2 October 20, 2009 F. Procedures for Advisory Committee Chairman Michele Antonia addressed the 2005 Procedures for Advisory Boards documents used by all County Advisory Boards. The items were reviewed and updated with the following changes proposed: Page 2 -Meeting Agenda item #8 - the 3rd sentence is to read: "Any advisory board member, in the case of an advisory board or a subcommittee member in the case of a subcommittee, may place an item on the agenda by submitting it to the staff liaison prior to the deadline for publishing the notice of such meeting. " Jim Rich moved to recommend adoption of the Procedures for Advisory Committee guidelines to include the amended proposed changes. Second by Tom Kepp. Carried unanimously, 7-0. VI. New Business: A. Proposed Changes to the Animal Control Ordinance 1. Replace Three Person Panel with Special Magistrate for Dangerous Dog Appeals Process Amanda explained the benefits of this change followed by a brief discussion. Sgt. David Estes moved to recommend approval to remove the three person panel and assign the Dangerous Dog Appeals process to the Special Magistrate. Second by Marcia Breithaupt. Carried unanimously, 7-0. 2. Accommodate the Practice of Trap, Neuter and Return of Feral Cats Dr. Ruth Eisele moved to recommed approval to accommodate the practice of Trap, Neuter and Return (TNR) offeral cats. Second by Tom Kepp. Carried unanimously, 7-0. 3. Include additional Anti-Cruelty Provisions, including Anti-Chaining Brief discussion and explanations of anti-chaining followed. ~. rCl!.'!trak/Marcia Breithaupt moved to recommend approval to include in the AnimaK,Ordinance, additional Anti-Cruelty Provisions, including Anti- Chain mg. Second by Tom Kepp. Carried unanimously, 7-0. Amanda Townsend noted the added agenda item B. under New Business previously discussed could be voted upon should the DASAB choose to take a vote. Tom Kepp moved to recommend approval to propose support of entities offering low cost solutions to animal related issues to the BCe. Second by Jim Rich. Motion passed 6-0. Dr. Ruth Eisele abstained due to a conflict of interest. 5 16 11 B 2 October 20, 2009 VII. Public Comments Kelly Fox . Spoke about VSA shots at stores and asked if not having an exam would preclude a dog from getting a rabies shot or put it in jeopardy. Dr. Ruth Eisele responded it would not. . Encouraged giving referrals to spay & neuter clinic since it's a one time event. Then stress the need for a veterinarian for future life ofthe pet. . Education and adoption should be at top of the priority list. . Questioned why citation not given as well as surrender of four puppies Amanda responded it's the Officers discretion and was in accordance with the Animal Control Ordinance. A second complaint will result in a citation . Breeder's licenses - check on breeders annually to assure compliance. . Herding dog - selected for euthanasia good reason . Asked about tracking records for adoption per animal, how many times put out from adoption and when selected by staff for euthanization Amanda responded detailed records are kept on all animals. Every effort is taken to promote adoptions. Several criteria are used prior to euthanization... VIII. Advisory Board Members Comments Marcia Breithaupt stated the discounted training discount certificates donated for adopt a dog month incentive packages may be passed out to anyone. Also, Jeannie Bates, a dog trainer, has offered to evaluate the in-house Labrador as a possible service or therapy dog. Tom Kepp asked Amanda to provide a follow-up of additional infractions after warnings were given out. The next meeting of the Domestic Animal Advisory Board is December 16,2008. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 8:38 P.M. Collier County Domestic Animal Services ffbM ~c/1A--- CIiair n Michele An~ a These minutes approved by the Board/Committee on as presented or as amended 1/. /J//7/6f I I 6 1611 83 Citizen Corps Advisory Committee Agenda July 15, 2009 3:00 Pledge of Allegiance -Opening Remarks -Roll Call Chairman Sheriff's Office CERV USCGA Red Cross Chamber of Commerce Fire Chiefs CERT CAP Veterans Council RSVP Salvation Army EMS EM City urNaples Oeveland Clinic Health Dept Everglades City NCH Medical Examiner City of Marco Island Neighborhood Watch 3:05 Approval of Minutes Chairman! Representative 3:10 Threat Update Lt. Jones 3:15 New Business Chairman/Representative . Hazard Mitigation Plan Rick Zyvoloski . Shelter Managers Jim von Rinteln . Community Organizations Joe Frazier Active in Disasters . Community Preparedness Toolkit Joe Frazier . Exercise Suiter II 3:50 Old Business Chairman/Representative 4:00 Next Meeting/Adjourn Chairman/Representative (19 August, 2009) Misc. Corres: Dati: D t { L ')-1 ( 0 Item.. \,lR Il DB ~ ("..opies to: 3:00 3:05 3: 10 3:15 3:50 4:00 Citizen Corps Advisory Committee Agenda August 19,2009 Pledge of Allegiance -Opening Remarks -Roll Call Sheriffs Office CERV lJSCGA Red Cross Chamber of Commerce EMS EM City of Naples Cleveland Clinic Health Bept Everglades City "ell Approval of Minutes Threat Update New Business Chairman Fire Chiefs CERT CAP Veterans Council RSVP Salvation Army Medical Examiner Cit)' ofJ\1arco Island l\eighbnrhood Watch Chairman Lt. Jones Chairman . Mass Vaccination Plan . Weather Update Joe Frazier Joe Frazier Old Business Chairman . Community Organizations Active in Disasters Judy Scribner Next Meeting/Adjourn (16 September, 2009) Chairman 16 III 83. ~ Citizen Corps Advisory Committee Agenda 16 September, 2009 3:00 Pledge of Allegiance -Opening Remarks -Roll Call Vice-Chairman Sheriff's Office CERV USCGA Red Cross Chamber of Commerce Fire Chiefs CERT CAP Veterans Council RSVP Salvation Army EMS EM City of Naples Cleveland Clinic Health Dept Everglades City NCH Medical Examiner City of Marco Island Neighborhood Watch 3:05 Approval of Minutes Vice-Chairman 3:10 Threat Update Lt. Jones 3:15 New Business Vice-Chairman . Citizen Corps Conference Vice- Chairman . Mass Vaccination Plan Joe Frazier . Collier HINl Update Joe Frazier . LMS Program Joe Frazier . CC Term Expirations Joe Frazier 3:50 Old Business Vice-Chairman . Community Organizations Vice-Chairman Active in Disasters 4:00 Next Meeting/Adjourn (21 October, 2009) Vice-Chairman 16/11 83 Fiala Halas Henning Coyle ~ llit Ti Voting ~m~rs Present I v 183 Collier County Citizen Corps Advisory Committee July 15,2009 RECEIVED NOV 2 3 2009 Lt. Mike Jones, Collier County Sheriff's Office Doug Porter, Naples Civil Air Patrol Deborah Horvath, American Red Cross Walter Jaskiewicz, Coast Guard Auxiliary James Elson, Collier County Veterans Council Captain Castillo, Salvation Army Boalll of County Commlssion8lll Voting Members Absent: (Excused Absence) Reg Buxton, Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce Jerry Sanford, North Naples Fire Floyd Chapin, Community Emergency Response Volunteers Russell Rainey, Community Emergency Response Team Expert Consultants Present: Joe Frazier, Collier County Emergency Management Kathleen Marr, Department of Health Maria Ramos, Salvation Army Jared Berthelsen, Boy Scouts of America Voting Members Absent: (Non-Excused Absence) Meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m. by Walt Jaskiewicz, who chaired the meeting in Reg Buxton's absence. Pledge of Allegiance recited and roll call taken. Approval of Minutes Motion to accept the minutes of the June 17,2009 meeting made by Walt, and seconded by Debbie Horvath. Approved unanimously. Threat U odate Per Lt. Jones, we are still at the Elevated Threat (Yellow) at the National level. For domestic and international travel, it is at High level (Orange). Recommend everyone remain vigilant. New Business Hazard Mitigation Plan Per Rick Zyvoloski, a public meeting was held yesterday at the new Library, and a meeting will be held at the Ag Center tomorrow. This is for folks to request any changes. The regular quarterly meeting will be held on Friday at 9 a.m. on the second floor of this building. There has not been a large attendance to these meetings. Shelter Managers Jim vonRinteln discussed the need for shelter managers. Debbie said this is crucial. Jim V. explained that there is a difference between shelter managers and shelter helpers. When we have multiple shelters opened for multiple emergencies, people get worn out because we have so few people. If you know 2 or 3 people who might be interested in helping with the shelters, please contact Debbie. This is an excellent opportunity for people to make a difference. Typically we open about 15 shelters, and we have teams for these, but no extra help. Each shelter has a shelter manager, a number of helpers, a sheriff's deputy, and an EMS person. The principal, vice-principal and facility manager of the school are also there. We need people who are in charge, and who are available during a storm or other emergency. Red l;<<il!'~ponsible for Date ___ .__ _____.._____ Item # 16:/ Ji-',B3 managing and running the shelters. It's not an easy job, but it is fulfiliing. Debbie wili be doing a commercial to ask for help. Community Organizations Active in Disasters Joe Frazier said Judy Scribner from Coliier County EM is trying to bring ali volunteer groups under one umbrella, where they are and what their response would be and how we can interact with them during emergencies. There was some discussion at the last Citizen Corps meeting about this program, that we might become one of the flagship programs. Be thinking about this. This is a community program in Leon County. Look at strengths and weaknesses and decide where we want to go with this. This group would take on the responsibility of bringing all the various organizations together in times of need. Many are faith-based organizations. Need to have the various groups with an overseeing body. Joe will send the link to all in order to see what Leon County is doing. At a subsequent meeting, a vote can be taken to see what this group wants to do. It was suggested that each organization put together bullet points as to what they can bring to a disaster. Per Walt, we should not "reinvent the wheel". Debbie Horvath suggested that Judy may have this information already. Joe will check on this and bring to next meeting. Community Preparedness Toolkit Joe read a statement from President Obama regarding this program. He made copies and emailed this information as well. The tool recommends that volunteers go out and urge others to volunteer as well. Take a look at it and decide if you would like to use it - we may want to discuss this at the next meeting. Exercise Suiter II Per Joe, key players were brought in to participate in this exercise. An exercise design program was used - this design proved useful with the Pandemic exercise. This program helped to familiarize people with the technology we have in the new EOC. A follow up exercise will be held August 5th for Band C teams (the one done previously was for the A team). Exercise worked on disaster recovery, response, preparations, etc. This is an incredible facility, and we are still working out any bugs. We feel confident that if we have an event, that everyone wili have a level of comfort here and will do their very best. Rick put together some thought-provoking questions together for this, and Jim von Rinteln said that there were thoughtful responses to the exercises. Old Business Debbie asked about the article for the newspaper - she expects to see hers in July or August. Joe's was an introductory article regarding Citizen Corps. Jim V has volunteered to write a 250 word article asking for shelter management volunteers. Other Joe printed out the first few pages of the Citizen Corps webpage because it has some good information. It brings into focus what the Citizen Corps is all about and their partnership with FEMA and DHS. Joe introduced Jared Berthelsen, who is working on a merit badge (Citizenship in the Community) by attending a public meeting. Welcome to the meeting! Kathleen Marr had handouts on the HlNl virus (swine flu). As of June 11th we are officially in a pandemic, which is a worldwide epidemic. The swine flu is a different influenza, so this one is being referred to as HlNl influenza. It is circulating in our community at low levels. 94,512 confirmed cases have been documented worldwide, with 429 deaths. In Florida, there are 1,781 confirmed cases with 7 deaths. Internationally about two-thirds of the deaths were due to pre- existing conditions. An epidemiology report was shared. The CDC is determining if this vaccine is ready to be made available for the entire population. We will know the end of this month how much of the vaccine will be made available and how it might be distributed. Kathleen will try to attend the Citizen Corps meetings monthly in order to give an update. She strongly recommends simple infection control, including hand-washing and alcohol hand sanitizing. It's an easy way to ward off germs. Indirect transmission would include shaking someone's hand, coughing into your hand, etc. and not washing. The pandemic flu website is combined with other sites in the country. The site is www.flu.gQ.\! and is a one-stop site. You can click on the State of Florida and to the Health Department's site for local information. With this flu, a person is pretry sick for about a week. The flu season is starting south of the equator right now. We are lucky that for the most part this has been a moderate illness; the concern is that it comes back stronger. The vaccine is being put through a very lengthy trial period before being released to the public. Kathleen has heard that it is a two-part vaccine, with two injections being 4 received 2-3 weeks apart. This is in addition to your seasonal flu vaccine. Since this is a n'ew flu, none of us has any natural immunity to it. Clusters of outbreaks are being investigated. The larger states with the flu are Texas, New York, Illinois, Wisconsin, and California, and the biggest county in our state has been Dade, because of the population. Walt shared some slides on the Incident Command System from Charleston, South Carolina and how it is being used in the Coast Guard. They work with local law enforcement and Chamber of Commerce, among others. 1.6 ,i 1 B~ Next Meeting/Adjourn Next meeting is scheduled for August 19"' at 3 p.m. at the ESC building. Motion to adjourn the meeting at 3:50 p.m. made by Jim Elson and seconded by Doug Porter. Approved unanimously. A tour of the new ESC followed. Minutes submitted by Mary Ann Cole. Approved by Chair: tG-L41 avj~ Re g B uxt1'n ////t/~( Date l6 III 83 Basic Epidemiology Report 2009 H1N1 Swine Influenza, Collier County Cases reported as of 5:00 p.m. July 8, 2009 Confirmed Cases by Age, Collier County, as of July 8, 2009 20 .. ill 15 .. <) - o 10 ~ " .c E 5 " z o 0-4 5-24 25-64 65+ Age Group Confirmed Cases by Age, Gender, and Outcome, Collier County, as of July 8, 2009 I Age II Female II Male I Hospitalized Deaths I N II N II N II N I N 0-4 I 4 I 2 2 1 0 5-24 18 4 14 0 0 25-64 12 6 6 0 0 65+ I 2 I 1 1 I 0 I 0 Total I 36 I 13 23 I 1 I 0 www.tallahassee.comIPrinter-friendly article page Page 1 of I Tallahasssees@ocom 16/1 83 June 13, 2009 COAD guides disaster efforts By Matt Gilmour DEMOCRAT STAFF WRiTER The May 28 "Hurricane Unison" training exercise, which helped prepare local agencies for hurricane season, was just one function of Big Bend Community Organizations Active in Disaster. Coordinator Chris Floyd envisions COAD as a "one-stop shop" for disaster preparedness and recovery. "We're still developing an action plan, but my personal mission is for COAD to provide the leadership to make the region the most disaster-ready in the country," Floyd said. COAD was formed a year ago when VolunteerLeon, the Leon County Sheriffs Office Division of Emergency Management and the city of Tallahassee Emergency Management saw the need to bring together such community partners as churches, volunteer groups, the Red Cross and Ability1 st in a disaster planning, preparedness and response role. 'What we were finding out in previous events is that we had these resources out there, but they weren't always coordinating with each other or with our Emergency Operations Center," Leon County Emergency Management Director Richard Smith said. "That resulted in some areas being over- served and some not being served at all." Floyd, the former director of emergency services for the Capital Area Chapter of the American Red Cross, was approached about a leadership role in COAD. He accepted the volunteer position in December 2008. "My role is to bring everybody together, assess what everybody can do, find out what our strengths and weaknesses are, and figure out what we're going to do to strengthen and enhance the coordination and cooperation between organizations," Floyd said. COAD applied for and received $25,000 in grant funding from the Volunteer Florida Foundation, primarily to assess long-term recovery issues for Tropical Storm Fay victims. Floyd said the group is looking for other grant opportunities, since it doesn't receive funds from the city or county. Smith said that in the event of a disaster, COAD would be represented by Floyd in the Emergency Operations Center. "2-1-1 Big Bend will take the calls and route those requests to (Floyd), who then assigns them to the agency that is most suited to meet that need," Smith said. "He'll also be responsible for making sure that the mission is completed." Floyd said there are 15 to 20 similar groups - normally called Volunteer Organizations Active in Disaster _ in Florida. COAD is working in the community to identify individuals who should be on county special needs registries, seeking the involvement of groups like the Council of Neighborhood Associations and the Apalachee Center, and building a management team of volunteers. Those interested in helping can reach Fioyd at 241-3565 or visit volunteerleon.org/coad. _..',,-,._- -"'"~"'--""-" -"'~'._-" ,_.. -- ,-"""...._."._,,-._- ~'" --.-, -',,- http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.diVarticle? AID=/20090613/NEWSO 1/906130316&1... 7/15/2009 l6/i 1 83 FrazierJoseph From: Sent: To: Subject: vonrintelnj Wednesday, July 15, 20097:53 AM Frazier Joseph FW: Citizen Corps News: New Community Preparedness Toolkit Available on Serve.gov From: FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) [mailto:fema@service.govdelivery.comj Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 7:46 PM To: vonrintelnj Subject: Citizen Corps News: New Community Preparedness Toolkit Available on Serve.gov This summer, President Obama is calling on Americans to participate in our nation's recovery and renewal by volunteering in our local communities. To encourage individuals to volunteer and develop their own "do-it-yourself' projects that can help prepare communities for disasters, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Citizen Corps have teamed up with the Corporation for National and Community Service to provide a Community Preparedness Toolkit on Serve.gov. Research conducted by FEMA on disaster preparedness shows that many people who believe themselves "prepared" for disasters often aren't as prepared as they think. Our nation's emergency managers, firefighters, law enforcement officers, EMTlparamedics, and other emergency responders do an incredible job of keeping us safe, but they can't do it alone. We must all embrace our individual responsibility to be prepared, as well as assist our family and friends. This new Community Preparedness Toolkit helps citizens create a service project to prepare their family, friends, neighbors, and colleagues for disasters in their local community. For more information and to download the toolkit, visit http://www . serve. qov /tool kits/disaste rl. This news story and other Community Preparedness news, including Citizen Corps Bulletins, can be found on our website at htfp://wwwcitizencorpsqov/' Sincerely, The National Office of Citizen Corps FEMA Community Preparedness Division .__..._...~."_.._.,..,, _ ,.,,_.,...~,_~~,~... ...._.._.,. .'"......,.._..... w ... ....__,~__,_,_._,._._,,___.._"'...'"_ ...., ,~,_".'__""_' ,_"M.._'".._ _ Update Your E-mail Address I Sian UP for CERT PrOQram Uodates I Unsubscribe Subscribe to receive alerts durinq disasters in your state. Privacy Policv I GovDelivery is providing this infonnation on behalf of U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and may not use the information for any other purposes. FEMA us Department of Homeland Security V\/ashillgton DC 20472 1 l80]) 621 FElvlJ\ r33G2': 1 . 16 III '83 ~ " ~:' " _ j ~:"'! .- _0, \;"~~,, ~;Uc ..."/:rr",f~'~ .c ,...- ". ~" TOOLKITS ,. " " !' , . Community Renewal: Community Preparedness COMMUNITY PREPAREDNESS: THE FACTS Research on preparedness shows that people who believe themselves uprepared" for disasters often aren't as prepared as they think. 40 percent of survey respondents did not have household plans, 80 percent had not conducted home evacuation drills, and nearly 60 percent did not know their community's evacuation routes. Nearly 20 percent of survey respondents reported having a disability that would affect their capacity to respond to an emergency situation, but shockingly only one out of four of them had made arrangements specific to their disability to heip them respond safely in the event of an emergency. Our nation's emergency managers, firefighters, law enforcement officers, EMT/paramedics, and other emergency responders do an incredible job of keeping us safe, but they can't do it alone. We must all embrace our individual responsibility to be prepared - in doing so, we contribute to the safety and security of the nation as well. Becoming more prepared in case of an emergency is easier than you might think. Whether it's your home, your neighborhood, your place of business, or your schooi, you can take a few simple steps to prepare your community. This toolkit gives you the basics for getting started. Provided by the Corporation for National and Community Service 1611J B~ , > GETTING STARTED While no two projects will be the same, successful projects will share a few common practices. We encourage you to incorporate the following elements into your service project: . Create a team with your friends and neighbors to share the effort; . Set outcome-based goals and track your progress to those goals; . Celebrate your successes together. The Challenge: Many community-based organizations do not have enough capacity to manage a large number of volunteers, so they need you to organize yourself in coordination with them. This tool kit is designed to either help you organize a group and be a positive addition to a community- based organization, or, if such an organization does not exist, to be a well-organized independently-run group that fills a needed gap in the community. A step-by-step guide to getting started and executing service activities follows. Please let us know how your project goes and what you learn by telling your story at Serve.gov. STEP ONE: PREPARE YOURSELF AND IDENTIFY LOCAL RESOURCES Check out which organizations are already helping in your area. Many have identified community needs and built the expertise to provide solutions, and there may already be an active volunteer group that you could join. Here are several ways to identify local groups and volunteer opportunities: . Visit www.CitizenCorps.gov to find local Citizen Corps Councils, USAonWatch (Neighborhood Watch) groups, Community Emergency Response Teams (CERD, Fire Corps programs, Volunteers in Police Service (VIPS) programs, and Medical Reserve Corps (MRC) units. Ask them what you can do to prepare and train yourself and your community for disasters and how to get involved locally. . Contact local chapters of Citizen Corps Affiliates, such as the American Red Cross and National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster for local disaster preparedness and response service opportunities. Be sure to ask the organization for items they might need. STEP TWO: BUILD A TEAM Teams can help share the work, motivate members, and hold each other accountable. Teams build community. Ask your family, friends, colleagues, neighbors, and faith group members to serve with you. . Host a house meeting or potluck to choose a project, set goals, recruit volunteers and plan next steps. . Get a guide for hosting a house meeting. . Post your service activity on Serve.gov to recruit new volunteers. Provided by the Corporation for National and Community Service STEP THREE: SET A GOAL Z 6ft J B 3 Set a service goal for June 22 - September 11 and hold yourself accountable. Fin\ out what your partner organization needs and then work to fill that need. For example, commit as individuals and as a team to helping at least three people who may need additional assistance in preparing for emergencies (including the frail, elderly, individuals with disabilities, and others with special needs). Set your goals high to stretch yourself. Then keep track of how you are doing and designate someone to be responsible for updating the group on how you are progressing toward your goals. You'll be surprised at how much you can do when you commit, focus, and follow through. . Get a goal-setting guide. STEP FOUR: SERVE YOUR COMMUNITY The key to effective service is planning. Organize your materials, make confirmation calls and, if you have time, read supplemental materials before you volunteer. . Get a tip sheet for your service activity. . There are over 2,300 Citizen Corps Councils throughout the country, each of which is based in a town, a city, or a county. You can find a Citizen Corps Council near you or learn more about the work they're doing at www.citizencorps.gov. STEP FIVE: REPORT AND CELEBRATE SUCCESSES Your team members, the community, and the President want to know about your successes and hear your stories. Share your accomplishments by reporting your results. We will highlight the best stories throughout the summer. Tell us about your successes and what you have learned, or just tell your story of service at Serve.gov. Provided by the Corporation for National and Community Service 16 11~:,'f B 3 FOllOW UP SPREAD THE SERVICE . After every event, thank your volunteers and sign them up for the next event. When you help others prepare, ask them to "pay it forward" by talking to their friends and family about the importance of preparing, training, and drills. Provided by the Corporation for National and Community Service 16/1 83 FINDING lOCAL PARTNERS: COMMUNITY PREPAREDNESS Check out the organizations already doing good work. Many existing service groups have identified community needs and have built the expertise to provide solutions. A few phone calls or scanning a few websites can produce all the information you need to know about your options. . Visit www.CitizenCorps.gov to find local Citizen Corps Councils, USAonWatch (Neighborhood Watch) teams, Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT), Fire Corps units, Volunteers in Police Service (VIPS) units, and Medical Reserve Corps (MRC) units and ask them what you can do to prepare and train yourself and your community for disasters. . You can also get in touch with your local fire department, police department, paramedics, or emergency management agency to discuss ways to prepare your community and improve its capacity to respond to and recover from disaster. . Contact local chapters of Citizen Corps Affiliates, such as the American Red Cross and National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster for local disaster preparedness and response service opportunities. Be sure to ask the organization for items they might need. Find more information at: http://www.citizencorps.gov/programs/affiliate.shtm. . Once you've identified the appropriate community-based organizations, search their website or give them a call to see how you can help, or how you can better prepare yourself and your community. provided by the Corporation for National and Community Service 16 I IftJ ;~, 83 SAMPLE PHONE SCRIPT: Hi, my name is _______ and I'm interested in supporting the great work your organization is doing. Some friends and I would like to volunteer to support community safety I disaster preparedness. May I speak with your volunteer coordinator? · What kind of volunteer opportunities do you have for local residents? . If I organize a group of my friends to volunteer with me, how many volunteers can you take? . Can you help us sponsor an event that promotes preparedness, a forum that encourages people to discuss disaster preparedness and response and to exchange information, or help us organize a drill or exercise? . Would you be able to send a representative to our event? . How can I volunteer to help make sure others in the community are prepared too? We are particularly interested in helping those who have special needs, such as the frail elderly, individuals with disabilities, those who do not speak Engiish, children, and pets. Remember to keep track of who you have contacted so you can follow up as necessary. You can use the chart below or create one that fits your project. Group name Contact name Contact number Volunteer Activities # of vols nee~ Provided by the Corporation for National and Community Service 16 I 1 83 , HOUSE MEETINGS House meetings are a valuable tactic for recruiting volunteers and building a team. House meetings allow community members to share their concerns and join together to work for progress. Within the room, you already have all the tools you need to enact change on a local level. Every attendee can contribute time or resources or leadership abilities. Your house meeting will help you identify your ieadership team. The people that are committed enough to come to your house meeting should be considered potential leaders of the initiatives being implemented in their communities. As a house meeting host, invite people from your social network to participate in a discussion about your community, pressing needs, and potential solutions. House meetings often engage people new to service and unclear about next steps. Serving with the support of a team will increase the ease and comfort of many new volunteers. Building community through house meetings is a critical step toward the President's ultimate goal, which is to support everyday Americans in a grass roots effort to improve lives and strengthen communities. Provided by the Corporation for National and Community Service FOllOW UP SPREAD THE SERVICE . Alter every event, thank your volunteers and sign them up for the next event. Provided by the Corporation for National and Community Service 16/1 83 GOALS AND DUTIES GOALS . Choose and plan a service project for the summer. . Set measurable group and personal goals for your United We Serve project. . Identify 5 attendees to be team leaders. . Plan the next meeting of the leadership team and identify next steps for each leader. . Obtain commitments from all attendees to volunteer on a regular basis from June 22- September 11. HOST DUTIES BEFORE . To have 20 people attend, you will need to invite 50. Brainstorm a list of 50 people to invite. Include your friends, family, members of your faith group, colleagues, book club attendees, etc. . Make calls to the 50 people on your list to invite them to your house meeting. Remember that phone calls are much more effective than a mass email. . Post your house meeting on Serve.gov and invite local residents interested in volunteering to attend. . Browse Serve.gov to see what needs in your community aren't being met and which organizations you might be able to partner with. Take some preliminary steps to identify local partners already working in the community. . Prepare necessary materials. DURING . Be prepared to give a short explanation of why you became involved/what inspired you to serve. . Consider how you most want to serve your community. President Obama has identified four target areas for summer service: health, education, community renewal, and energy and environment. What does your community most need? AFTER . Thank attendees and get their pledge to serve this summer. . Organize a follow-up volunteer leadership meeting with your new team to take next steps. Provided by the Corporation for National and Community Service -._---- HOUSE MEETING PLANNER I 16 1 ~.,. Use this brainstorm sheet to think of those you want to invite, including those who have never volunteered before or may be new to Untied We Serve. I Name Phone # Invited Committed C (YjN) (YjN) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. .9. 10. 11. 12. . 13. onfirmed (YjN) Provided by the Corporation for National and Community Service Notes , . B3 Alt- ~ 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 16/1 83 Provided by the Corporation for National and Community Service 1611 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 4S. 46. 47. Provided by the Corporation for National and Community Service . I 83 48. ; 6 J lBf3 49. so. ~ Name: Please print the invitee's full name. Invite: Please mark yes, no, maybe or left message (LM). This will help you track who you need to contact and who you should be calling for confirmation. The only real invitations are when you speak with someone directly. Commit: Please mark yes, no or maybe. Confirm: Please mark yes, no or left message (LM). You'll need to call every invitee who said yes or maybe, and every invitee who only got a left message. Please do not assume that anybody will come without a confirmation the day before your meeting. It can't hurt to give people a quick reminder, and you need to know how many people will be at your meeting to make that meeting as effective and enjoyable as possible. Provided by the Corporation for National and Community Service -,.--. - '- - __.__'O__."._.w'_._._,_.____n'___ HOUSE MEETING AGENDA U"'Before starting the meeting, have everyone sign in and appoint a timekeeper who will keep each section running on time."'*'* 0:00-0:10 HOST WELCOME AND INTRODUCTION . Host of the meeting introduces themselves and welcomes attendees. . Host shares why (s)he was inspired to organize the house meeting and the purpose of the meeti ng. 0:10-0:25 ATTENDEE INTRODUCTIONS . Go around the room and ask each person to introduce themselves and share their reason for wanting to serve this summer. 0:25-0:45 CHOOSE A PROJECT . Host introduces three or four project ideas and opens up the room for discussion. . Discuss what projects will work best in your community. . Group votes on project choice. 0:4S-0:55 SET GOALS AND IDENTIFY LEADERSHIP . Ask which attendees are interested in being volunteer leaders - they should stay after the meeting for 15 minutes and commit to a weekly planning meeting from June 22 - September 11. . Ask each attendee to consider personal summer goals and make a realistic but ambitious summer commitment. 0:55-1 :00 CONCLUSION . At the end of the meeting, the group should have: o At least one project to commit to for the summer. o A leadership team. o Pledges from each attendee to participate. 1 :00-1 :15 LEADERSHIP TEAM MEETING . Meet with volunteer leaders to set weekly meeting and divide responsibilities. . Fill out attached worksheets. Provided by the Corporation for National and Community Service . . SETTING GOALS: COMMUNITY PREPAREDNESS individuals must take seriously the responsibility of being prepared to survive for three days on their own, to create evacuation and shelter plans for themselves and their families, and to get out of harm's way when necessary. Citizens must be engaged and educated about what they should expect from their government during emergencies as well as what the government expects from them in the form of advance preparation and responsible action. Community safety and personal preparedness is vital to the overall preparedness of the United States, and its ability to withstand and recover from natural disasters, man-made emergencies, economic downturns, and terrorist attacks. Provided by the Corporation for National and Community Service .....~~-,..~, , ---' ----..-' .'-"--' ....... ,.,., 1611 B3 SET CONCRETE GOALS Setting goals helps you be accountable to yourself and also increases accountability within a group. Clear goals at the beginning of a project will also help you determine how your project will work and what role group members can play. Once goals are set, you can track your progress, compare your results with other group members, and figure out what works best so everyone can meet (or exceed) their goals. Set a service goal for June 22 - September 11 and hold yourself accountable. After you have prepared yourself and your family, commit as an individual and as a team to help others: . Help at least three people who may need additionai assistance in preparing for emergencies (including the frail elderly, individuais with disabilities, and others with special needs). . Conduct a safety drill at home, at work, at school, or at your house of worship. . Take a training class in lifesaving skills (CPR, first aid) or emergency response (CERD. . Volunteer to heip your local emergency responders. Any of these activities get us one step closer to a safer and more resilient nation. Set your goals high to stretch yourself. Then keep track of how you are doing and have someone responsible for updating the group on how you are progressing toward your goals. You'll be surprised at how much you can do when you commit, focus, and follow through. Get involved in National Preparedness Month activities in your community. Then keep your commitment. Let's see what we can do together' . As an individual, I will commit to preparing myself and my family this summer, including creating a family disaster plan and making sure there are emergency supply kits at my home, my place of work, and in my car. . As a team, we will assemble ___ emergency supply kits for others this summer. . As an individual, I will talk to ___ friends, family members, neighbors, and co-workers about our personal responsibility to be prepared. . As a team, we will commit to ___ number of hours volunteering in disaster preparedness and response over the summer. . As a team, we will organize ___ disaster drills for evacuating and sheltering-in-place this summer. . As an individual, I will complete ___ training in life saving skills this summer. . As a team, we will learn about the threats most likely to affect our community this summer. Provided by the Corporation for National and Community Service " 16 III 83 TRACK PROGRESS TOWARD GOAL Track Progress Toward Your Goals . Set a weekly or biweekly deadline to report progress. For example, "Our team will report progress every Friday. The person responsible for reporting results for your team is ________." . Make sure every group member is in the loop. Designate a group member to track and share the results. For example, "Our team will share our progress with all members byemail/phone calls every week. The person responsible for sharing progress is _________." . Keep track of your progress. Score sheets like the one below can be helpful. # of Community Members # Hou rs # Hours # Week Volunteered as Volunteered as Volunteers Prepared for Disaster individual Team Active I June 22 . June 29 . July 6 July 13 . July 20 July 27 . August 3 . August 1 0 . , August 17 , . August 24 Provided by the Corporation for Nationaf and Community Service ---.. ,.-'.-----.., ........ '--'- . . . ColeMaryAnn Subject: Attachments: FW: Advisory Committee's Mileage Reimbursement IPS Adv Board Mileage memo.docx; BLANK Mileage Reimbursement Form.doc; MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT ex sum 10-14-08.pdf; Reso 2008-341 Mileage Reimbursement.pdf; MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT RATES.xlsx From: filson s Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 11;00 AM To: BosiMichael; BrownAraqueSummer; CookTheresa; DanielsTerri; DunnBob; flagg_d; FrenchJames; GreenKelly; GreenwoodThomas; hambright_g; IstenesSusan; JacksonDavid; KrumbineMarcy; lorenz_w; matthesmarilyn; McAlpinGary; McCaughtryMary; McLaughlinAlan; mott_t; mudd-J; OssorioMichael; page-J; Phillippipenny; rodriguez_r; SchmittJoseph; SheffieldMichael; sillery_t; sulecki_a; SummersDan; townsendamanda; vonrinteln-J; WilllamsBarry; ZoneMelissa Cc: PriceLen; mudd-J Subject: Advisory Committee's Mileage Reimbursement Staff Liaisons, REMINDER: ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT On November 18, 2008 the Collier County Board of County Commissioners passed Resolution #08-341 authorizing the reimbursement of mileage expenses for Advisory Board members who travel in excess of 20 miles round trip to attend regularly scheduled Advisory Board meetings. To request reimbursement, please follow the instructions below. 1. Complete the attached form clearly and legibly using one line for each regularly scheduled meeting attended on or after the effective date above. There is no need to complete the column for Reimbursement Rate or Amount requested. 2. Attach a copy of a map indicating the driving distance to and from each meeting. Only one copy of the map to or from each location is required. Maps can be obtained and printed using any computer generated map program such as Mapquest, Yahoo, or Google Maps. 3. At the last meeting prior to July 31 of each year, submit the completed form to the Advisory Board Liaison for processing. Checks will be mailed to the address shown on the form no later than October 31". 4. Incomplete or illegible forms will be returned unprocessed. PLEASE SUBMITTO SUE FILSON PRIOR TO JULY 31ST. Sue :Jifson 'Executive :Manager, 'BCC (239) 252-8606 phone (239) 252-6406 fax suefi[son@comergov.net 1 __ ._"__~__"_._m__ .. ---.'...---- - .......- "._".,. - '-".-~- ........- .......----.., ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT On November 18, 2008 the Collier County Board of County Commissioners passed Resolution #08-341 authorizing the reimbursement of mileage expenses for Advisory Board members who travel in excess of 20 miles round trip to attend regularly scheduled Advisory Board meetings. To request reimbursement, please follow the instructions below. 1. Complete the attached form clearly and legibly using one line for each regularly scheduled meeting attended on or after the effective date above. There is no need to complete the column for Reimbursement Rate or Amount requested. 2. Attach a copy of a map indicating the driving distance to and from each meeting. Only one copy of the map to or from each location is required. Maps can be obtained and printed using any computer generated map program such as Mapquest, Yahoo, or Google Maps. 3. At the last meeting prior to July 31 of each year, submit the completed form to the Advisory Board liaison for processing. Checks will be mailed to the address shown on the form no later than October 31". 4. Incomplete or illegible forms will be returned unprocessed. --.--,---. .'. ~--~-~._,.,.. ..--.-- - November 19, 2008 16/1 iB3 To BCC Advisory Board Liaisons: On November 18, 2008 the Board of County Commissioners passed Resolution #08-341 authorizing the reimbursement of mileage expenses for Advisory Board members who travel in excess of 20 miles round trip to attend reguiarly scheduled Advisory Board meetings. Please distribute the enclosed Reimbursement Request Forms and Instruction Sheets to all Advisory Board members as soon as possible. Requests for reimbursement will be collected and processed once per year. Please collect all requests at the last meeting in July each year and validate, by signing the form on the appropriate line, that the board member was in attendance for each meeting for which reimbursement is requested. Once complete, forward all forms to Sue Filson for processing. Checks will be mailed to the board member at the address provided on the form no later than October 31". Thank you for your cooperation. ..~---.....~-,._. .>.-' - -_-.-."....,~~._...."""'. .,,-~, _,....._w_ ~ o ... ,... z ~ "'" rLJ ~ ~ ~ :; - r:2 "'" ~ -< "'" ...l - :; "'" "'" ,... ,... - :; :; o u ~ o rLJ ;> ~ -_..~- ~ .. '" '" ~ a a < .. . o ..z ]0 o 'i:: Cll " .. >-1 ij ~ SlCI'J ~ .:<J '" >- ;>.- <"'Og 0..<'" 0<:0 o~ "'-....:l O<:~ ~> o;;i :Jf-< 0",- >0 :><f-< f-<Z 5~ o~ U"'''' 0<:0<:~ ~:J'" -CllZ ....:l::;:~ ....:l_o.. o~>< UO<:~ '" o '" o ..,. '" o - '" o o - - o o .. Z o - f-< < <2 0.. ~ 0.. 0.. < - '" - o f-< - " " s " 00 ... .E .5 B ~~ ,,"" .." '" 5 .. .- = ~ ~ Uw o M " .- .. .- ... o .... o - " .- o 0.. 5 o ..:: "" .. 5 ... oS ... " 0.. - .. .. '" ... f-< ~- , Q~ . .. .. . . .. . ~ . . ~ ~\':1;., c.'-ti:,,;, 'S",,+' N '~""''''''''' ~;' ,;!ii; ';,,"*,-,.," ;-'\;:!i~"+;; .,ff.. , ticpr .. ,'. -"", (i>fr:0t -'-"-'1~"" "ill"" '13."; ~_,.,",c:- c:,' 'r<rJ:', 'l!fl _.'1, ": '" l.,. ./% " ,- "" -,.'-",. ""x' A-~ :~ ,~; j I.."';'" !~ ,iY._ ~], ~$1{,,'i; :tg~~~~ ;\.w.4:;;,: ~' t'~ ) ,. 4f :'1 .. , " . . - h. '" " l:l j g '.,,., ,.~: . - , ., . " 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <;' <;' '" '" '" N '" '" N '" '" '" '" '" N '" '" '" <;' '" , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , " , . .ii , '"'~N~'~_,"...._' ,.,._ "~--."-->-..-.- .~-_. ,-....,-.- --"'-'-'~'-" '" ....:l ~ o f-< 16/1 'C C8 ~ " t E " 00 " .- :a .S " rv.!9..s S <..> ___ .~ ..s .s,s .~ ""d~..... ~..s ~ G "'0 ~ .S 8 ... bVJ~ ......... 0.... . C':i'''''' >......... E!~d)o::t u"'OsC( ro ..-. 00 o.~ ~ 0 t) ~ t:: Rl ~ 4-i tS . <1'1 0 l=l 0 Q) >. 0 Z ;g S (.) ~ Il) 4-< 0 0 0.. 0 E"a >< l1) ro :::l l1) () lZIo ~ 8] ~ .8e...O<: roOl1)C ~~~s:: ,s 15. s 5 Ei"_U tE -s.~ t <l--< s::::: Q);"::: ctI.......... - 1-0 i:I) ~ 0 o Q.) ~ U ~ :f;'!i c~ "t ~ ~ S (1) 0 11) c: <..> " '" ...S S ..o.s U (],) e ~ do).~ lI.l ;;.. t:: ;:::! ~ c<::l 0 C'" _ b (,) ~ ."".-..-..-',- '" ~ ' '" '" ;:J 8 :>< a u ~ .. zo;>, w::::::..o 0<'0 -< dJ ~ ~ ~ 8.. O ~ '" ~ :-;::: p. +:: 1:;;:;: <>:e:: ;;j ;:J f-< ~ - <Zl '" '" :>< <>: '" Q ~ '" ;;j '" .. ~ Q :>< o:l Q ~ '" ;;j '" - ~ . " - - .- ~~ :J .~ , ," , 'T <I.l ,-,c>tj .. " " - ~ Cl. ... " ~~ p( Il. r-< 'J'J -< " ~ .S '""- Il. g .- - ~ .. l:l o - 3 ~ ;;j ;:J ~ 6 - <Zl z o <Zl S ..-l ADVISORY COMMITTEE MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT RATES 16/1 B 3 ~ MILEAGE DATE RATES November-08 0.585 December-08 0.585 January-09 0.55 February-09 0.55 March-09 0.55 April-09 0.55 May-09 0.55 June-09 0.55 July-09 0.55 - August -09 September-09 October-09 November-09 December-09 ~~,_._---_._.-.,..- -~~_. -. "'--',-- -~-'''''. " .... ".. . . . 1'6 t 1~e3' . . . . .. RESOLUTION NO. 2008- 341 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, REPLACING AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION NO. 93-224, IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH A POLICY RELATING TO ALL COLLIER COUNTY ADVISORY BOARDS, WHICH PERMITS REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL EXPENSES FOR ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS WHO MUST TRAVEL. IN EXCESS OF 20 Mll..ES ROUNDTRIP TO ATTEND MEETINGS. WHEREAS, on October 23, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners repealed Ordinance No. 86-41, as amended, in its entirety, and adopted Ordinance No. 01-55, which now governs the creation and review of Collier County Boards and provides a policy declaration; and WHEREAS, both Ordinance 86-41 and the superseding Ordinance No. 01-55, as amended, define a "board" to include every agency, advisory board, regulatory board, quasi- judicial board, committee, task force or any other group created and funded in whole or in part by the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS, on June 1, 1993, the Board of County Commissioners through adoption of Resolution No. 93-224, established a policy of non-reimbursement for any in-County travel expenses incurred by board members defined by then-current Ordinance No. 86-41, as amended; and WHEREAS, Ordimlnce No. 01-55, as amended, is silent as it relates to reimbursement for in-County travel expenses incurred by members of the boards defmed therein; and WHEREAS; in light of recent, dramatic increases in fuel prices, the Board of County Commi ssioners desires to revise its policy of non-reimbursement for travel expenses to avoid placing undue hardships on advisory board members who must travel in excess of 20 miles roundtrip to attend their board meetings. NOW, TIIEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. The Board of County Commissioners hereby establishes a policy which provides for reimbursement of mileage expenses incurred by advisory board members who must travel in excess of 20 miles roundtrip to attend their advisory board meetings. 2. The Board of County Commissioners shall from time to time review and approve the process and funding source for administering this policy. 3. This Resolution shall supersede and replace Resolution No. 93-224. Page 1 of2 -,~---",'."."--,, _'___ _".u_..____,.,~_,___"_~..,,_,_,,__,_..,__~<~_.."_,___.._.~m__._.____ _... .._ . .. . . . . THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED after motion, second and majority vote favoring same, fa :lJ this ~ day of November. 2008. ArrEST: . DWIGHI,' E.BROCK, CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, LORIDA O( . Clerk . By: T -,"q-, Page 2 of2 - . . , . 16 I 11 ~ B :3 , EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners provides guidance to staff on whether to pursue a policy for reimbursement of mileage expenses to Advisory Board Members and, if so, provides further direction as to the parameters and conditions for said reimbursement. OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") provide guidance to staff on whether to pursue a policy for reimbursement of mileage expenses to Advisory Board Members and, if so, for the Board to provide further direction as to the parameters and conditions lOr said reimbursement. CONSIDERATIONS: The Board of County Commissioners has established a number of advisory boards and commissions to provide input, insight, and technical advice that assist them in the performance of their duties. These advisors provide diverse perspective and valuable service to the Board assisting them in making sound and informed decisions to better serve their constituents. Advisory boards and commissions are created by Resolution and members, who are appointed by the Board of County Commissioners, serve without compensation. Over 350 individuals from all areas of the county currently serve on advisory boards and commissions. Because of increasing fuel prices, the Board directed staff to review options for potential reimbursement of the cost of attending advirory board and commission meetings. Staff reviewed travel distances for current advisory board members and determined the following: . The average round trip distance per meeting is approximately 20 miles . The median round trip distance per meeting is approximately 15 miles . Approximately 20% (70) members travel between 20 and 30 rriles round trip . Approximately 10% (35) members travel between 30 and 40 rriles round trip . Approximately 3% (10) members travel between 40 and 50 rriles round trip . Approximately 5% (16) members travel over 50 rriles round trip Advisory board members fall into two groups - those who represent the general public (95%) and volunteer their time and those who represent their employers (5%) on paid time (government agencies, environmental groups, business/industry groups, etc). In evaluating development of a policy for reimbursement, several elements should be considered such as eligibility factors, reimbursement parameters, reimbursement rates, and disbursement methods. Some options for each follow. Eligibility factors: . All members . All members who do not represent their employers . All members traveling greater than Bee detennined number of miles round trip per meeting .'"-".-......,,--...---.- ".._.._.~..~...."",_.. -,' '~_..__..,.~_.~"."-_.~ 1611 B 3 Reimbursement parameters: . All miles traveled . All miles traveled over a BCC detennined number of miles Reimbursement rates: . Federal mileage rate (currently $.585) . A rate less than the federal mileage rate, to be determined by the BCC . An annual stipend for all members, or for all members traveling over a BCC specified number of miles (per meeting actually attended or annually) Reimbursement methods: . Annually on the anniversary of appointment . Annually during the first month of the budget year (pro-rated based on appointment date if less than a full year has been served) . Annually upon request of the advisory board member FISCAl IMPACT: No budget has been established for this program. The cost will vary based upon the criteria for implementation ranging from a high of approximately $50,000 annually to cover all miles traveled for all advisol)' board members at the federal mileage rate to less than $2,000 for a $100 annual stipend to those traveling greater than 50 rriles round trip per meeting. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no growth management impact associated with this Executive Summary. LEGAl CONSIDERATIONS: No legal issues are raised by this Executive Summary. The County Attorney will work with staff to implement Board direction on this matter. - JAK RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Board of County Commissioners provides guidance to staff on whether to pursue a policy for reimbursement of mileage expenses to Advisory Board Members and, if so, provides further direction as to the parameters and conditions for said reimbursement. PREPARED BY: Len Golden Price, Administrator, Administrative Services Division ,. . I";I! 83 ,- . . Collier County Government Communication & Customer Relations Department 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 Contact: (239)1252-8848 www.collier2ov.net www.twitter.com/CollierPI 0 July 6, 2009 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING COLLIER COUNTY CITIZEN CORPS ADVISORY COMMITTEE COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA WEDNESDA Y, JULY 15, 2009 Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Citizen Corps Advisory Committee will hold a public meeting on Wednesday. July J 5 at 3 p.m. in the 3'd Floor Policy Room at the Emergency Services Center, located at 8075 Lely Cultural Blvd. In regard to the public meeting: All interested parties are invited to attend, and to register to speak and to submit their objections, if any, in writing, to the board/committee prior to the meeting if applicable. All registered public speakers will be limited to three minutes unless permission for additional time is granted by the chairman. Collier County Ordinance No. 2004-05 requires that all lobbyists shall, before engaging in any lobbying activities (including, but not limited to, addressing the Board of County Commissioners, an advisory board or quasi-judicial board), register with the Clerk to the Board at the Board Minutes and Records Department. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department, located at 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112, (239) 252-8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. For more information, call Joe Frazier at (239) 252-3600. -End- --------,---_.,,----_.,-...,...-., _,u_...~___ .._....._.~-_., , ---_..._._..._.,~..-...._--.,.,_... - 16/1 83 \,.../ t . , Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta 1 Collier County Citizen Corps Advisory Committee Angnst 19,2009 RECEIVED NOV 2 3 2009 Voting Members Present Reg Buxton, Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce Boon:! otCounty Commissioners Russell Rainey, Community Emergency Response Team Deborah Horvath, American Red Cross Walter Jaskiewicz, Coast Guard Auxiliary James Elson, Collier County Veterans Council Voting Members Absent: (Excused Absence) Floyd Chapin, Community Emergency Response Volunteers Jerry Sanford, North Naples Fire Expert Consultants Present: Joe Frazier, Collier County Emergency Management Voting Members Absent: (Non-Excused Absence) Lt. Mike Jones, Collier County Sheriffs Office Doug Porter, Naples Civil Air Patrol Captain Castillo, Salvation Army Meeting was called to order at 3:05 p.m. Pledge of Allegiance recited and roll call taken. AQprovalofMinutes Due to a lack of a quorum, minutes of the July 15,2009 meeting were not approved. Walt Jaskiewicz asked that these minutes reflect that he ran the meeting in Reg Buxton's absence. So noted and correction made. Threat Update Lt. Jones was not present to report on this - recommend everyone remain vigilant. New Business Mass Vaccination Plan Per Joe Frazier, he and Rick Zyvoloski are working with Dr. Colfer from the Department of Health on this plan. They want to inoculate all citizens of Collier County who want the shot. Joe is looking at recruiting 500 people to support the inoculators during thislO-week program. POD's (points of distribution) are being set up in various places, including the Devoe dealership area, the old Albertson's offlmmokalee Road, First Baptist Church, the Everglades City Community Center, and !TEC in Immokalee. We were expecting 120 million doses, now are looking at 45 million. The target group includes K-12 school children, childcare centers, pregnant women, children 6 months to 4 years of age, adults under 65 years of age and those who have known conditions that will increase the risk of complications. The target groups are different - people 55 years and older seem to have a greater immunity to this strain of flu. Every school will be visited for inoculations - are looking for traffic controllers, meet/greet people, and data collectors/entry. Those receiving the shot will receive a message 26 days later for the booster shot. Looking at two 4-hour time periods, between 9a to 6p, four days a week, for 10 weeks. Nurses will work 8-hour shifts. Joe is looking for team leaders, and will get information out to all volunteer organizations. Walt suggested the Kiwanis, and Reg asked that Joe email the group information. Joe met with Harry Chapin Food Bank - they can supply water and snacks, but can't feed the volunteers on a daily basis. He is working on writing job descriptions for the volunteers - Sheriff Rambosk has offered 5 deputies per POD for security. The Department of Health has received $131k in grant money from the State. They have purchased locked refrigerators, as the vaccine needs to be kept under lock and key. Deb Millsap (PIa for DOH) is the lead.\1n all.aj;Jl:ressive media blitz. Dr. Colfer will be the Incident Commander. A project management plan is being develotl'~~. ]<"o~etter of explanation will be made available ahead oftime for the volunteers. The HINl inoculation is not mand~te:':::~~ is expect~~~h~t approximately ~em# " .._...,,~~ ~, -'~-' ." . , . " ''''.rUQ('tf'l' 16 , 1 8 3 '~ 2 35% of the population will take the doses. Students need permission slips from parents. Deb Horvath suggested crossing guards for assistance. Reg asked if you have to show 10 to show citizenship - Joe didn't have the answer to that question. Looking at mid-October to start this H1N1 inoculation. Harper Simpson is working with his Red Plan. Some of the homeowner's groups already are setting up PODs. The regular flu shot should not be part of the H1Nl - there would be too much paperwork, and it would clog things up. Weather Update Per Joe, Claudette and Ana have dissipated. We are expecting rain from Ana on Thursday and Friday. Bill appears to be curving up the east coast, but is dependent on the cold front. Emergency Management is ready to pre-deploy if necessary. Old Business Community Organizations Active in Disasters Judy Scribner said this is an expansion of Voluntary Organizations Active in Disasters (VOAD), which means that any organization involved is all volunteer. COAD allows any organization in the community (government, sheriff's office, volunteer agencies, etc.). Members break into teams for special areas of concentration - CERT has their own - Red Cross may head up the teams for a fire. Citizen Corps has team members from many of the organizations in town, so they are perfect as point people. Judy asked that members discuss with their organizations to see if they would be willing to take on COAD. This is more of a reason to get more people involved in Citizen Corps and make it a bigger organization, far more representative of what you have. Sarasota has at least 100 organizations involved - they are not part of Citizen Corps, they are strictly COAD. Reg doesn't want to dilute this group. Russ offered his thanks for sending him to the National Citizen Corps conference. We need to take a broader approach, as COAD does, for private and public partnerships. He will share information he got at this conference during the next meeting. He did share that the annual report for the Monterey, CA Citizen Corps showed they have a minimum of 24 people at each meeting, with 40 organizations represented. Connecticut is starting an animal CERT group, headed up by veterinarians. Many folks won't evacuate to a shelter without their pets. Judy said that nothing was done with animals here in Collier County before the last couple years. Robert Halman handles the large animals, and DAS takes care of the smaller ones. They would be perfect as a team. We need to get people together as teams. If we want to broaden our umbrella of organizations, Russ has a list of 20 or 30 different organizations that we could look at becoming involved with. Reg suggested Russ give report on this confercnce next month. At the September meeting will schedule a 2-hour lunch meeting to be held sometime in October to discuss COAD, preferably from 11 a.m. to I p.m. Other Jim Elson reported that a Naples boy was killed in Afghanistan - this is the sixth casualty for Naples. He will be mentioned at the Veterans Day service. He discussed the post-traumatic stress disorder that many of the folks come home experiencing; however, they have found that they didn't have a good family base to start with and when put into a difficult situation, they don't do well. They would have been "messed up" anyway. Families are trying to blame the military or the VA, but there are no building blocks to begin with. Next Meeting/Adjourn Next meeting is scheduled for September 16th at 3 p.m. at the ESC building. Russ will head this meeting, as Reg will not be available. Motion to adjourn the meeting at 3:45 p.m. made by Jim Elson and seconded by Deb Horvath. Approved unanimously. Minutes submitted by Mary Ann Cole. , Approved by Chair: c"";" Reg Buxt n , )' //.; 1~ l' '"1 // Date 1611 83 ColeMaryAnn From: Sent: To: Frazier Joseph Monday, August 10, 2009 812 AM BowmanDan; ColeMaryAnn; Dan Anderson; Dan Zunzunegui; David Baer; Debbie Horvath, Doug Port; Floyd Chapin; foord_m; FrazierJoseph; Jerry Sandford; Jim Elson; Joe wilkins; Kathleen Marr; Lt Mike Jone; Major Alejandro Castillo; Maria Bernaldo; Mike Jones; Mike Murphy; Nfn-11555; Phil Reid; Reg Buxton; Russ Rainey; Ryan Frost; scnbner..J; TeachScott, Ted Soliday; vonrinteln-.J; Walt Jaskiewicz FW FYI Subject: Interesting nationwide survey results on Personal Preparedness. Joe Joseph W. Frazier, CEM, FPEM, MPA Homeland Security Coordinator 8075 Lely Cultural Parkway Naples, FL 34113 Phone 239-252-3605 Fax 239-252-3609 j ose p hfrazier@colliergov.net If you choose to share personal information with Collier Bureau of Emergency Services and Emergency Management and its Departments and Divisions by uSing an e.mail message. we will use the information only for the purpose necessary to conduct government business with you. However, under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do notwantyoure.mail address released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic mail to this agency. Instead contact the office or individual by phone or in writing. In addition, any information you provide may be saved for a designated period of time to comply with Florida's archiving policies and may be subject to disclosure as required by State or Federal law. Please note that Florida's public records law requires that all information received in connection with state business be made available to anyone upon request, unless the information is subject 10 a specific statutory exemption. From: Halstead, David [mailto:David.Halstead@em.myflorida.com] Sent: Monday, August 10, 2009 7:54 AM To: County Emergency Management Directors Subject: FW: FYI For your review............ Dave b)tpl/www.citizencorps.gQY[pdf/Personal Preparedness In America-Citizen Corps National Survev.QQf David Haistead Interim Deputy Director Florida Division of Emergency Management 1 16 /1 83 Collier County Government Communication & Customer Relations Department 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 Contact: (239) 252-8848 www.colliergov.net www.twitter.com/CollierPI 0 August 7, 2009 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING COLLIER COUNTY CITIZEN CORPS ADVISORY COMMITTEE COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 19,2009 Notice is hereby given that the Collier Count,{ Citizen Corps Advisory Committee will hold a public meeting on Wednesday. August 19 at 3 p.m. in the 3' !loor Policy Room at the Emergency Services Center. located at 8075 Lely Cultural Parkway in Naples. In regard to the public meeting: All interested parties are invited to attend. and to register to speak and to submit their objections. if any. in writing. to the board/committee prior to the meeting if applicable. All registered public speakers will be limited to three minutes unless permission for additional time is granted by the chairman. Collier County Ordinance No. 2004-05 requires that all lobbyists shall, before engaging in any lobbying activities (including, but not limited to, addressing the Board of County Commissioners, an advisory board or quasi-judicial board), register with the Clerk to the Board at the Board Minutes and Records Department. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department, located at 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112. (239) 252-8380. at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. For more information, call Joe Frazier at (239) 252-3600. -End- ,. .-.,'.."--,'" , ---.-"... -< _,,~ .'. ., ".d.,'__ -,--~-- . " , 1.6 I 1 83 . , ColeMaryAnn From: Sent: To: Frazier Joseph Friday, August 07,20098:26 AM BowmanDan; ColeMaryAnn; Dan Anderson; Dan Zunzunegui; David Baer; Debbie Horvath; Doug Port; Floyd Chapin; foord_m; FrazierJoseph; Jerry Sandford; Jim Elson; Joe wilkins; Kathleen Marr; Ll Mike Jone; Major Alejandro Castillo; Maria Bernaldo; Mike Jones; Mike Murphy; Nfn-11555; Phil Reid; Reg Buxton; Russ Rainey; Ryan Frost; scribnerj; TeachScott; Ted Soliday; vonrintelnj; Walt Jaskiewicz; Andy Marfongella, Big Corkscrew, 348-8006; Barry Gerenstein, Verona Walk, 417-9052; Bob Coffeen; Elisa Yanes, Immokalee Fire, 657-2700; gastineau_b; Greg Speers, East Naples Fire, 659-7800, 465-9752; HalmanRobert; Jim Nee; PacterGreg; Pam DeMeo, City of Naples CERT, 213-4918; Rick Heers; Robert Mendoza, Immokalee Fire, 657-B587; Stephen Fickling, MI Fire,398-31 05; Victor Hill, GGFD, 348-7540; Watson Wayne; zyvoloskU FW: Citizen Corps News: FEMA Administrator Releases Preparedness Video Message Subject: Passing on some good preparedness information. Have a great weekend, Joe Joseph W. Frazier, CEM, FPEM, MPA Homeland Security Coordinator 8075 Lely Cultural Parkway Naples, FL 34113 Phone 239-252-3605 Fax 239-252-3609 josep hfrazier@colliergov.net If you choose to share personal information with Collier Bureau of Emergency Services and Emergency Management and its Departments and Divisions by using an e~mail message, we will use the information only for the purpose necessary to conduct government business with you. However, under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic mail to this agency. Instead contact the office or individual by phone or in writing. In addition, any information you provide may be saved for a designated period of time to comply with Florida's archiving policies and may be subject to disclosure as required by State or Federal law. Please note that Florida's public records law requires that all information received in connection with state business be made available to anyone upon request, unless the information is subject to a specific statutory exemption. From: vonrinteln-.J Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 8:39 AM To: FrazierJoseph Subject: FW: Citizen Corps News: FEMA Administrator Releases Preparedness Video Message From: FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) [mallto:fema@service.govdelivery.comj Sent: Wednesday, August OS, 2009 7:30 AM To: vonrinteln-.J Subject: Citizen Corps News: FEMA Administrator Releases Preparedness Video Message Release Date: August 4, 2009 Release Number: HQ-09-094a 1 . _~"_m__.<______ _--.... _..,~_,,~_.' .___<.~, ,~._- '__.~___'._'h..._., __.. ..___~._____________.___..._ f'\" . , Administrator Craig Fugate today released a Web video message highlighting the need for the public to be prepared for any emergency. "Our entire emergency management team has a ro Ie to play when it comes to preparing for and responding to the next disaster," said Administrator Fugate. "One of the most important parts of that team is the public. The more prepared the public is now, by getting an emergency response kit, making an emergency action plan, and getting a skill, like CPR, the stronger our emergency response team will be." The Administrator's video can be found on the following websites: . FEMA's Multimedia Website- www.fema.~ov/medialibrary . Youtube- www.youtube.com/fema . Facebook- www.facebook.com/fema Tips on how to be prepared, including how to make an emergency plan, and what should be in an emergency response kit, can be found at www.ready.QQ':!I Disclaimer: FEMA is providing the following links to FEMA's presence on other third party sites for your reference. FEMA does not endorse any non-government Websites, companies or applications. FEMA's mission is to support our citizens and first responders to ensure that as a nation we work together to build, sustain, and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards. This news story and other Community Preparedness news, including Citizen Corps Bulletins, can be found on our website at www.citizencorps.qov! Sincerely, The National Office of Citizen Corps FEMA Community Preparedness Division Update Your E~mail Address I Siqn UP for CERT Proqram Updates I Unsubscribe Subscribe to receive alerts durinQ disasters in your state, Privacy Policy I GovDelivery is providing this information on behalf of U.S Department of Homeland Security, and may not use the information for any other purposes. FCl'v1f\ U.S. U(~parlrn(mtd Hco(11cd;,nd Secu'liy' '.;'\!rJ8Ili1l\;toJ1, DC 204i21 (UCU) 1i21.!-Uv';I\ (:J:;02) 2 Collier County Citizen Corps Advisory Committee September 16, 2009 , 1~ II RECEIVED NOV 2 3 2009 83 / y-/ . Fiala Halas Hennin ~oyle aletta 1 - Voting Members Present Russell Rainey, Community Emergency Response TeamlloaldotCounlY~ Deborah Horvath, American Red Cross Walter Jaskiewicz, Coast Guard Auxiliary Lt. Mike Jones, Collier County Sheriff's Office Doug Porter, Naples Civil Air Patrol Captain Castillo, Salvation Army ?--- Voting Members Absent: (Excused Absence) Floyd Chapin, Community Emergency Response Volunteers Jerry Sanford, North Naples Fire v Reg Buxton, Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce Expert Consultants Present: Joe Frazier, Collier County Emergency Management Voting Members Absent: (Non-Excused Absence) James Elson, Collier County Veterans Council Meeting was called to order at 3: 10 p.m. Pledge of Allegiance recited and roll call taken. Allproval of Minutes Due to lack ofa quorum, minutes of the July 15,2009 and August 19,2009 meetings were not approved. Threat Update Per Lt. Jones, travel alert is yellow for domestic and orange for international travel. Nothing has been released about the threats in New York. Russ Rainey asked if they were looking at changing or eliminating the threat alerts on travel ~ no word as yet. New Business Citizen Corps Conference Russ shared a report from his trip to the 2009 National Conference on Community Preparedness. CERT and Medical Reserve Corps were very prominent there. There were some differences in the various Citizen Corps groups - New Jersey is State run and has more money available to them. Craig Fugate opened with the comment that there are no disaster "victims" - they, too, can be used as a resource during disasters. This theme ran through the conference. Debbie Horvath said that the only way to feed the people is to pull from the "audience". Russ presented this information to the CERT organizations - they are not rescuers of neighborhoods, but work with neighbors. The Citizen Corps groups are facilitators. He feels that we need an umbrella for all these organizations - COAD (Community Organizations Active in Disasters) is a great way to get the community involved. This is a public-private partnership. It was shared that 43% of businesses that don't have a disaster plan end up closing down. Debbie said that the Economic Development Council and the Chamber of Commerce help businesses with their disaster plans. Floridadisaster.org is the State's website that has some very valuable information. Joe Frazier brought up the fact that businesses need to open soon after a disaster because they are critical. A survey of 3000 households nationwide were surveyed ~ 25% said they will not prepare for disaster because they will be taken care of; 35% had vague plans; 40% are thinking about a plan; two-thirds of the negative responders believe they will never be hit by a disaster; 80% of the positive responders believe they will be safer; 35% of all responders believe nothing will help; and two-thirds of positive responders would be willing to invest in a preparation class. A wards presented included training tribal members, health screening, distribution of disaster brochures, accommodations of pets (Connecticut has a pet CERT unit, headed up by a veterinarian), self defense for kids and the elderly, ICS training, annual emergency conference for the disabled, etc. Other activities included evacuation training, registry ofCERT trained people, campus disaster education, support HAM radio, define their population, coordinate Neighborhood Watch, evacuation drills for kids in schools, etc. Per Joe, he and Les Williams from EMS will be doing an exercise with Collier County Public Schools, as well as with the 23 private schools in the County. Lt. Jones said the children in schools learn to shelter in place. Russ asked iftm" "I<'''~ftcj,isaster brochures for the schools. Red Cross has a booklet designed for K-3 age group, and Judy Scribner brought up i1\'rsarnytair coming up on October lOth for school-aged children. Date: -- Item II. ,.-,._",,---- ., '~. -~'r!es to. --- "...----~."_."."....".._-_....------ ~-~-" ",.--._",_._--~._-~,~."-, " '^__..___..___._._______" __ __.~....___ ...m.__" __..._ 16 'lIB C,:i-, ", C"'. " - c/ 2 Russ brought up POD (points of distribution) driils - Department of Health does these. Russ said there are ideas out there - what do we want to do as a group and prioritize these ideas. Joe said we need to build up our visibility. Mass Vaccination Plan Joe has gone to volunteer groups for help. The target groups are pregnant women and children. DOH has a cache of surgical masks for the schools. We are looking for POD sites, nothing has been locked down yet. Joe said they are looking at 10,000 square feet, with two 5-hour shifts for 4 days a week, including Saturdays. These locations need ample parking as well. Should have POD locations decided in a week's time - we need 300 volunteers. Walgreen, Publix and doctors will offer the vaccination, but will charge an "administration fee". We have a $135,000 budget and freezers to store the medicine have been purchased. The vaccine is expected sometime the middle of October. Joe said at this point a second inoculation may not be needed. There was a conference call with the State at 2 p.m. today. Russ heard there were dual shots for high-risk people. Collier HINI Update Kathleen Marr from the Health Department put together a packet of information, both State and Nationwide. If you have any questions, please contact Joe for clarification. LMS Program The Citizen Corps is the parent organization to the Local Mitigation Strategy program - Reg Buxton is the representative from the Cc. Rick Zyvoloski has several folks who have gotten mitigation doilars. If you are interested, plan to attend their meetings. Citizen Corps Term Expirations Per Sue Filson, she will contact folks whose term will be expiring soon to see if you want to remain with the group or if we need to find someone else. Walt Jaskiewicz, Reg, Floyd Chapin, Jerry Sanford, and an RSVP representative are coming up. Old Business Community Organizations A ctive in Disasters We are looking at Friday, October 16m from II a.m. to I p.m. for a meeting specific to this topic. Other Per Walt, the Coast Guard and Coast Guard Auxiliary are reorganizing and awaiting approval. They will be going from groups to sectors (smaller groups). They have found that in dealing with volunteers, there is an issue with dependability. There is a program which has been tested and is being used which has gathered all 6, I 00 members from Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas. Within five minutes, you can get any assistance - the contact name, phone, cell and fax numbers, as well as email address. Next Meeting/Adjourn Next meeting is scheduled for October 21st at 3 p.m. at the ESC building. Motion to adjourn the meeting at 4:00 p.m. made by Walt and seconded by Doug Porter. Approved unanimously. Minutes submitted by Mary Ann Cole. Approved by Chair: <.!' ~ , Reg BuxtoI/ . - / //, .--/ ir''j/C. / /~)/~\ , Date 16/'1 83 . ; ColeMaryAnn Subject: FW: Citizen Corps News HHS Hosts 'Know What to Do About the Flu' Webcast: Aug 20 @ 1-2pm EDT From: FrazierJoseph Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 7:55 AM To: BowmanDan; ColeMaryAnn; Dan Anderson; Dan Zunzunegui; David Baer; Debbie Horvath; Doug Port; Floyd Chapin; foord_m; FrazierJoseph; Jerry Sandford; Jim Elson; Joe wilkins; Kathleen Marr; Lt Mike Jone; Major Alejandro Castillo; Maria Bernaldo; Mike Jones; Mike Murphy; Nfn-11555; Phil Reid; Reg Buxton; Russ Rainey; Ryan Frost; scribneU; TeachScott; Ted Soliday; vonrinteln-J; Walt Jaskiewicz Subject: FW: Citizen Corps News: HHS Hosts 'Know What to Do About the Flu' Webcast: Aug 20 @ 1-2pm EDT Thought you might find this interesting. Joe Joseph W. Frazier, CEM, FPEM, MPA Homeland Security Coordinator 807S Lely Cultural Parkway Naples, FL 34113 Phone 239-252-3605 Fax 239-252-3609 josephfrazier@colliergov.net If you choose to share personal information with Collier Bureau of Emergency Services and Emergency Management and its Departments and Divisions by using an e-mail message, we will use the information only for the purpose necessary to conduct government business with you. However, under Florida law, e.mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic mail to this agency. Instead contact the office or individual by phone or in writing. In addition, any information you provide may be saved for a designated period of time to comply with Florida's archiving policies and may be subject to disclosure as required by State or Federal Jaw. Please note that Florida's public records law requires that all information received in connection with state business be made available to anyone upon request, unless the information is subject to a specific statutory exemption. From: vonrinteln-J Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 7:47 AM To: FrazierJoseph Subject: FW: Citizen Corps News: HHS Hosts 'Know What to Do About the Flu' Webcast: Aug 20 @ 1-2pm EDT From: FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) [mailto:fema@service.govdelivery.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 5:02 PM To: vonrinteln-J Subject: Citizen Corps News: HHS Hosts 'Know What to Do About the Flu' Webcast: Aug 20 @ 1-2pm EDT On Thursday, August 20, 1 :00 - 2:00 p.m. EDT, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will host a webcast discussion on new federal business and employer guidance for H1 N1 influenza planning. The new guidance encourages employers to plan now for the 2009 H1 N 1 influenza this fall in order to minimize economic impacts and protect employees' health. Leading the discussion about the guidance and what it means for businesses will be: . Dr. Toby Merlin, CDC . Dr. Tilman Jolly, Homeland Security . Travis Sullivan, Department of Commerce . Ann Beauchesne, U.S. Chamber of Commerce 1 _u_. _"'___"~__ .........wu_,.. _-...... _'m "'_'._~_'__'...._ The Webcast can be viewed on www.flu.qQy 16/ 1.." '.?;.; . t)' <.' '4'- .(2;' f, ;: i,~~.~ d'/ ~1 This news story and other Community Preparedness news can be found on our website at http://www.citizencorps.qov. Sincerely, The National Office of Citizen Corps FEMA Community Preparedness Division 2 1611 B3 , ColeMaryAnn Subject: FW: Citizen Corps News: FEMA Honors Local Achievement in Community Resilience From: FrazierJoseph Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 7:56 AM To: BowmanDan; ColeMaryAnn; Dan Anderson; Dan Zunzunegui; David Baer; Debbie Horvath; Doug Port; Floyd Chapin; foord_m; FrazierJoseph; Jerry Sandford; Jim Elson; Joe wilkins; Kathleen Marr; Lt Mike Jone; Major Alejandro Castillo; Maria Bernaldo; Mike Jones; Mike Murphy; Nfn-11555; Phil Reid; Reg Buxton; Russ Rainey; Ryan Frost; scribneU; TeachScott; Ted Soliday; vonrinteln.J; Walt Jaskiewicz Subject: FW: Citizen Corps News: FEMA Honors Local Achievement in Community Resilience I believe, next year is our year. Thanks for all you do. Joe Joseph W. Frazier, CEM, FPEM, MPA Homeland Security Coordinator 8075 Lely Cultural Parkway Naples, FL 34113 Phone 239-252-3605 Fax 239-252-3609 josep hfrazier@co"iergov.net If you choose to share personal information with Collier Bureau of Emergency Services and Emergency Management and its Departments and Divisions by using an e-mail message, we will use the information only for the purpose necessary to conduct government business with you. However, under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic mail to this agency. Instead contact the office or individual by phone or in writing. In addition, any information you provide may be saved for a designated period of time to comply with Florida's archiving policies and may be subject to disclosure as required by State or Federal law. Please note that Florida's public records law requires that all infonnation received in connection with state business be made available to anyone upon request, unless the information is subject to a specific statutory exemption. From: FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) [mailto:fema@service.govdelivery.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 5:47 PM To: vonrinteln.J Subject: Citizen Corps News: FEMA Honors Local Achievement in Community Resilience FEMA HONORS LOCAL ACHIEVEMENT IN COMMUNITY RESILIENCE First National Citizen Corps Achievement Awards Presented On August 11 th at the 2009 National Conference on Community Preparedness, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) announced the winners of the first National Citizen Corps Achievement Awards. Administered by FEMA and implemented locally, Citizen Corps is the grassroots movement to actively engage civic leaders and the public in community safety and disaster preparedness Presented in eight categories, these awards recognize innovative practices and achievements of Citizen Corps Councils across the nation to make our communities safer, stronger, and better prepared to manage any emergency situation. With over 2,400 registered Citizen Corps Councils nationwide, these award winners exemplify excellence in community emergency planning, foster successful public-private partnerships, prioritize collaboration, demonstrate creative and innovative local probiem solving, and implement sound programs that can be modeled for use by other communities. Highlighting the contributions these communities are making to support emergency management efforts, the awards were presented by representatives of allleveis of emergency management, FEMA Deputy Administrator Tim Manning, National Emergency Management Association Incoming President David Maxwell, and International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM) President Russ Decker. 1 16 I 'lei; , c~ /~' '5' " I The award winners by category are as follows: . Outstanding Staterrerritory Citizen Corps Initiatives Award: New Jersey State Citizen Corps Council . Outstanding Tribal Citizen Corps Council Award: United Tribes Technical College Citizen Corps Council (ND) . Outstanding Citizen Corps Council Award Serving a Population Under 1.5 million: Denton County Citizen Corps Council (TX) . Outstanding Citizen Corps Council Award Serving a Population Over 1.5 million: Sacramento Region Citizen Corps Council (CA) . Collaborative Preparedness Planning Award: Cottonwood Heights Citizen Corps (UT) . Preparing the Public Award: Farmington Hills / Farmington Citizen Corps Council (MI) . Preparing Community Organizations Award: Duval County / Jacksonville Citizen Corps (FL) . Volunteer Integration Award: Harris County Citizen Corps Council (TX) A complete list including category descriptions and finalists is available at www.citizencorps.qov/news/awards/. This news story and other Community Preparedness news can be found on our website at www.citizencoms.QOv. Sincerely, The National Office of Citizen Corps FEMA Community Preparedness Division 2 16 f "il / I' ~ 83 j ColeMaryAnn ~ ~/ From: Sent: To: Frazier Joseph Friday, September 11, 2009 8: 15 AM BowmanDan; ColeMaryAnn; Dan Anderson; Dan Zunzunegui; David Baer; Debbie Horvath; Doug Port; Floyd Chapin; foord_m; FrazierJoseph; Jerry Sandford; Jim Elson; Joe wilkins; Kathleen Marr; Lt Mike Jone; Major Alejandro Castillo; Maria Bernaldo; Mike Jones; Mike Murphy; Nfn-11555; Phil Reid; Reg Buxton; Russ Rainey; Ryan Frost; scribneU; TeachScott; Ted Soliday; vonrinteln~; Walt Jaskiewicz FW: Citizen Corps News: In Remembrance of 9/11 Subject: Council Members, Please take a moment to review the below website and I want to personally thank you for your valuable service to our community, You make a difference in protecting our citizens and in trying to prevent another 9/11 from occurring, With Respect, Joe Joseph W, Frazier, CEM, FPEM, MPA Homeland Security Coordinator 8075 Lely Cultural Parkway Naples, FL 34113 Phone 239-252-3605 Fax 239-252-3609 josep hfraz ier@colliergov,net If you choose to share personal information with Comer Bureau of Emergency Services and Emergency Management and its Departments and Divisions by using an e-mail message, we will use the information only for the purpose necessary to conduct government business with you. However, under Florida law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public-records request, do not send electronic mail to this agency. Instead contact the office or individual by phone or in writing. In addition, any information you provide may be saved for a designated period of time to comply with Florida's archiving policies and may be subject to disclosure as required by State or Federal law. Please note that Florida's public records law requires that all information received in connection with state business be made available to anyone upon request, unless the information is subject to a specific statutory exemption From: vonrinteln-J Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 8:04 AM To: FrazierJoseph Subject: FW: Citizen Corps News: In Remembrance of 9/11 From: FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) [mailto:fema@service,govdelivery,com] Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 7:08 PM To: vonrinteln-J Subject: Citizen Corps News: In Remembrance of 9/11 Dear Partners in Community Preparedness, Tomorrow is the eighth anniversary of 9/11, Please take a moment to visit the website of our National Citizen Corps Affiliate, MvGoodDeed,orq, to learn more about what Americans across our nation are doing to recognize 9/11. While at the website, you may share your personal pian to perform a good deed in observance of the first federaily recognized 1 16/1 B3 I September 11 National Day of Service and Remembrance, Help create a legacy that honors the victims and those who rose to service in response to the attacks on America This news story and other Community Preparedness news can be found on our website at wwwcitizencomS,QOV, Sincerely, The National Office of Citizen Corps FEMA Community Preparedness Division Update Your E-mail Address I Sian uo for CERT Proqram Updates I Unsubscribe Subscribe to receive alerts durinq disasters in your stale Privacy Policv I GovDelivery is providing this information on behalf of U,S. Department of Homeland Security, and may not use the information for any other purposes. 2 Collier County Government Communication & Customer Relations Department 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, FL 34112 Contact: (239) 252-8848 www.colliergov.net www.twitter.com/CollierPI 0 September 4, 2009 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING COLLIER COUNTY CITIZEN CORPS ADVISORY COMMITTEE COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2009 Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Citizen Corps Advisory Committee will hold a public meeting on Wednesday, September 16 at 3 p.rn. in the 3rd floor Policy Room at the Emergency Services Center, located at 8075 Lely Cultural Parkway in Naples, In regard to the public meeting: All interested parties are invited to attend, and to register to speak and to submit their objections, if any, in writing, to the board/committee prior to the meeting if applicable, All registered public speakers will be limited to three minutes unless permission for additional time is granted by the chairman, Collier County Ordinance No, 2004-05 requires that all lobbyists shall, before engaging in any lobbying activities (including, but not limited to, addressing the Board of County Commissioners, an advisory board or quasi-judicial board), register with the Clerk to the Board at the Board Minutes and Records Department If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance, Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Department, located at 3301 E, Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112, (239) 252-8380, at least two days prior to the meeting, Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office, For more information, call Joe Frazier at (239) 252-3600, -End- 16/1'83 Reducing the Spread of Influenza Talking Points August 28,2009 . . . Novel 2009 influenza A/H1 N1 is currently circulating within the community, . Almost all influenza-like illness at this point in time is likely to be the novel 2009 influenza A (H1 N1) virus, Therefore it is recommended that diagnosis and treatment be based on clinical symptoms and persons medical history, Testing of individual cases is no longer being promoted, . Persons with III can transmit the infection to others up to one day prior to the onset of symptoms and not all persons with novel influenza A (H1 N1) will have the typical symptoms of influenza, Consequently, persons may often be exposed without knowing it . The typical symptoms of influenza-like illness include fever of 1 OooF or greater, cough, sore throat, chills, headache, fatigue, muscle aching and shortness of breath, . If you have symptoms influenza-like illness you should remain at home until at least 24 hours after you are free of fever (1 OOOF) without the use of fever reducing medications, . So far, with 2009 H1 N1 flu, the largest number of cases has been in people between the ages of 5 - 25 years, In Collier this age group currently accounts for 54% of all cases, Therefore, schools may act as a major point of spread for the flu, . Parents are key to reducing the spread of influenza in the schools, Parents should actively check their children for signs of influenza-like illness daily before they go off to school. Children showing signs of influenza-like illness should stay home from school. . Parents with children who have a history of other medical conditions who are higher risk of complications from influenza are encouraged to seek early treatment if their child has symptoms of influenza-like illness, . Businesses should actively encourage staff to stay home if they have flu-like symptoms, . All persons in the community are encouraged to wash their hands frequently, cover their coughs and sneezes and to stay at home if they have flu-like symptoms, . 16/1 B 3 Charlie Crist Governor Ana M. Via monte Ros, MD, MPH State Surgeon General Contact: Deb Millsap 252-8220 Health Department Planning for Vaccinations Collier: The Collier County Health Department (CCHD) asks that people continue to stay informed about H1 N1 Swine flu as information emerges, CCHD Director, Joan Colfer, M,D" M,P,H" explains, "We are in daily contact with the State Health Department regarding immunization planning efforts and we are working proactively with our local partners in emergency management, hospitals, healthcare practices, schools and law enforcement to finalize our plans to deliver seasonal and H1 N1 swine flu vaccinations", As soon as, the clinic schedules are defined, the CCHD will post them on their website, CollierPrepares,org and on their information line, 252-8200, At this time, the CCHD is planning to offer: .Seasonal flu vaccine beginning the last week of September .H 1 N 1 Swine flu vaccine beginning approximately mid-October "Although specific dates and times of these clinics are not yet determined, we urge everyone to consider obtaining a seasonal flu shot, as well as, two doses of H 1 N 1 Swine vaccine when it becomes available, Information changes daily, but at this point, we anticipate everyone will need two doses of H 1 N 1 vaccine because of the nature of this novel virus", states Colfer. In the meantime, the Health Department encourages everyone to be vigilant about the following: o .Stay home if you are ill. Do not send ill children to school or day care, o .Wash hands frequently, o .Sneeze or cough into your upper arm - not into your hands, o .Stay informed by: o oLogging on to CollierPrepares,org o oCalling Florida's H1 N1 Swine Hotline: 1-877-352-FLU1 (3581) o oChecking the CCHD phone line, 252-8200, for clinic schedules(available after September 18th) 3301 Tamiami Trail E . Bldg, H Naples, Florida' 34112-4961 Telephone (239) 252-8200 Joan M. Colfer, M.D., M.P.H., Director 'm~callier Cau nty Hea Ith . Department Mailing Address: Post Office Box 429 Naples, Florida. 34106-0429 C", '''g.. C"mmill<'d...lJdl"",l; ,/J,-diU/I<'Ii '.)!lwW('flll",\"o((iw'"m"'Jrlllil} CD ~HINI Flu I Situation Update WI Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Your Online Source for CreeJible Health Informotion 16 I iael32 f 2009 HINl Flu: Situation Update September 11, 2009, 7:00 PM ET Key Flu Indicators Each week CDC analyzes information about influenza disease activity in the United States and publishes findings of key flu indicators in a report called FluView. During the week of August 30-September 5, 2009, a review of the key indictors found that influenza activity increased in the United States compared to the prior weeks, Below is a summary of the most recent key indicators: Visits to doctors for influenza-like illness (ILl) are increasing nationally, Visits to doctors for influenza-like illness are higher than what is expected during this time of year and have increased over the last four weeks, Total influenza hospitalization rates for adults and children are similar to or lower than seasonal influenza hospitalization rates depending on age group, but are higher than expected in the summer months, The proportion of deaths attributed to pneumonia and influenza (P&I) was low and within the bounds of what is expected in the summer. Eleven states (Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Tennessee) and Guam are reporting widespread influenza activity at this time, Any reports of widespread influenza activity in August and September are very unusuaL Almost all of the influenza viruses identified were 2009 HINI influenza A viruses. These 2009 HINI viruses remain similar to the viruses chosen for the 2009 HINI vaccine, and remain susceptible to antiviral drugs (oseltamivir and zanamivir) with rare exception, More on the Situation International Situation Update The Southern Hemisphere is in the middle of its flu season, and we have reports of what is happening there Background Learn about the emergence of the 2009 HlNl virus in the United States and WHO's declaration of a novel HlNl pandemic, http://www.cdc.gov/hlnlflulupdate.htm u.s. Situation Update Weekly Flu Activity Estimates .!..~\j.~.'i.~"""(:'''.", '~'. ',"",-.,\',- -.- ~.. ,. . ........ ~"" , . . . :::"~ jlII\ :. ~ " '-' ~ .-' ',,- 'j.., ..._-~ U ,S, Patient Visits Reported for Influenza-like Illness (ILl) '^, ,/ " .~..\ ....... \ """"".r-l "", ""~m"",, X-'A ~ ' '--" ..,--;:-.,;;:;../1;" " :....~~. U,S, Influenza-like Illness (ILl) Reported by Regions ". , ~l~ ..J;~ J.' ~6..~ .~ """"7' <, '<~ I '-"; c:>> "l> 'J'I U,S, Influenza and Pneumonia-Associated Hospitalizations and Deaths from August 30 to September 5, 2009 Inte:rnationJ,l1 SituahonU'pdate Map of International Activity Estimates (Including 2009 HlNl Flu) -- ';=:i. -"::;. I :--= ,. .~ .~. 9/15/2009 CD~. HINI Flu I Situation Update WHO Pandemic Declaration Facts and Figures A summary of key 2009 HINl disease characteristics, FluView A Weekly Influenza Surveillance Report Prepared by the Influenza Division, CDC Response A summary of CDC activities Press Updates Other Reports and Publications Q & A: CDC's Online Reporting Page last reviewed September 11, 2009, 7:00 PM ET Page last updated September 11, 2009, 7:00 PM ET Content source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1600 Clifton Rd, Atlanta, GA 30333, USA 800-CDC-INFO (800-232-4636) TIY: (888) 232-6348, 24 Hours/Every Day- cdcinfo@cdc,gov http://www.cdc.govlhlnlflu/update.htm 16 I 1 Page 2 of 2 83 " !I!!'~ .. ;;:. __~_uo i:. 1("9_ "- ':_~:' .. ".~;~ ~* ,."'"'''''' U~A::gQy'..y ~,,4- 9/15/2009 WHO I C rent WHO phase of pandemic alert I 6 Pr.eiOfB 3 Home About WHO Countries Health topics Publications Data and statistics Programmes and projects GAR Home Alert... Response Operations Diseases Global Outbreak Alert & Response Network Biorisk Reduction , (i All WHO r This site only Global Alert and Response (GAR) Country activities 1 Outbreak news I Resources I Media centre V\i!iC! Programmes and projects Global Alert and Response (GAR) ; Diseases covered by EPR ':> Avian influenza @ printable version Current WHO phase of pandemic alert CURRENT PHASE OF ALERT IN THE WHO GLOBAL INFLl;ENZA PREPAREDNESS PLAN Pandemic preparedness In the 2009 revision of the phase descriptions, WHO has retained the use of a six-phased approach for easy incorporation of new recommendations and approaches into existing national preparedness and response plans. The grouping and description of pandemic phases have been revised to make them easier to understand, more precise, and based upon observable phenomena. Phases 1-3 correlate with preparedness, including capacity development and response planning activities, while Phases 4-6 clearly signal the need for response and mitigation efforts. Furthermore, periods after the first pandemic wave are elaborated to facilitate post pandemic recovery activities. The current WHO phase of pandemic alert is 6. ":1~~. \1,,"" ; ~~""7r~""}, :E,~ ~.. '''.-".,. '..'- '."',..,...' ...... .. ".. ." TIME PIIASfS 1-3 )ij~r411H:O HUMA!V Te HUMAN l><MiSI,\ISS-IO~ WIOESPRE~O NUMAN INfECTION POSSIBILlI'r' OF RECURRENT ["'E~TS In nature, influenza viruses circulate continuously among animals, especially birds. Even though such viruses might theoretically develop into pandemic viruses, in Phase 1 no viruses circulating among animals have been reported to cause infections in humans. In Phase 2 an animal influenza virus circulating among domesticated or wild animals is known to have caused infection in humans, and is therefore considered a potential pandemic threat. In Phase 3, an animal or human-animal influenza reassortant virus has caused sporadic cases or small clusters of disease in people, but has not resulted in human-to-human transmission sufficient to sustain community-level outbreaks. Limited human-to-human transmission may occur under some circumstances, for example, when there is close contact between an infected person and an unprotected caregiver. However, limited transmission under such restricted circumstances does not indicate that the virus has gained the level of transmissibility among humans necessary to cause a pandemic. Phase 4 is characterized by verified human-to-human transmission of an animal or human~animal influenza reassortant virus able to cause "community-level outbreaks." The ability to cause sustained disease outbreaks in a community marks a significant upwards shift in the risk for a pandemic. Any ....""'....t.." th::>t ",.,e-...."'....te- ('I.. hOle- "",..if"i",rl C""....h::>n ",,,,,,nt C"h......,lrl "......"'....tl" ...."'...."'"It ",ith IMl-ln c"'" th::>t th", http://www ,who, inti csr/ disease/avian_in fl uenza/phase/ enlindex,html 9/15/2009 WHO I c. rent WHO phase of pandemic alert Page 2 of2 161183 WHO region. While most countries will not be affected at this stage, the declaration of Phase 5 is a strong signal that a pandemic is imminent and that the time to finalize the organization, communication, and implementation of the planned mitigation measures is short. Phase 6, the pandemic phase, is characterized by community level outbreaks in at least one other country in a different WHO region in addition to the criteria defined in Phase S. Designation of this phase will indicate that a global pandemic is under way. During the post-peak period, pandemic disease levels in most countries with adequate surveillance will have dropped below peak observed levels. The post-peak period signifies that pandemic activity appears to be decreasing; however, it is uncertain if additional waves will occur and countries will need to be prepared for a second wave. Previous pandemics have been characterized by waves of activity spread over months. Once the level of disease activity drops, a critical communications task will be to balance this information with the possibility of another wave. Pandemic waves can be separated by months and an immediate "at~ease" signal may be premature. In the post-pandemic period, influenza disease activity will have returned to levels normally seen for seasonal influenza. It is expected that the pandemic virus will behave as a seasonal influenza A virus. At this stage, it is important to maintain surveillance and update pandemic preparedness and response plans accordingly. An intensive phase of recovery and evaluation may be required. Contacts i E-mail scams Employment I FAQs I Feedback i Privacy RSS feeds if) WHO 2009 http://www ,who .inti csrl diseasel avian _ infl uenzalphasel en/index,html 9115/2009 WHO I Current WHO phase of pandemic alert Page] of2 ,~\ World Health \~ Organization ) .{ 16/1 83 Current WHO phase of pandemic alert Current phase of alert in the WHO global influenza preparedness plan Pandcm ic preparedness In the 2009 revision of the phase descriptions. WHO has retained the use of a six-phased approach for easy incorporation of new recommendations and approaches into existing national preparedness and response plans. The grouping and description of pandemic phases have been revised to make them easier to understand. more precise, and ba"ed upon observable phenomena. Phases 1-3 correlate with preparedness, including capacity development and response planning activities, while Phases 4-6 clearly signal the need for response and mitigation efforts. Furthermore, periods atler the first pandemic wave are elaborated to facilitate post pandemic recovery activities. The current WHO phase of pandemic alert is 6. In nature, influenza viruses circulate continuously among animals, especially birds. Even though such viruses might theoretically develop into pandemic viruses, in Phase t no viruses circulating among animals have been reported to cause infections in humans. In Phase 2 an animal influenza virus circulating among domesticated or wild animals is known to have caused infection in humans, and is therefore considered a potential pandemic threat. In Phase 3, an animal or human-animal influenza rea<;sortant virus has caused sporadic cases or small clusters of discase in people, but has not resulted in human-to-human transmission sufficient to sustain community-level outbreaks. l.imited human-to-human transmission may occur under some circumstances, for example, when there is close contact between an infected person and an unprotected caregiver. However, limited transmission under such restricted circumstanccs does not indicate that the virus has gained the level of transmissibility among humans necessary to cause a pandemic. Phase 4 is characterized by verified human-to-human transmission of an animal or human-animal influenza reassortant virus able to cause "community-level outbreaks." The ability to eau:>>e sustained disease outbreaks in a community marks a significant upwards shift in the risk for a pandemic. Any country that suspects or has verified sw;h an event should urgently consult v'lith WHO so that the situation can be jointly assessed and a decision made by the aflected country if implementation of a rapid pandemic containment operation is warranted. Phase 4 indicates a significant increase in risk ofa pandt:mic but docs not necessarily mean that a pandemic is a forgone conclusion. Phase 5 is characterized by human-to-human spread of the virus into at least two countries in one WHO region. While most countries will not be affectcd at this stage, the declaration of Phase 5 is a strong signal that a pandemic is imminent and that the time to finalize the organization, communication, and implementation of the planned mitigation measures is short. Phase 6, the pandemic phase. is characterized by community level outbreaks in at least one other country in a different WHO region in addition to the criteria defined in Phase 5. Designation of this phase will indicate that a global pandemic is under way. During the post-peak period, pandemic disease Icvcls in most countries with adequate surveillance will have dropped below peak observed levels. The post-peak period signifies that pandemic activity appears to be decreasing; however, it is uncertain if additional waves will occur and countries will need to be prepared for a second wave. Previous pandemics have been characterized by waVl:S of activity spread over months. Once the level of disea<;e activity drops, a critical communications task will be to balance this information \vilh the possibility of another wave. Pandemic waves can be separated by months and an immediate "at-ease" signal may be premature. In the post-pandemic period, influenza disease activity will have returned to levels normally seen for seasonal influenza. It is expected that the pandemic virus will behave as a seasonal influenza A virus. At this stage, it is important to maintain surveillance and update pandemic preparedness and response plans accordingly. An intensive phase of recovery and evaluation may be required. http://www ,who, inti csr/ disease/avian _ infl uenzalphase/ enlprinthtml 9/15/2009 CDC 2009 HlNl Flu 12009 HINl U,S, Situation Update Page 1 of3 m S~~~;~Ss~~~R~~;r~d~l:e s,~~~~~~~~~ Prevention 16 11 B 3 2009 HINI Flu 2009 HlNl Flu Situation Update Septemhe" 11, 2D09, 1:00 PM ET Map: Weekly Influenza Activity Estimates Reported by State and Territorial Epidemiologists (Activity levels indicate geographic spread of both seasonal and 2009 influenza A [HINI] viruses) (Posted September 11, 2009, 7:00 PM ET, for Week Ending September 5,2009) '''nee Report Prepared by the Influenza Division -mates Reported by State and Territorial Epidemiologists* Week Ending September 05, 2009- Week 35 III ,....->........*... District or Columbi.a GU7 ~,o 0= ~ () , --" A,ld!l.ka HdWdll o No Report o No Activity o Spo..slc o Loc:8l o . us vlrqln Island,. Puerto RIco +: This map indicates geog....aphic spread and does not measur-e the seve..-ity of influenza activity. For more details about the data in the map above, see the FluView Surveillance Report for the week ending September 5, 2009, For information about how this map is updated, see Questions & Answers About CDC's Online Reporting, Percentage of Visits for Influenza-like Illness (ILl) Reported by the u.S. Outpatient Influenza-like Illness Surveillance Network (ILlNet), National Summary 2008-2009 and Previous Two Seasons (Posted September 11, 2009, 7:00 PM ET, for Week Ending September 5, 2009) http://www,cdc,gov/h 1 n 1 t1u/updates/us/ 9/15/2009 CDC 2009 HlNI Flu 12009 HINI U,S, Situation Update Page 2 of3 16/1 83 7 6 5 ::J .E 4 JQ ;;; :> <; 3 '# 2 o " F ' . I . , , . . I 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 Week 1---- 2006-01' -+- 2007-08' --2008-09 . - -NationalSaseline I "'There was no week 53 during the 2006-07 atld 2007-06 seasons, therefore Ihe week 53 dais poinl for those SeaSM$ is an average Mweeks52 and 1 View Chart Data D,S, Influenza and Pneumonia-Associated Hospitalizations and Deaths from August 30 - September 5, 2009 Po:-;kd ~~'ptl'lllJ-)('r' 11. ~~O()l). h:n() 1"'\1 ET D,iI;i T"l'P'II"kd to ('1)(' h: Svpil'mhcJ' HI. ::!OO(j, i:.!:oo.\i\II'T Cases Defined by Influenza and Pneumonia Syndrome* Influenza Laboratory-Tests** 263 28 Totals: 1,380 196 'Reports can be based on syndromic, admission or discharge data, or a combination of data elements that could include laboratory-confirmed and influenza-like illness hospitalizations, Hospitalizations 1,097 Deaths 168 **Laboratory confirmation includes any positive influenza test (rapid influenza tests, RT-PCR, DFA, IFA, or culture), whether or not typing was done, This table is based on data from a new influenza and pneumonia hospitalizations and deaths web-based reporting system that will be used to monitor trends in activity, This is the first week of data from this new system and reflects reports by 42 of 56 states and territories, The table shows aggregate reports of all influenza and pneumonia- associated hospitalizations and deaths (including 2009 H1N1 and seasonal flu) since August 30, 2009 received by CDC from D,S, states and territories, This table will be updated weekly each Friday at llam, For the 2009-2010 influenza season, states are reporting based on new case definitions for hospitalizations and deaths effective August 30, 2009, http://www,cdc,gov/h I n I flu/updates/us/ 9/15/2009 CDC 2009 HINI Flu 12009 HINl U,S, Situation Update Page 3 of3 CDC will continue to use its traditional surveillance systems to track the progress! 6 I 1 8 3 the 2009-2010 influenza season, For more information about influenza surveillance, including reporting of influenza-associated hospitalizations and deaths, see Questions and Answers: Monitoring Influenza Activity, Including 2009 H1NL The number of 2009 H1Nl hospitalizations and deaths reported to CDC from April - August 2009 is available on the Past Situation Updates page, For state level information, refer to state health departments, International Human Cases of 2009 H1Nl Flu Infection See: World Health Organization rii' , Page last reviewed September 11, 2009, 7:00 PM ET Page last updated September 11, 2009, 7:00 PM ET Content source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1600 Clifton Rd. Atlanta, GA 30333, USA 8oo-CDC-INFO (800-232-4636) TIT: (888) 232-6348, 24 Hours/Every Day - cdcinfo@cdc,gov ~* ,.'''-'. U~A~g9.Y,"., \,4 http://www,cdc,govlhlnlflu/updates/us/ 9/1 5/2009 1611 B3 REPORT CERT Notations from 2009 National Conference on Community Preparedness - "Victims" are a resource to recovery. - In crisis people will act on their own. Their first search will be for a dial tone. It is critical to keep neighborhood informed. CERT is trained and equipped to act responsibly under stress. They need to involve people; let them know what they can expect from you. - National survey, 3000 households in AprilIMay 2009. 25% people will NOT prepare for disaster 35% are now prepared (but some had vague plan, few supplies or specific information) 40% are, or will, think about it. - Those who refuse to prepare say that local emergency management will help them. - Half of sampling did not know of community disaster plans, evacuation routes or shelters. - Two thirds of those responding negatively believe a disaster will never hit their community, - 80% believe preparation and planning will help them, - 35% believe nothing they can do will help. - 70% willing to rely on themselves for 72 hours. - 64% willing to take a 20 hour course (CERT) - New York City CERT established a strong neighborhood registry, lead and coach neighbors and map disabled. Can get a report of all homes/apartments needing help in an area in six minutes following a crisis. - Connecticut has established an Animal CERT. Members receive basic Cert training, plus veterinarian leadership and training: animal behavior, safe handling, restraint and first aid. Operate with large trailer, cages, etc. The purpose of this team is to help people, not primarily pets, 94% of owners will not abandon pets. l6/ '1 83 - HINl 163,000 cases in Western Hemisphere, 11,000 deaths with heaviest mortality in Bolivia, Argentina and Chile during their high (winter) transmission season. 50% of those infected were age 5 to 24 23% of those infected were age 25 up 64% of deaths were less than age 49 - Virus not mutating significantly, sick respond well to antivirals (Tamiflu), - Labs have produced 100 million seasonal flu doses. - Producing 159 million HINI flu doses, but 2 shots are required. - COMMUNICATIONS Amateur radio most reliable and used by CERT units. Less subject to EMP attack. - TRAINING GOALS - Incident command a CERT subject (FEMA.gov ; independent studies) - POD activation - Amateur radio net - Community involvement: Human services, mass care District/neighborhood mapping Interface with city organization Interface with faith based organizations Fiala ~/cn:-/ 16 J" / Halas --r 11/, nj.--. 1m },v' Henning -Jf /' October 22 2009 ~ Coyle _ \/ , Coletta ~ TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEE G OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD RECE Naples, Florida IVED October 22 2009 NOV 24 2009 , BOdro otc. . ounty Commie"'..... ~nors LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Code Enforcement Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" ofthe Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Gerald Lefebvre Larry Dean Kenneth Kelly Edward Larsen Lionel L'Esperance (Absent) Robert Kaufman James Lavinski Herminio Ortega ALSO PRESENT: Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Jen Waldron, Code Enforcement Specialist Mise COIT8S: Jeff Letourneau, Code Enforcement SupervisoOate:. D I J- 10 Page 1 'tem#IIP1U '2!"rie-;to 1611 g October 22, 2009 " CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'd like to call the Code Enforcement Board of Collier County meeting to order. The date is October 22nd, 2009. Notice: The respondent may be limited to 20 minutes for case presentation, unless additional time is granted by the board. Persons wishing to speak on any agenda item will receive up to five minutes, unless the time is adjusted by the chairman. All parties participating in the public hearing are asked to observe Robert's Rules of Order and speak one at a time so that the court reporter can record all statements being made. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and, therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence on which the appeal is to be based. Neither Collier County nor the Code Enforcement Board shall be responsible for providing this record. May I please have the roll call. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Gerald Lefebvre? MR. LEFEBVRE: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Ken Kelly? MR. KELLY: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Robert Kaufman? MR. KAUFMAN: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mrs. James Lavinski? MR. LA VINSKI: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Herminio Ortega? MR. ORTEGA: Here. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Ed Larson? MR. LARSEN: Present. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Larry Dean? MR. DEAN: Here. Page 2 16 f:i1' B October 22, 2009 4 MS. WALDRON: And Mr. Lionel L'Esperance is not present. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And he does not have -- MS. WALDRON: And it's an unexcused absence. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And the alternate will be a voting member until Lionel, ifhe does show up, until get here. Do I have an approval of the agenda -- or should I say changes to the agenda first? MS. WALDRON: We do. We do have some additions to the agenda. Under motions, we will have two items under motion for extension of time. The first item, which is currently item four under imposition of fines will be moved under extension oftime. Federal National Mortgage, CESD20090003484. Item two under extension of time will be Rafael Santos and Zonia Barginer, Case CESD20090000849. Under stipulations, we have four stipulations. The first stipulation will be EJ Properties, LLC, Edgerrin James Title MGRM. CESD20090009150. Second item under stipulations will be Lisa Dasher, CESD20090002945. Third item under stipulations will be John E. Crimmel, Jr., CESD20090004481. And the last item under stipulations will be Paulino and Adriana Vega, CENA20090005263. This item will be a time sensitive item at 10:30, due to an interpreter. And I believe that's all the changes that we have. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Just going to give everyone a minute to make the changes needed. Everyone all set? Do I hear a motion for approval ofthe minutes -- or approval of Page 3 16 It 1 B I. --.- October 22, 2009 Cf the agenda? MR. KELL Y: Make a motion to approve. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. And before I go any further, I don't want to forget, today is going to be Heidi's last day, our county attorney. And Jean Rawson will be back next meeting. So I just want to say thank you very much. MR. KAUFMAN: It's not going to be your last day, it's just-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, last day -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: My last day here. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sorry, sorry. I see a bead of sweat coming off. But last day working for the board. Approval of the minutes. Do I hear a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: Make a motion we approve the minutes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? Page 4 1611;~ B}, October 22, 2(!9 .., MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. And we're going to move on to motions. The first one is a motion for rehearing. David E. Horton, CESD200800 11966. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, at this time I would have to recuse myself from the board. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Please note on the record. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. HORTON: Is this -- am I presenting my case today or asking for a rehearing? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No, you'd be asking for a rehearing today. MR. HORTON: I'm prepared and everything's finished. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is it -- MR. KELLY: I have a question of Heidi. Was the motion filed within the time frame allotted? And if so, do we have the ability to just put this on the agenda with an amended agenda vote? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, the request was on September 9th, and his hearing was on August 27th, so it would have exceeded the 10 days. MR. HORTON: The request was actually made the day after the last court case. I wasn't here because of an illness in the family. I sent an e-mail in, and I have a copy of it, to the e-mail that was provided Page 5 1611 B"'~~ October 22, 2009 for me at code enforcement. Then when I physically went down there two weeks later I was told that they provided the wrong e-mail. She said it happens all the time. So that's why the September date shows. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You are in compliance, correct? MR. HORTON: Yes. MR. KELL Y: So it's a finding of fact basically more than anything? MS. WALDRON: Well, he's got operational costs that he's been ordered to pay as well. MR. HORTON: Everything's been paid for except for court costs. That's the only reason I'm here today, to see in can get the court costs waived. MR. KELLY: I could save some time and let you know that the operational cost of the board has no authority to waive or to reduce. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Correct. MR. KELLY: So we would -- MR. HORTON: Who do I appeal to that then? MR. KELLY: I don't think there is. I think it's just a standard rules and reg. issue. Maybe the Board of County Commissioners, but I -- MR. HORTON: I have paperwork here I just want to show you. Anyways, I've got enough for everybody. How do I dispense this? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, are you looking -- we haven't decided if -- I guess we're trying to figure out what you're trying to do. You are in compliance now. MR. HORTON: I'm in compliance. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We can't do anything with operational costs. We can't reduce those. MR. HORTON: No, no, everything's finished. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Correct, correct. MR. HORTON: What I've got here, though, is the paperwork Page 6 October 22~~OU 1 B 4 that shows the chronological of what happened to me. Looks like I'm going to lose my house because of an error made by code enforcement. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, that's-- MR. HORTON: Regardless, I've got a copy of the impacts that the code enforcement's made to me. And I know your -- the job here is to protect the overall standard of the community, but in my case you're going to have an empty house with a reinforced lanai. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, all that's outstanding sounds like there's operational costs, there's no fines. If you were coming in front of us and there was a fine, we can vote on reducing the fine. But there aren't any fines. You're in compliance. The only thing is operational costs. What are the operational costs in this -- MS. WALDRON: $87. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: $87. MR. HORTON: I -- it's not that much to you guys, but I had to put a couple thousand dollars into complying. And in the meantime too, I was told that part of my house was not in compliance, which is going to cost a lot of money to fix, and I found out three months later it was in compliance. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We don't want to hear the case. But I guess by rehearing the case, the outcome would be the same, you still would have to pay operational costs. So there's no gain except for you would have to come back down here again. MR. HORTON: I was under the impression that you had the ability to waive court costs. That's the only reason I came down today. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We do not have the ability to waive operational costs. MR. HORTON: What is the operational cost as opposed to court cost? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Operational costs are their -- Page 7 16 October 22, 2ol91 ail MS. WALDRON: It's basically the same thing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But it's your -- MS. WALDRON: It's the cost for us to bring the case forward to the hearing. MR. HORTON: Also my paper work shows that I was in compliance before the last hearing. I left a message the week before that I was ready to go, and then I got a notice a week later that I'm to appear. The message was left on Mr. Renald's answering machine. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Jennifer, correct me ifI'm wrong, operational costs, even if the case isn't brought to us, do they still have to pay? Would a respondent still have to pay those? MS. WALDRON: Ifthe case is not brought to you and it's pulled off the agenda, the operational costs are not owed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Operational costs are not owed. Is there any administrative way that you could see that ifhe's correct in a voice mail, e-mail or whatever record he has, if that could be shown and argued, would operational costs be able to be waived? MS. WALDRON: Well, I have an affidavit of compliance, and it's also in your packet -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Correct. MS. WALDRON: -- from the investigator, and it states that he was in compliance on the 30th. And we have to go by the testimony from the investigator that that was the time that they were in compliance with the case. It's already been brought forward, we've already spent the cost, you guys have done an order, we've recorded the order, we've incurred those costs as well. You'd have to rehear the case and come up with a different outcome in order for him to get the costs dismissed at this point. MR. KAUFMAN: Or if the county withdrew the case. MS. WALDRON: It's already been heard, though, so we can't withdraw the case. Page 8 October 2t~o~;(iB 4 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But -- so if we hear a case and the case -- we find that there's no violation in fact, then there's no operational cost? MS. WALDRON: Correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So is that -- your argument is you want to come back in front of us and find that there was no violation. If potentially you find no violation, then the court cost of $87 would be erased, I guess. MR. HORTON: I don't know if! can take off another day of work to do that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I mean, that's the option. MR. HORTON: Okay, I'll tell you what: The option for me is to do that. In the meantime, I have a chronological order of everything that happened. I don't know if this can go into public record or not or what. If! can disperse this, I'll go ahead and pay the court costs. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm afraid if you give us that information, then it's like hearing the case. And-- MR. HORTON: I see, okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- we want to make a -- MR. HORTON: If I come back, I can disperse this then, correct? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: More than likely, yes. MR. HORTON: Okay, then I'll go ahead and rehear it then. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Discussion from the board? MS. WALDRON: The board's going to have to vote on-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. MS. WALDRON: -- whether you're going to grant a rehearing, due to the circumstances that he's -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Presenting. MS. WALDRON: -- suggesting to you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MR. KELLY: Does staff have any objection to the statement made that the respondent was in fact within the time frame initially, Page 9 October 22, 2olJ6 IIJ 4' via e-mail or phone call? MR. PAUL: I want to object. I've never heard from Mr. Horton in regards to this. I guess he may have come into the office, but I don't think it's on a timely -- it was in the time frame of the last hearing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, let me ask a question. You stated, Mr. Horton, that you have an e-mail that sent to an incorrect e-mail address. MR. HORTON: I have a copy of the original e-mail. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Maybe we should see that and then find out from the county if that -- MS. WALDRON: The e-mail's actually in your packet, and the e-mail address that is -- it's addressed supposed to myself and that is an incorrect e-mail. So this was not sent to me -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, it was never received. MS. WALDRON: -- on the 9th of September. Which is the day that he originally sent this was on the 9th of September. MR. KAUFMAN: Is it possible to, if the board decides to rehear the case, that it can be put at the end of agenda for today so that the gentleman wouldn't have to come back a different day? MR. KELLY: Are you ready for it? MR. PAUL: Yeah, I'm ready, I'm ready for it. MR. KAUFMAN: Would that be okay? MR. HORTON: What are we talking? How long? MR. KAUFMAN: Ifwe, the board, votes to rehear the case and we move it into the agenda so that you don't have to take another day off of work, it's just-- MR. HORTON: Well, I'm self-employed, I'm flexible. But I can leave and come back then today? MR. KAUFMAN: I don't know what time it would be, that scheduling. But everything we -- MR. HORTON: Okay, I'll do that. Yeah, I've got everything. Page 10 16/1 October 22, 200~ B 4 I'm ready. MR. KELL Y: In light of the time frame, knowing that the respondent did in fact make a request within the allotted time, I make a motion that we grant the rehearing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, we don't know in fact that he did make notice in time. MR. HORTON: Are you talking about the notice via e-mail or the notice via phone? MR. KELL Y : Well, the notice via e-mail that went to the wrong address. MR. HORTON: The one that she referred to is the second e-mail. MS. WALDRON: It has to be provided in writing. We don't -- it has -- I mean, if you call a few days before that, we would tell you it has to be in writing and it has to be within this time frame. The rules clearly state it has to be requested in writing. And this was what we had in writing, this is what I accepted from him at the time -- MR. HORTON: I'm not exactly sure-- MS. WALDRON: -- we gave it to you to make the decision. MR. KELLY: So this e-mail has 9/21 as the date that it was sent to the wrong e-mail address. MS. WALDRON: He sent it on Wednesday, September 9th. If you look at the top, that's when-- MR. KELLY: Oh, I see. MS. WALDRON: -- I mean, I'll accept that as the date because he had the wrong e-mail address. MR. HORTON: But if you look at the content of the e-mail, it says this is the second one I sent; is that correct? Which means -- MS. WALDRON: No. MR. HORTON: -- it indicates there's one before that, isn't it? MS. WALDRON: No, it does not. It just says I missed my Page 11 octobl ~, b~19 B 4 hearing last week due to sudden illness. MR. KELLY: I concur with the respondent, Mr. Horton. The first line of the e-mail does say I sent this e-mail last week, dot, dot, dot. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, there's a motion. Do I hear a second? MR. KAUFMAN: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. KELLY: Mr. Horton, if you'd like us to rehear this, the county and the board seems to be okay with hearing it today. We would just have to amend our agenda to put this on as a hearing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That was my next step. MR. KELLY: Sorry. MR. HORTON: Any idea -- could I go for a couple of hours, come back, or we're talking -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I wouldn't go for a couple of hours. It all depends on the cases. Sometimes we're here for an hour, sometimes we're here for four hours. MR. HORTON: All right, all right. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So I wouldn't go too far. Page 12 16 11 t, October 22, 2009 t B ii' MR. HORTON: Okay, very good, thanks. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to amend the agenda to put David E. Horton at the end of the hearings? MR. KAUFMAN: I'll make that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KELL Y: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. We're going to move on to the next one. And next will be motion for extension of time, Federal National Mortgage. And it's CESD20090003484. (Mr. Keegan was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Good morning. No representative? Okay. How was this received? Was there a letter? MS. WALDRON: This was submitted bye-mail to me on Monday, and I did tell the representative, I think, I believe it was from the realtor's office, that I would forward it to you for consideration. MR. KELLY: Mr. Chair, if! may? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, sir. MR. KELL Y: I have a slight issue with granting any type of extension or anything. Judging by the e-mail that was written, it Page 13 1 ~,. ~4 .' October 22, ~ "1... . appears as though they're trying to sell the home, thus passing the violation and all the repercussions off to a potential new owner. And although the e-mail does state that the potential buyers are willing to rectify the code violations and any costs associate with them, I would hate to the pass on this to someone who maybe wasn't completely informed as to the extent of the violations and have them incur a larger dollar amount than what they maybe were led to believe and thus be back in front of us as a hardship. I'd rather see the bank take care of the liability before passing it on. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion from the board? MR. LARSEN : Yes-- MR. KAUFMAN: Has the county heard from the bank at all? MR. KEEGAN: I believe just that e-mail. MS. WALDRON: Just the e-mail that I received from the -- looks like the representative from the realtor firm. That's it. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, sir. MR. LARSEN: The e-mail, Jennifer, also requests information pertaining to an extension and to send them any documents and things like that. Was there any followup in regard to this, or do you know exactly who you spoke with? Was it Becca Gallagher? MS. WALDRON: Yes, it was. It was Becca. And I was e-mailing her back and forth. And she just wanted to know, the documents, was there any form that they needed to fill out to request the extension. And I accepted the e-mail as their request for extension, instead of filling out an additional form. MR. KEEGAN: I'm sorry, if I can say something? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Absolutely. MR. KEEGAN: This case, once it was in the foreclosure process, it was turned over to code enforcement's foreclosure team. And I have a note entered here on September 15th, 2009 by John Page 14 October 22~ 2~Ot 1 B 11 Santafemia, the initial violation e-mail sent to Citibank, who they were dealing with at the time and then Ms. Waldron received the e-mail. MR. LARSEN: Right. MR. KAUFMAN: Based on the bank not showing up to request anything and based on what Mr. Kelly has already said, I make a motion that we deny the request. MR. LARSEN: Well, you know, we do have a notice of hearing. I don't think there's any contention that it wasn't properly served. It says respondents are required to appear at 8:30 a.m. and hearings begin at 9:00 a.m. And-- MS. WALDRON: I did speak with the representative yesterday as well and informed her that it's in their best interest to send someone to represent them and tell them why they're requesting the extension. MR. KELL Y: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? Mr. Larsen? MR. LARSEN: No, no further discussion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. We will hear the case today. The next one will be Rafael Santos. (Speakers were duly sworn.) Page 15 16/ !7tf 84 October 22, 2009"" THE COURT REPORTER: May I have your name, please. MR. SANTOS: Rafael Santos. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Sir, you're looking for extension of time? MR. SANTOS: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you explain why, please. MR. SANTOS: The addition is almost done. I try to pass only the final inspection. The addition is almost done. It hasn't passed only the final inspection, and it's today. And I would like to have at least 45 more days. Because my sister got sick and she lives in Gainesville. And two days before the finalize is tomorrow. But everything is on. I did the appointment for today. But it's -- and I also need to do the survey that is going to cost at least $175. But my sister is not working right now and for the month. So I don't know if it's possible. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MR. KELL Y: Investigator, I noticed here that this was originally entered into a stipulated agreement, so -- MR. MUCHA: Yes, sir. MR. KELL Y: The respondent voluntarily basically took it upon himself to correct the violation. Do you feel as though the respondent's been pretty diligent getting this thing taken care of? MR. MUCHA: Absolutely. MR. KELLY: So no objection for an extension? MR. MUCHA: No objection. MR. DEAN: I have one question. What was the time limit you asked for? MR. SANTOS: It was like-- MR. DEAN: Now. Did you say 45 days? MR. SANTOS: Yeah, if you could. Because I have to pay at least $175 for the final survey. And then like I was explaining you, Page 16 October 2~,~ot91 8" my sister is -- she got sick and she lives in Gainesville, and she's not going to work for at least a month, and she has two kids. So if I -- I don't know if you can do it. MR. DEAN: The reason I asked is on your to whom it may concern letter to us, you ask for one or two weeks. And then -- MR. SANTOS: Oh, yeah, but-- MR. DEAN: But 45 is needed. I have no problem with that. I just want to make sure we understood. You asked for a week or two, now you're asking -- MR. SANTOS: Yeah, but I'm afraid. I would like to -- you know, if something happen, I don't want to pay $250 a day. MR. DEAN: Makes sense. Thank you. That's good. MR. LARSEN: Is there a motion pending? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: There is no motion, but if you'd like MR. DEAN: I'll make the motion that we extend 45 days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. LARSEN: I second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Sorry, we had a little technical difficulty. It seemed like all of us Page 17 161l October 22, 200tt B ~ had -- in this order for Santos, looked like there was an original, but it's actually a color copy, so that's what we're talking about. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chair, we do have one change to the agenda -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MS. WALDRON: -- if we could do that now before we get started. Under old business, motion for imposition of fines, number one, the county would like to withdraw that case from the agenda. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Tosto? MS. WALDRON: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Do I hear a motion to amend the agenda once again? MR. KELL Y: Motion to amend. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. See, you might get out of here by 10:30. Okay, we're going to move on to stipulations. And next -- first stipulation is EJ. Properties, LLC. Edgerrin James Title MGRM. And Page 18 16 lIB I, ., October 22, 2009 .5f it is Case No. CESD20090009150. (Mr. Arthur James and Mr. Morad were duly sworn.) MR. MORAD: Good morning. For the record, Ed Morad, Collier County Code Enforcement. Here before you to present a stipulation agreement for Case No. CESD20090009150. The violation is failure to obtain building permits for improvements of dwelling units. Location is 407 Third Street, Immokalee. Mr. Arthur James is here representing the property owner of record, which is EJ. Properties, LLC. Prior to today's hearing we had a pre-hearing on October the 12th, 2009, and Mr. James representing the LLC, we discussed the violations, we reviewed the stipulation agreement, and he signed as the agent or representative for the LLC. MR. KELLY: Mr. Morad, the one you have on the screen doesn't have any date or fine amount. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We have to add that in. MR. KELLY: It's a stipulated agreement. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's true. MR. MORAD: I'm sorry? It should be on the -- we left it up to the board, I'm sorry. MR. KAUFMAN: It's not a stip., though. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It's not a stipulated agreement, because not all the terms are agreed to. MR. MORAD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So was there any days discussed and a fine discussed? MR. MORAD: No, sir. Once again, we thought the policy was to leave it up to the board to decide. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No, the policy is to have a stipulated agreement telling us what all the parties agreed to and then coming to us and then we -- Page 19 t,. B4 October~~2~oi t MR. MORAD: Okay. If you'd like, Mr. James and I could go out and agree to the required time and fine, if you'd like. MR. KELLY: Unless you want to just recap what your discussion was and come up with a time now that's acceptable to everybody. MR. JAMES: I have no problem with that. MR. LARSEN: I think that would be more the prudent way to go. I mean, basically I believe that the code enforcement agents were relying on this board to suggest days and an amount of fine. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I guess the question would be then of the respondent, how long do you think it will take? I mean, have you gotten the permits yet? MR. JAMES: No, I'm working on that now. And he's -- I've been working with him diligently to get the permits. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I mean, all the engineering work's been done? MR. JAMES: Well, I got everything, I just got to find the right contractor to do the job. MR. LARSEN: Right. If I understand, you're in need of permits, right? MR. JAMES: Yeah, that's it. MR. LARSEN: Okay. And the permits are for plumbing and wiring? MR. JAMES: Yeah. MR. LARSEN: All right. And how long do you think it's going to take you to finalize that process and get your permits? MR. JAMES: Give me about 60 days, I should have it. MR. LARSEN: Sixty days. MR. JAMES: Yeah. MR. LARSEN: Okay. Do you think you're going to need any longer than 60 days? Because it's a lot easier for us to give you time now. Page 20 18 I 84 October 22, 2009 1 MR. JAMES: Well, make it 90. MR. LARSEN: Was that 90? MR. JAMES: Yeah, give me 90 then. We'll go with that. MR. LARSEN: Now, you do know that basically if you don't finish up within that period of time, there's going to be an imposition of a fine. MR. JAMES: I mean, finish up -- it's a 16-unit building. MR. LARSEN: No, I understand. I'm talking about getting your permit. MR. JAMES: Okay, no problem, I understand that. MR. ORTEGA: I have a question. With regards to the time frame, if -- this is multi-family, I take it? MR. JAMES: Yes. MR. ORTEGA: You're looking at permitting and you're also looking at the actual work. MR. JAMES: No, that's not what he's stipulating. He's saying permitting, just getting the permit. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you read under paragraph two, if you can look up -- or if you have it in front of you. MR. JAMES: Yeah. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It says request all required inspections to be performed and passed through a certificate of completion! occupancy. So that means that you are done, not just getting permits, but the work is completed, you call an inspector out and all -- everything is approved. That's what a CO -- or certificate of completion or -- MR. JAMES: Yeah, I understand what that means. So give me six months, then I can have the whole thing finished. Because it's a 16-unit thing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: See how it changes? MR. JAMES: Yeah, changes very good then, yeah. MR. KELL Y: Mr. Morad, do you have any objections? Page 21 16 I 11 / B" October 22, 2009 MR. MORAD: That's fine with me, yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Now, we just have to come up with a fine amount. MR. KAUFMAN: $100 a day after six months? MR. LARSEN: I think that's an appropriate amount. MR. JAMES: We can work with that. Can we go $2.00? I'm asking now. MR. KAUFMAN: That's what you call negotiating. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, so now we have within 180 days or a fine of $100 will be imposed for each day the violation exists, okay? Is that understood? MR. JAMES: That's understood. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Now, what we'd like you to do before you leave is if we do agree to this, is have that filled in, 180 days and 100 days. You're going to need to initial it and date it. MR. JAMES: No problem. MR. KELLY: I'll make a motion we accept the stipulated agreement. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? MR. ORTEGA: I do have a second question, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead. MR. ORTEGA: Are you here as a representative? MR. JAMES: Yes. MR. ORTEGA: Does he have a Power of Attorney? MR. KELL Y: I know from past experiences that we've worked together and he's under the same foundation and he was authorized in those cases. I'm comfortable. MR. ORTEGA: No further questions. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. MS. WALDRON: And just for the record, operational costs as Page 22 .J. h "1' B " October 2~ toOl .. well. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And operational costs, okay. MR. KAUFMAN: Operational cost to be paid within? MS. WALDRON: Thirty days. MR. KAUFMAN: Thirty days, 10 days? MS. WALDRON: Thirty days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm not sure that was a problem. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Thank you very much. Have a good day. The next one will be Lisa Dasher. That is CESD200090002945. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Like to read the stipulated agreement, please. And state your name. MS. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. The violation noted in the referenced Notice of Violation are accurate and I stipulate to their existence. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of $86.43 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing. Abate all Page 23 J. 6 1/ 1 B" October 22, 2009 violations by: Must apply for and obtain a Collier County building permit or demolition permit and request required inspections to be performed and passed through a certificate of completion/occupancy within 120 days ofthis hearing or a fine of $200 per day will be imposed. That if the respondent -- the respondent must notify code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provision of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you agree to this? MS. DASHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And if you can just state your name for the record, please. MS. DASHER: Lisa Dasher. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions of the board? MR. LARSEN: Yes. Ms. Dasher, how long do you think it's going to take for you to comply with this stipulation? Are you going to be able to do it within the 120 days? MS. DASHER: I hope so. I was unable to because I'm unemployed during the summer. I'm back to work now, so-- MR. LARSEN: Okay. And do you pretty much know the process and what needs to be done? MS. DASHER: Yes, Maria has been helpful. MR. LARSEN: All right. So you think 120 days is enough time for you to get this taken care of? MS. DASHER: Yes. MR. LARSEN: The only other concern I have is that basically the fine of $200 a day seems high. I would recommend $100 per day after the 120 days, because we're dealing with a patio, it appears. Page 24 .. October 21, fhcj)r1',B 4 MR. KELLY: Miss Dasher, do you have plans to keep the patio and bring it up to current code, or to take it down? MS. DASHER: Yes, I plan on keeping it. MR. KELL Y: I'm curious to see what the board thinks about the 120 days. Ifwe have to bring it up to current code now, it might be a little bit more work than -- MS. RODRIGUEZ: She was working with someone, trying to get the engineering for it. And they were going to do a permit by affidavit. So I don't know if it's got any other adjustments that she needs to do to bring it up to code; I don't know. MR. LARSEN: Well, is it just as a matter of getting it permitted or additional work needs to be done on your patio? MS. DASHER: I think just getting it permitted. MR. LARSEN: So you think that the work was done up to code, it was done properly? MS. DASHER: I think so. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So you do understand that if you do find out that it can't be brought up to code for some reason, that you will have 120 days to either bring it up to code, get a certificate of completion or you would have to demolish it. MS. DASHER: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. And you have 120 days. And as it stands now it's $200, but we'll have a discussion about possibly reducing it. Any further discussion from the board? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to -- MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion to reduce the fine from $200 on the stipulation to $100. MR. LARSEN: I second that motion. MR. KELLY: And accepted. MR. KAUFMAN: And accepted. Page 25 ./.6/1 October 22, 2009 B 4 .. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. DASHER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You're welcome. MR. KAUFMAN: One last thing. If you for some reason get stuck and you don't get it done in 120 days, before the 120 days come back. MS. DASHER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next case will be John E. Crimmel, Jr. Case No. CESD200090004481. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. KEEGAN: Good morning. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Good morning. The respondent is not present; is that correct? MR. KEEGAN: No, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. MR. KEEGAN: For the record, Thomas Keegan, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. In reference to Case No. CESD20090004481 , Board of County Commissioners versus John R. Crimmel. The respondent and the county has reached a stipulation Page 26 October 22,~~9"1 B 4 agreement. He agreed that the violations noted in the referenced Notice of Violation are accurate, and he stipulates to their existence. A wooden gazebo with electric built without first obtaining Collier County approval, necessary permits, inspections and certificate of completion at 1390 Del Mar Lane, Naples, Florida, 34104. Folio No. 248315600009. Therefore, it is agreed that the parties -- that the respondent shall: Pay operational costs in the amount of87.57 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of this hearing, and also to abate the violations by applying for all necessary building permits or a demolition permit. Request all required inspections through to certificate of completion to bring property into compliance within 60 days of this hearing or a fine of $200 a day will be imposed until the violation is abated. The respondent must notifY the code enforcement investigator within 24 hours of the abatement of the violation and request the investigator to perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Before I jump into this case, Jennifer, did she -- did you make -- was a change made from $200 to $100 and did she initial it? MS. WALDRON: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. Thank you. I forgot to make a mention of that. Sorry about that. Any questions of the board? MR. LARSEN: I have a question, Mr. Chairman. Is this residential or commercial? MR. KEEGAN: Residential, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that we accept the stipulation as written. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? Page 27 1 l' B October 22, 2~9 1 .4 MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. KEEGAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We've still got -- we're going to jump over Vega, because he's time sensitive for 10:30 this morning, and we're going to go on to the first hearing. And that should be Heriberto Perez, correct? Case No. CELU20090007827. Is the respondent present? MR. PAUL: No, he's not. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you very much. MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Ordinance Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 2.02.03. Description of violation: Single-family home was converted to multi-family in an area designated for single-family use. Location/address where violation exists: 2081 50th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116. Folio 36120200000. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Heriberto Perez, 2081 50th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida, 34116. Page 28 October 22, 2Jof 'T B ~ Date violation first observed: May 11 th, 2009. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: June 17th, 2009. Date onlby which violation to be corrected: July 17th, 2009. Date of reinspection: September 16th, 2009. Results of the reinspection: Is that the violation remains. The notice of hearing was posted at the property and the courthouse on October 2nd, 2009, and was also sent certified mail on October 12th, 2009. At this time I'd like to present Investigator Renald Paul. (Mr. Paul was duly sworn.) MR. PAUL: For the record, Renald Paul, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. Case No. CELU20090007827. A violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Sections 2.02.03. Single-family home converted to multi-family unit in a single-family zoned area with no permits. At this time I would like to bring in some exhibits, B-1 through 11. MR. KELLY: Make a motion we accept the exhibits. MR. LARSEN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? Page 29 16 1,1 October 22, 2009 84 (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. PAUL: And this was simply on my first site hearing. I went into the main part of the home. I had spoken with the tenant and he let me inside. And as you'll see as she goes through the photographs, the first photograph just shows the inside of the main part of the home. The second photograph that she's showing is two bedrooms off to the right side of the home. Actually shows on three -- it's actually three different doors. There's two of those doors that you cannot get through because they're sealed shut. The one off to the left goes into one unit and the one to the right goes to the garage, which is also sealed off as another unit. And that's the side door to the garage. MR. KAUFMAN: Excuse me. So you're saying there are three units there? MR. PAUL: Three units. This has been converted into a triplex. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. MR. PAUL: And this is the inside ofthe one that's in the garage. And it shows that they've added plumbing and electrical also. And they also have a secondary kitchen in the second one, and they have another kitchen in the third unit also. So in total they've got three kitchens in the home. And this is the back unit, the one that I wasn't able to access. But I was finally able to get entry in there. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: At a different time? MR. PAUL: Right, at a different time. MR. ORTEGA: Have you made contact with the actual owner at all, physical? MR. PAUL: I did, but it was through another person. What had happened was I had gotten in contact with the bank. I believe they had filed a lis pendens for the property and they had actually met me Page 30 October 22, ~~i 1 B" out at the site. And they were like, well, we're going to try to get this situation taken care of. And the owner was there at the time, but he doesn't speak English. So that's how I was able to gain access into the home, into the back part of the home. MR. ORTEGA: Is this property located in Golden Gate City or Golden Gate Estates? MR. PAUL: This is Golden Gate City. And that just shows the other bathroom that was in the third unit -- I mean the kitchen that was in the third unit. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What's the status ofthe bank? Foreclosure, I guess. MR. PAUL: They have not foreclosed on the home yet. It's still in lis pendens, so they don't have title to the home yet, so he's still the owner. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. KAUFMAN: Have you looked to see if any building permits were ever pulled on this? MR. PAUL: There hasn't been. There are no -- MR. KAUFMAN: So all ofthe work that we see here-- MR. PAUL: Is all illegal, yes. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And from the pictures, I take it there's people living in there? MR. PAUL: Yes, there are. Each unit is being rented out as a little efficiency. On 5/11 I was on-site. I had spoken with the tenant, I had explained why I was on-site. We had gotten a complaint about overcrowding at this property. Once inside I did take photographs of the interior of the home. The first tenant advised me that I needed to go speak with the tenant that was living in the garage so that I could get in there, which I did. Page 31 16 V 1 B~ October 22, 2009 ' And she allowed me entry, and that's when I took the photographs of that one, of those two parts of the home. r was unable to gain access to the back part of the home at that time. On 5/12 I attempted to do personal service to the property owner. The property appraiser sheet states that the owner lives at the residence, but he doesn't. So I was unable to serve the NOV at that time. r sent it certified mail. It was returned on 6/7. Observed that the violation remained. There was no change. There were no permits that were applied for, anything. On 6/17 of'09 r posted a Notice of Violation at the residence and the courthouse. On 6/22 I had a phone conversation with a lady by the name of Diane who was working with the bank, and at that time we had spoken about the violations. And she had said that the property was going into a short sale. But she wanted to meet me at the site so we could possibly get these issues taken care of. On 7/20 of '09 r had met with Diane, and at that time the property owner was on-site. And we went over everything. And that's when she allowed me access into the third part of the home, which was the back part where, as you see, it was converted also. On 8/25 I called Diane because there was no change, no permits had been applied for, and r had left her a message. 8/28, after research, found there was no call back from her. There was no change, violation remained. r prepped the case for court. And on 9/16 found that the violation remained. On 10/2, posted a notice of hearing at the residence and the courthouse and we're here today. MR. KAUFMAN: Have you had any opportunity to speak to anybody from the bank? MR. PAUL: No, no one's ever called me back. Even when I Page 32 16trl B~ October 22, 2009 leave Diane messages, she doesn't call me back. MR. KAUFMAN: Has this been turned over to the task force that has been working with banks? MR. PAUL: Yes, it has. This information has been turned over to them. I don't know where they're at with it at this time, but I've gotten no information on it. I don't have any new information. MR. KELLY: I'll make a motion that a violation does exists. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. MR. LARSEN: I'll second the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. PAUL: The county asks that the owner pay the operational cost in the amount of -- I don't know what the operational cost is. MR. KAUFMAN: I'm getting-- MR. PAUL: 86.71 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days of the hearing. Abate all violations by: Respondent must obtain a Collier County demolition permit and return the residence back to the original permitted state and obtain inspections and certificate of completion within "X" amount of days ofthis hearing or pay a fine of "X" amount of dollars for each day the violation remains. Page 33 1~1 B~ October 22, 20(]r! 1 1 Respondent must notifY code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement. If respondents fail to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Department to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. KAUFMAN: Do you have any suggestion as to violation exceeds "X" amount of days -- whatever the days are, what the fine would be. MR. PAUL: Sixty days and then fines, 200 a day. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. I'd like to make a couple of comments. Number one, there are obviously three families living there. MR. PAUL: Correct. MR. KAUFMAN: So not only because of electrical and plumbing that's there to be a safety violation, and also the people who are living there, if you return this to a single-family residence, they're going to have to make arrangements to go someplace else, so I think that needs to be taken into consideration when we deliberate the case. MR. PAUL: I can put in something here where we can have them vacate those other two parts of the home that have been converted, depending on how much time you want to go. MR. KAUFMAN: Well, it wouldn't be just them vacating it, but then the electrical and the plumbing that was done there needs to be inspected -- MR. PAUL: Correct. MR. KAUFMAN: -- permits have to be pulled, et cetera. MR. PAUL: Right. MR. ORTEGA: There may be more to that. If they're on septic, they're going to have to demolish. They're not going to be able to keep the garage. MR. PAUL: Right. MR. ORTEGA: Most likely. Page 34 October 22,1'(j9J 1 With regards to the work, there's more I'm sure than just electrical and plumbing. There's going to be structural work, because they probably enclosed walls or doors, so -- MR. PAUL: That's correct. MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau, Collier County Code Enforcement Supervisor. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Were you sworn in? MR. LETOURNEAU: No, I wasn't. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: Investigator Paul, what's this zoned, single- family? MR. PAUL: Single-family, yes. MR. LETOURNEAU: So basically the work that they've done they can't keep anyways, right? MR. PAUL: Correct. It has to be converted back to -- MR. LETOURNEAU: Yeah, it has to be demolished. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Plus if there was a chance of it being permitted, then they would have to pay impact fees, but that's not -- MR. PAUL: That's not -- no. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- not a solution. MR. PAUL: No. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. The worry I have is that there's actually people in the house currently. And also the lack of motivation by the owner, the bank probably can't do too much because they don't have title to it yet. MR. PAUL: Correct, they're probably not going to do anything until they get actual title to the property. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. And the problem is they may not take title to this house because of the pending issues that it has, A. And then B, with the fine, ifthere's a fine attached to this, obviously. So is there any way that we could have the current tenants removed from the units? B~ Page 35 16 J i 1:14 October 22, 2009 MR. LARSEN: I think I can help you on that. Basically there is no mechanism this board has to actually remove tenants. I mean, basically proceedings would have to be brought in a different forum. Now, I share the concerns of the other members of the board that there may be a health and safety issue here. I also agree that if this is a short sale or in some kind of process where the bank is negotiating with the owner to convey title, that any additional time we give them, we have to keep in mind that a change of ownership or change of title may be in the works. I'm very concerned that basically this is a three-unit rather than, you know, just a conversion of the garage or some other things that we've seen. Here they've dedicated a lot of time and effort to converting this place over to take rents from people who did not know that they were living in an unapproved, unpermitted unit. I think that although 60 days under some circumstances might be appropriate, I think 30 days under these circumstances for them to correct the violations is more appropriate. And I think that $200 per day for any day after that is an appropriate fine. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I agree with you, 30 days, but I think $200 might be a little bit light. I think 250 might be more appropriate. MR. LARSEN: 250's fine with me. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other discussion from the board? MR. KAUFMAN: On the task force that's been set up to handle these type of arrangements, have they been successful in dealing with this particular bank that has posted a lis pendens on it? MR. PAUL: I don't know at this time. MR. KAUFMAN: The reason I ask is because any fines that accrue after 30 or 60 days, whatever it is, is going to be the responsibility of the bank, along with having a dwelling that needs to be completely changed, if you will. So it would be in their best interest, and I think that's some of the motivation that banks have, to Page 36 '" . 16 Ii 1 October 22, 2009. B ~ jump on it right away. So it would be interesting to see how the task force handles this one. MR. LARSEN: Well, I mean, as a comment on that, banks just can't take title. I mean, basically either they've got to go to foreclosure sale or they have to be deeded title by the owner. Now, in this particular case, you know, it doesn't matter to me which way the bank takes title. My only concern is that basically something happened within a relatively short period of time to correct the situation, whether that allows the county to move or whether or not it urges the bank along. So I don't think the bank is going to really rush through this. We don't -- do we know if there's a foreclosure action pending? MR. PAUL: No, I don't know at this time. MR. LARSEN: So it might be a considerable period of time before the bank even is in a position to take title. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to try a motion then. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Go ahead, sir. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that they be given 30 days to come into compliance and a fine of $250 per day in excess of the 30 days be implemented, plus the payment of the costs of86.71. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Do I hear a second? MR. JAMES: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. Page 37 J.6J1l B< October 22, 2009 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Next case will be Kenneth and Barbara Blocker, Sr., CESD20090004386. (Mr. Earnest Freeman, Gina Green and Ms. Rodriguez were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You have to read in the case. MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Ordinance Florida Building Code, 2004 edition, Chapter 1, Permits, Section 105.1. Description of violation: Interior walls, doors and electric were installed without first obtaining a Collier County building permit. Also an unpermitted change of occupancy. Location/address where violation exists: 109 Third Street, Immokalee, Florida, 34142. Folio 60183640000. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Kenneth Sr. and Barbara Blocker, 110 12th Street, Immokalee, Florida, 34142. Date violation first observed: April 17th, 2009. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: April 20th, 2009. Date onlby which violation to be corrected: May 17th, 2009. Date of reinspection: July 21 st, 2009. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. At this time I'd like to present Investigator Maria Rodriguez. MS. RODRIGUEZ: For the record, Investigator Maria Rodriguez, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CESD20090004386, dealing with violation: Interior walls, doors, and electric were installed without building permits and unpermitted change of occupancy, located at 109 Third Street, Immokalee, Florida, 34142. Folio No. Page 38 October 22, iO~91 1 8 11 60183640000. Personal service was given on April 20th, 2009. I would like to present case evidence in the following exhibits: B-1 through 19. This case was initiated as a complaint on April 4th -- I mean April 16th, 2009. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to approve the exhibits? MR. LA VINSKI: I'll make a motion we approve the exhibits. MR. LARSEN: Has the respondent seen the exhibits? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have you seen the exhibits? MR. FREEMAN: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. RODRIGUEZ: This case was initiated as a complaint on April 16th of'09. Observed interior walls, doors and electric installed without first obtaining building permits. And also an unpermitted change of occupancy. April 20th, 2009, I met with Mr. Blocker, explained the Notice of Violation. He signed, dated and a copy was given to him. Page 39 16' I 1 B" October 22, 2009 On July 21st of 2009, observed that the violation remained. Recommendation? That-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No, we have to hear the case first. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Go ahead. Okay, the very first page is the original floor plan. This was an old post office. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. And what is it being used as now? MS. RODRIGUEZ: It's a church. What you see highlighted is what they removed, all the walls that went across. And that's where all the boxes were. Got removed. And in the front where the double doors are where you see the lobby, there were tellers in there, and that all got removed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's where the tellers were? MS. RODRIGUEZ: In the front, yes. MR. KELL Y: The walls that were removed, were they structural or were they just there as a racking system to hold boxes? MS. RODRIGUEZ: I don't know. MR. FREEMAN: Racking system. MR. KAUFMAN: Did they go to the ceiling? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. MR. FREEMAN : Yes. MR. ORTEGA: I have a question. Is this an individual structure? MR. FREEMAN: Yes. And let me make a correction. Those boxes just went to the drop ceiling, like the acoustical. They didn't go all the way to -- MS. RODRIGUEZ: In the front where the double doors are, they converted those into office rooms. The very first one -- the very first room is an office. And then it's the lobby. Another room, another room, another room. And then the end one was already there. That's an existing one. Page 40 16 J 1 B~ October 22, 2009 That hasn't been touched. But all these rooms also have electric in them. That's the name of the church. That's the entrance. That's the very first room to the left as you come in with electric, as you can see from the door. That is the second room. And where the gentleman is setting is the little lobby as you come in. That's the electric on the second room. That's the third room. More electric. More electric. That's the end room; that's the fourth room. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Not the postmaster's room but the fourth room. MS. RODRIGUEZ: No, that's not the post off -- that's another room that they put up walls. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right, right. MS. RODRIGUEZ: And this in the lobby, this is as you go into the church. Those double doors weren't there, of course. So you go in through those double doors, and then on the other side of those rooms is that wall that they placed. On the far end of the building, they also added another wall to divide the restrooms. There's a hallway that you go through it. I guess they were trying to hide the restrooms. But there was a wall that was put in, that's part of that wall. It's a long wall. We have nothing further. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. MR. KELLY: I have a quick question. All the pictures that you showed of the electrical conduits and outlets and so forth, are you saying those were all added? Page 41 16 I 18. October 22, 2009 MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. MR. KELLY: Okay, thank you. MR. KAUFMAN: So from the time it was a post office until it was converted to a church, there were no building permits at all pulled? MS. RODRIGUEZ: No, none. All the electric and all the walls were added. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you state your name for the record, please. MR. FREEMAN: My name is Earnest Freeman, local contractor here, licensed in Collier County. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you have authority from Mr. Blocker? MR. FREEMAN: I would say yes. I've done a few other cases with him. Mr. Blocker is here now and he requested that I show up to represent what we was going to do on this project. So I will be the contractor for the project. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If I can have him come up, please. And I'd like to have him sworn in. I'm not sure, I think he's been in front of us before in other cases, but just want to have you state -- can I have you sworn in, please. (Mr. Blocker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you could state for the record that he has the authority to speak on your behalf, unless you want to stand here and -- MR. BLOCKER: Yeah, I give him the authorization. Earnest Freeman. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, may I as a question? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Blocker, are you Mr. Kenneth Blocker, Sr.? MR. BLOCKER: No, sir, I'm Jerry Blocker. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. That adds another dimension Page 42 October 22,16> 1 1 8 4 to it. Kenneth, is that your father? MR. BLOCKER: Father. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Attorney, ifhe has authority from his father, which I didn't ask, can he now pass it on to Mr. Freeman? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think that you can hear the testimony today. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Thank you. MR. BLOCKER: I would also like to ask if Gina Green is -- has -- I would like to authorize her as well, if she's needed. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. Thank you. Okay, go ahead. MR. FREEMAN : Well, I'm just -- what do you want me to state, as far as the compliance issue what we plan to do? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I guess have you been working with the county to try to get this corrected? MR. FREEMAN : Yes, we had a meeting with Mr. Snow and Ms. Rodriguez a few weeks ago to, you know, have a little deliberation on what we was going to do with the project. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, ifI may. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. LARSEN: Is there any contention that this building is not in compliance with the code? MR. FREEMAN: Well, that was already stated by Ms. Rodriguez with the walls that were coming in as far as not having a building permit. But that was done by a previous tenant. Mr. Blocker had leased the building to another pastor, not the one that's in there now, and he made the alterations to the interior of the building without his knowledge. MR. LARSEN: All right. So there's no contention that permits Page 43 October J,ooif91 B"'-" should have been pulled but were not pulled. MR. FREEMAN: That's correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: How long do you think it will take -- or I guess what process do you plan on taking to get this corrected? Do you plan on doing it by affidavit or do you plan on actually going and getting the permits and so -- what's your process and how long do you think it will take? MR. FREEMAN: Okay, the process is yes, we want to get a permit to comply with the walls and do the necessary corrections. But we have two issues. The building permit could probably be maybe even six to eight months from obtaining the permit and getting all inspections and getting the case closed. But then we also have a zoning issue. This building, as you know, was a post office, as stated. Somewhere down the line Collier County changed the zoning in there, so it's no longer permitted to be commercial. And that's one of the biggest issues. The owner has to now go and get a rezone, which is -- you know, I guess I'm just being a little impartial, but I think it's unfair. It was also a commercial building but now it's not one anymore. So we have that issue there with the use now. And if you know any -- have any information on rezones, they can take anywhere from a year. And I guess because of where we are in Immokalee, we're dealing with the master plan approval issue, and God knows when that's going to take place and when it's going to be implemented. So we have like the domino effect on this particular project. Now, all those surrounding properties, they are commercial right now, you know. But for some reason that one's YR. MR. KAUFMAN: That wasn't grandfathered in when the changes were made? MR. FREEMAN: It should have been, sir, but we don't know what went on with the county. We don't know what happened. We sort of got blindsided. Page 44 16: 184 October 22, 2009 MR. LARSEN: Based upon the admission that a violation does exist, I think we should just move to a motion on whether or not a violation exists and determine what the remedies should be. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is that in a motion form? MR. LARSEN: Well, I move to find that a violation does actually exist. MR. KAUFMAN: I second that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? MR. KELLY: Just clarification from the county's standpoint. VR is village residential in that type of zoning? MS. RODRIGUEZ: If they would have converted the church 10 years ago or however many years that they've been in that church, they would have converted it then, maybe it would have been grandfathered in. But they didn't. MR. FREEMAN : Well, when you say conversion, you don't even have to get an occupational license for a church. You just go in there, you open up a building and make it a church. So where does the conversion issue take place? MS. RODRIGUEZ: It's the use. If they would have gone into zoning and changed the use, then maybe they would have grandfathered it in, but they didn't do it. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, I think we're a little far afield there. I mean, basically that's -- MR. KELLY: It's just my question was a house of worship is not allowed in a village residential zoned property. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We have a motion, we have a second -- MS. GREEN: Can Ijust offer one thing on that? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Actually, we're just here to ask questions and have a response, and that's as far as it goes. Because we're in discussion right now. So the hearing is actually closed. Page 45 October 22, 2~~ ' 1..0 4 MS. GREEN: Oh, okay, I was just going to-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But you may be able to bring something up when we have a recommendation, when we get to that point. Any further discussion? MR. ORTEGA: I have a question. If -- this was a commercial property, correct? MR. FREEMAN: Correct. MR. ORTEGA: Was this sunsetted or was it abandoned at one point? MS. RODRIGUEZ: The post office moved. They did a new post office, so they moved from that building to the new building. Then at one point that got changed to a church. MR. ORTEGA: But was it abandoned or empty for 180 days? MS. RODRIGUEZ: I don't know. MR. KELL Y: Do you know when this went from commercial to residential? MS. RODRIGUEZ: No, I don't. MS. GREEN: I do. MR. FREEMAN: Mrs. Green could -- MS. GREEN: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If she has -- if she's been sworn in. MS. GREEN: For the record -- yes, I've been sworn in. For the record, Gina Green, professional engineer, State of Florida. I have done research. Mr. Blocker actually did contact me. When he got the Notice of Violation and had learned some information and asked me to do some research for him, I went down to the Property Appraiser's Office. When the post office was built, which was back in the Sixties, that zoning there was C-2 in Immokalee. From what we can find at the Property Appraiser's Office, that Page 46 16/1 84 October 22, 2009 property got changed to village residential in the early Eighties. The post office vacated in the Nineties and moved to their new facility in Immokalee. So the post office continued to be there after the county changed the zoning when they did their blanket rezone of looking at areas and they redesignated that street in that area of Immokalee to village residential. But the post office continued to operate. When the post office vacated, it -- then the building was sold and a church rented it, not realizing that anything had to be done, because it was a commercial building in there to begin with, even after it had changed to village residential. It has operated for many years since then as a church. And this violation of change of use just came up. And in order for a church to operate now in a village residential, it's a conditional use. So there are opportunities to keep it as that is what the county's telling us now, is you either go to a conditional use or you rezone the property to a district that -- which right now under the Immokalee Area Master Plan, they could go to C-4 zoning, but with the changes to it, they can actually, if adopted through the Growth Management Plan amendments presently, it could get changed to where they could actually go for C-5 zoning. And that is what ultimately they want to do right now. So that's the history of this piece of property and how the uses and how it came from commercial, got blanketed to. MR. KELLY: In your research, did you find out when the electrical was added? MS. GREEN: I did not research the building permit side of it. I was asked to research the land use side of it. MR. FREEMAN: When did Pastor Ford have that building? When do you think he became the -- that was the previous tenant before the one that's there now. MR. BLOCKER: The one that's been there now is eight years. MR. FREEMAN: We would say the electrical change inside Page 47 16/1 ' October 22, 2009 B" i j probably happened about 10 years ago when the church rented the place. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right, all those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. KELLY: In light of the testimony, I would suggest that we give ample time for them to chase whatever process they want to go after to get it zoned correctly. The only issue that I have is the electrical. It's been there for 10 years, eight to 10 years. Probably done right. Looks like it's all in conduits. But I don't think that should sway us from allowing them to go after their path to get it zoned correctly. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I guess if! could have the engineer back up, I have two questions. Or one question might lead to a second. You said they're going to go for a C-5 use? MS. GREEN: Yes. I've already spoken to Kay Deselem over at zoning regarding doing a concurrent zoning application to go to C-5. And basically with not knowing what the master plan -- right now all the Growth Management Plan amendments are in the transmittal hearing stage right now with Collier County. In fact, I was just here on Tuesday on another project. Page 48 J.6 <c, 8" q October 22, 2009 Right now it has to get zoning in Planning Commission, it still has to go to the board just for transmittal. Then it has to get -- if it gets deemed to be transmitted and the Immokalee Area Master Plan gets approved for transmittal, it goes to DCA, they have to do all their review and objections, stipulations, whatever. Then if they bring it back, the county looks at all the objections, the corrections are made and then it goes through adoption hearings. From what I'm being told right now, the adoptions for the Growth Management Plan amendments are looking to be in early 2011 is when everything right now that's being heard will get adopted. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The other option would be going for a conditional use, correct? MS. GREEN: Right. The only problem with the -- the problem in Collier County with conditional uses, especially for churches and properties like this, you know, unlike where a church comes in and asks for a building to be built specifically for them, these churches that lease, they could leave in three months, and then you've spent -- I mean, the amount of money to get a conditional use and the time isn't that different than what the cost and time it takes to do a full rezone. So to spend the money on a conditional use on something that three months from now the church could be gone, you've spent all this money for a conditional use; you can't use it to change it to another conditional use, you have to go through another conditional use process. And the village residential leaves very little opportunity for a structure like this one. Because it was built under commercial zoning all those years ago, it doesn't really fit well into the classifications of village residential. And that's part of the problems in Immokalee is, is you have a lot of old buildings that were built under one zoning that don't fit into the new zoning that the county overlayed over them in the early Eighties. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And with conditional use, if the use Page 49 October 22,{~J 1 B 4 I is not being used for that particular purpose for 180 days, is it? MS. GREEN: Yes, I think it's 180 days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: 180-- MS. GREEN: No, actually, I think they give you up to a year. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. And you lose that -- MS. GREEN: Yes, then you lose that use and then you have to go through the process again. So it can get very costly for these older buildings. And that's why they would prefer -- the path they would prefer to take is to go ahead and rezone to C-5, see what happens with the transmittal hearings and the adoption hearings for the Immokalee Area Master Plan. Because they know right now they could go in for a rezoning of C-4 under the current master plan. But they would prefer to spend their money wisely, since they're looking at changing this in Immokalee, and go for the C-5 zoning, which gives them opportunities for more uses, legal uses in the building without having to go through more costly processes. In case the master plan doesn't get approved as proposed right now, then they would just change our application to be to whatever the highest zoning the master plan would allow. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Let's say hypothetically you do get that C-5 zoning, do you then have to go for a site development plan or a site improvement plan for the church? MS. GREEN: Only ifthere needs to be changes made. If the building as such and the parking as such supports that use, then no, they just go in and do their use. If the parking has to be upgraded or there's any upgraded sites, then if they're not changing the building portion of it, then it would just be a site improvement plan, which is a much shorter process. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have you done a calculation for what's required for parking spaces and so forth for a church? MS. GREEN: I have not on this particular one yet because we ., Page 50 16/11 BJ. October 22, 2009 ~ haven't gotten to that stage yet. But with churches, I found -- I'm dealing with several other churches here in the county. With churches you have a lot more leniency with your parking. And especially in Immokalee. I actually just did a parking reduction actually for another church for the Blockers that's on Main Street and got an administrative parking reduction on that one. So, you know, they -- churches have a little more leniency because they know that it's -- you know, how they calculate seats, everything. So, you know, I do not see there being a problem. They actual have parking that's in -- and from the pictures you see, they have their handicap access. The building was a government building to begin with, so it has good access. The parking is still in good shape. You know, it's just a matter of them adjusting. If their seats -- it's basically telling them you can have this many seats. It's more the seats drive how many parking, not the -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It's the square footage, not the square footage of the building. MS. GREEN: Not the square footage, it's number of seats. And they calculate it by chair. If you have chairs in the sanctuary or if you have the pews, they give two 24 inches per length of pew as a seat. So -- and you know, they don't count offices, that sort of stuff. No square footage, it's strictly seats. MR. KAUFMAN: I have no problem with giving sufficient time to do whatever is necessary. Is it possible, because of the electrical, that somebody can bring out a licensed electrician to inspect it to make sure no hazard exists with the wiring, considering it's a place that a large number of people attend? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right, what I'm worried about is egress and ingress. Obviously if there is some kind of emergency there, i.e. a fire, is there enough -- Page 51 16/19. October 22, 2009 a" MR. FREEMAN: There is several accesses from egress, I think she showed that on the floor plan, that still exist. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Could we have the ability to have like a fire inspector go out there and look at the ability to get in and out of the building? MS. RODRIGUEZ: He has little cardboard signs that said exit, but nothing is the lit type that they should have. So he'd have to replace those. MR. FREEMAN: Yeah, we can upgrade those. I guess what you're asking me for is to get a building permit and get all these necessary things that will comply with the fire department as well? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yeah, but you won't be able to get a building permit because it's going to be a commercial building and they're not going to permit that. MR. FREEMAN: How about just for the electrical improvements? I don't know. You got a good point there. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You're not going to get any kind of permit. If there's an issue with the electrical, they're going to have to get a permit to correct it, and they're not going to be able to get that permit. So then the other issue is the church will not be able to operate there until they get this use. MR. ORTEGA: Well, the question is can they operate as a church to begin with. That's question number one. Because there is a change in use. Then you have to consider the fire issue. Life safety issue, okay? MS. RODRIGUEZ: The case started from the fire department. They are the ones that called this. That's how we ended up with this. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Well, that explains quite a bit then. Then that's telling us that there's a health and safety issue that the fire department has with this property. Page 52 October 22,~~911 B 4 ~ MR. FREEMAN : Well, the existing air conditioner had a little smoke and they panicked and called the fire department. But the air conditioning from the building was already existing and it just had a little issue there. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. Okay, well, I don't think we need to hear anymore unless we ask questions of the respondents. Any other questions? MR. ORTEGA: I still have the same question. Can they exist there? There's a change in use that has occurred. Can they exist there? You cannot get building permits. On the other hand, this is beyond this board, perhaps, but can the county be amenable to accepting a private provider or an engineer's inspection as a temporary means? But again, you have to go back, there's a change in use. So can they operate there right now? And you have to consider again the life safety issues. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Currently that's why it's in front of us, because the use is not -- MR. KELL Y: If I may, we've already determined that they can't. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So the time frame -- MR. KELLY: Time frame is the issue. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. MR. ORTEGA: So is this building currently being used? MR. FREEMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So the issue is -- MR. ORTEGA: How do we keep them in there? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Well, currently they should not be in there. MR. LARSEN: I have grave concerns. I mean basically they have no permits for the wire. You know, I mean, they restructured the interior without any kind of review or approval. It's just a recipe for disaster. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you have a motion? MR. LARSEN: I move to give them 30 days. Should they fail to Page 53 1611 October 22, 2009 B 4 obtain permits and do the work necessary under those permits within 30 days, then I believe we should impose $100 per day for a penalty. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. ORTEGA: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LAVINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? MR. KELLY: Nay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: One nay. Motion passes. Do you understand what we just did? MR. FREEMAN: No, I don't, could you explain it to me? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. What we just did is we imposed a motion that you have 30 days to pull the permits and get the work in order to get everything corrected, get a CO and so forth. And if that is not the case, then you will have a fine of $1 00 per day. MR. FREEMAN: Okay, is there any options? Because that's not even possible getting a permit through the county in 30 days. That's impossible. I've been working in this county as a builder for 15 years. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chair, do we give them the option for the building permit like we usually do as well-- or the demo permit? It's either building or demo permit. MR. FREEMAN: Can we just demo the walls is what she's saymg. MR. LARSEN: I amend my motion to include the option where basically they can either obtain the permits and perform the work up Page 54 October 2l ~o'91 8" i to code or they can get the permit and demolish it. MR. FREEMAN: And when you say demolish, are you just meaning just the walls that were constructed inside the building? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Remove anything that was constructed within the building. MR. LARSEN : Well, anything that the code enforcement people have deemed to be in violation. MR. KELL Y: May I also suggest that you add in the operational costs and notification? Your order had one step and it was only partial. There's three or four more steps to our typical orders. Maybe start over? MR. LARSEN: Well, I mean, basically I assume that the operational costs and the notification to the code enforcement of the completion of the work would be in the final order. What are the operational costs, Jennifer? MS. WALDRON: $85.86. MR. LARSEN: 85.86? MS. WALDRON: Within 30 days. MR. LARSEN: Within 30 days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would the second like to amend their motion? Would you like to amend the second? MR. ORTEGA: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? MR. KAUFMAN: I have one question. On item two, it says unpermitted change of occupancy. How would that motion change that use, whether you take the walls down or not? MR. LARSEN: Well, you know, that's getting into the zoning issue, correct? MR. KAUFMAN: That's what -- MR. LARSEN: What I'm concerned about is basically we're exceeding the scope of what we're doing here. I mean, basically a Page 55 October l~ciJcJ.' B" . violation has been admitted, we found a violation to exist. Now what we're doing is we're discussing a remedy. They have the remedy of either -- their option of either bringing this up to code, getting it permitted, getting a certificate of occupancy or demolishing those improvements which violated the code. Now, my concern is that basically we're talking about a year or two where people are basically pursuing zoning changes while this is being used as a church and having an assembly in there every single week with the fire department worrying that there's going to be some catastrophe out there. They have unpermitted wiring? I'm not quite clear on what walls were removed and what walls were changed, but it seems like there was significant work done in there over the course of several years which the county was not aware of. And I guess basically what I'm concerned about is that we give them an option of either rectifYing the situation or removing those walls and that electrical which created the violation to begin with. MR. KELLY: Since we're commenting, I'd like to say that by removing a partition that only went to a drop ceiling that's hung by aluminum wires and then adding partitions back to that same level, it's like a glorified cubicle. You're not adding structural walls to it, not to mention the electrical work was done eight to 10 years ago and it's been used like that since. I don't see as though this being brought in front of us today all of a sudden constitutes a county emergency and a health issue if nothing's happened in the last eight years. And the testimony about the fire department wasn't that they say that everyone's in grave danger, it was just they had concern because they saw a little smoke from an AC unit that malfunctioned, something that normally wears and tears. I think we should give them at least a year. MR. LARSEN: Now, in response to that, you know, with the walls going up to the drop ceiling, I didn't hear any testimony saying Page 56 October 22~J 1 'BJ that those walls went up to a drop ceiling by people who were in there and did the changes to the walls. What I heard was that basically it was the contractor who has been hired now by the Blockers saying that was what occurred. What I saw was two diagrams, one where it was an original post office and that there were walls. Those walls didn't indicate that they went to a dropped ceiling. I mean, I don't know what the changes were, but I don't hear any testimony here today by people who said I was there when it was a post office, this was the status, these were the electrical components, these were the walls, this is what was changed. What I do see is two different diagrams that show significant changes which take it from a grandfathered situation to a situation where permits were not taken, they're not obtained, even though the work was done accordingly or purportedly under the purview of the owner who owned the building since I believe 1996. MR. KELLY: That was my exact concern. And that's specifically why I asked the question to the contractor, Mr. Freeman, were they just boxed racking systems or were they actually structural walls. And he confirmed that they were just up to the drop ceiling. I believe that's the exact words that were added. And the investigator confirmed that. So that's why I reached my conclusion where I'm at. MR. ORTEGA: Is this a sprinkled building? MR. FREEMAN: I'm not sure. I can't recall. MS. RODRIGUEZ: I don't believe (sic) seeing sprinkles (sic) from the ceilings, uh-uh. MR. ORTEGA: Was there a report from the fire department or the fire marshal when they went out there? They did just see the smoke and the AC and that was it, or was there more? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Somebody -- I think it was smoke and somebody called the fire department and they came out. MR. ORTEGA: But when they were there -- MR. FREEMAN: Nobody wrote up a report. Page 57 16/1 8~ October 22, 2009 (Mr. Snow was duly sworn.) MR. SNOW: I do so swear. For the record, Kitchell Snow, Supervisor, Immokalee. I think what initially happened, that there was some sort of a fire and the fire department was called. Oftentimes we go and we look on the site. I would not hold with Mr. Kelly's assumption that the electrical is -- when it was installed, because we don't know if it was installed 10 years ago or it was installed last week. The owner's own testimony stated that permits were made without the knowledge. So I don't think we can assume anything about the electrical. I think once we decide -- we address the permitting issue, that's going to address the zoning issue. However, the zoning issue is not going to take place. That's going to be a long process. And this church has been operating, as Mr. Kelly attested, for quite some time, so we have to wait. It's a permitting issue, that's all we're talking about here. If they want to get the permits to continue, that's going to correct the zoning. If they don't want it and they want to remove it, that's going to be their choice. Those are the two options that we have here. One will take care of the other, if we decide or if the board elects to do that. But we would request some leniency. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The issue with the 30 days too is can they get permits to demolish. MR. FREEMAN: It takes about two weeks for it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But can that be done being that be it's not correct zoning? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It can be done, demol-- okay. All right, we have a motion, an amended motion, we have an amended second. Any further discussion? Page 58 October 22,~'91 1 B" (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? MR. KELLY: Nay. MR. KAUFMAN: Nay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Two nays. Motion passes. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chair, can you just clarify what the order is? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Larsen? MR. LARSEN: Okay. Operational costs of$85.86 will be paid within 30 days. The respondent has 30 days to either obtain permits, bring the property up to code and obtain those approvals necessary, including inspections, or to obtain permits and demolish those improvements which are in violation of the code. MS. WALDRON: What was the fine amount? MR. LARSEN: $100 per day for every day thereafter, after the initial 30 days. MS. WALDRON: Thank you. MS. GREEN: Can I ask one other question? Only on what happened. That's all. Because, I mean, there's -- it seems as if we're talking about the building permit, but we haven't done anything to address the problems of the land use and all that. Does the 30 days include a land use change also, which we know is thoroughly un -- I mean, it's not even remotely possible. You know, I haven't heard any discussion as far as that portion of it. I just want to understand what happened so that -- because I don't think my client Page 59 october~62~ol "B" ~ understands either. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thirty days to get the issue taken care of. MS. GREEN: Totally. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Uh-huh. MS. GREEN: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Moving on to the next case. Paulino and Adrianna Vega. CENA20090005263. And we have an interpreter. Could we have all the parties sworn in, please. (Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Vega were duly sworn.) (Interpreter Maria Delashmen was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And this is a stipulated agreement, correct? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. INTERPRETER: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I guess the question is, has this been fully explained to him when he did sign? MS. RODRIGUEZ: I did explain it to him, but if she wants to go over it, that's fine. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, I'd like to have her go. MS. RODRIGUEZ: I'm going to read it. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties that the respondent shall pay operational costs in the amount of $86.14 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days ofthis hearing. INTERPRETER: I would like to pay it right now. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Abate all violations by: Applying for and obtaining a Collier County building demolition permit, and request required inspections to be performed and passed through a certificate of completion -- INTERPRETER: Yes. MS. RODRIGUEZ: -- within 90 days of this hearing or a fine of Page 60 16/1 October 22, 2009 8 It 250 per day will be imposed. INTERPRETER: Okay. MS. RODRIGUEZ: The respondent must notifY code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. INTERPRETER: Okay. MS. RODRIGUEZ: That if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and may use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provision of this agreement, and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. INTERPRETER: Okay, no problem. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Any discussion? MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to ask a couple of questions. Number one, is this a -- is this going to be removed from the property, is that what you're going to do? INTERPRETER: No, I'm going to cut it. MR. KAUFMAN: Going to cut it, okay. Do you think that 90 days is sufficient time? INTERPRETER: If you could give me a little bit more time, it would be better for me. MR. KAUFMAN: Does the county object to extending the time to 120 days? I see this has gone on since July. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Well, the only problem with that is that the mobile home is -- they gutted out the entire inside of the mobile home. There's electrical wires hanging out. So we really wanted it to be removed because it was a health and safety issue. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The other thing, I take it that this mobile home's going to be disposed of, correct? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can we -- a lot of times in cases similar to this we put in there that the material must be disposed in a Page 61 ./.' October 22, 2~ot 1. ~ 4 properly -- in a site that's -- I can't think of the words, but properly disposed of. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: So we might want to add that. MS. RODRIGUEZ: Add that on there? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Just as a suggestion. MR. ORTEGA: Is this an old mobile home? MS. RODRIGUEZ: Yes. INTERPRETER: Since it's all iron, I'm going to just chop it and sell it. It's metal that he can sell. MR. KAUFMAN: Is it possible to remove the electricity from the unit immediately and then given additional time to remove the unit itself? INTERPRETER: Can I cover the windows with a plywood for the moment? MR. KAUFMAN: That wasn't what I was asking. INTERPRETER: Yes, I can remove it. MR. KAUFMAN: Would the county have any problem with the electrical service being -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Disconnected. MR. KAUFMAN: -- disconnected within the next 30 days, if you will, or less and then granting the respondent additional time to remove the actual trailer from the property? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Are we reading too much into this? MR. LETOURNEAU: Is it hooked to electric? MS. RODRIGUEZ: It's hooked to the electric. INTERPRETER: It has no electricity. The trailer has no electricity . MR. ORTEGA: Does it have a meter? INTERPRETER: Yes, it has a meter but it's not hooked to the -- oh, you see, the people that lived there prior to that, they took the meter. Somebody took it. Page 62 I'i October 22, 2tb~ . 8" MR. ORTEGA: That could have been FP&L or Lee County Co-op, whoever it is. INTERPRETER: Yes, because they didn't pay no rent and they took it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, it would be probably modifying the stipulated -- MR. LARSEN: No, my motion it is to accept the agreement as written. Parties have agreed to it and I don't see any reason for, you know, changing the agreed upon stipulation in this particular case, so I move to accept the stipulation as presented. MR. LA VINSKI: I second. MR. DEAN: I second the motion. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chair, did you want to add the comment in that you suggested earlier, to a site intended for disposal? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Larsen did not change it as such, so it would be no. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? Nay. Motion does pass. INTERPRETER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The next case would be J. Peaceful, L -- do you need a break? We'll take a until five of. Would that be sufficient? We'll recess until five of. Page 63 October 22, 2{~ q 1 B ~ (Recess.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm going to call the Code Enforcement Board back to order. Next case is J. Peaceful, LC. Case No. CELU20090010758. (Mr. Martindale and Mr. Georges Chami were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Section 2.02.03, prohibited use. Description of violation: Truck rental business prohibited in C-3 zoned location. Location/address where violation exists: 7730 Preserve Lane, Naples, Florida, 340 -- MR. MARTIN: 34117, I believe. MS. WALDRON: 3411 -- MR. MARTIN: 9. MS. WALDRON: -- 9. Folio 68391446166. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Georges Chami, 7675 Margherita Way, Naples, Florida, 34109. Date violation first observed: June 30th, 2009. Date owner/person in charge given Notice of Violation: August 11th, 2009. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: September 7th, 2009. Date of reinspection: September 16th, 2009. Results of reinspection: The violation remains. At this time I'd like to present Investigator Ron Martindale. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can we put these two cases together, since there's two cases? MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chair, we'd like to present the two cases separately to keep the two points. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. MR. MARTINDALE: Good morning. For the record, Ronald Page 64 1611 October 22, 2009 B" Martindale, Collier County Code Enforcement. This is in reference to Case No. CELU20090010758, the violation of a truck rental business in a C-zoned -- C-3 zoned location, located at 7770 Preserve Lane, Naples, Florida, 34119. Folio 68391446166. Service was given on 11th of August, 2009, certified mail. And I'd like to enter three exhibits into -- for the case. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear -- first of all, were they shown to the -- MR. MARTINDALE: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: They were shown to the respondent. Have you seen them? MR. CHAMI: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to accept the exhibits? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. LA VINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. MARTINDALE: On August the 30th -- I'm sorry, June the 30th, I was on-site on a call we received about some violations at the shopping center. Page 65 October 21 ~ot 1 Bit When I arrived there, I observed eight to 10 U-Haul trailers, trucks and vans on the south side of the business. I obtained a site development plan, contacted Kay Deselem of Zoning and Land Development Review, and later met on the 15th of July with Supervisor Jeff Letourneau. We discussed the case and called the shopping center owner, Mr. Chami. Jeff explained the obvious violations at first and then the other potential problems. He was then placed on speaker phone so we could both talk to him. It was explained that the call was being made as a courtesy and no notices were filed yet. He would be allowed to pursue avenues to effect compliance for the allegations, at least until the investigator returns from vacation to resume at that time. On the 14th, I met with Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager, and Kay Deselem. The report was discussed. Kay advised the U-Haul truck business could only be allowed and permitted in locations zoned as C-4 and that the location of the business was zoned as PUD. After obtaining the following research, I issued a Notice of Violation, mailed it certified mail. It was received on the 11th of August. And that's where we are at this point. The photographs, B-1, is an indicator of what the site looks like with the rental equipment there. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's on the west side ofthe building, correct? MR. MARTIN: That's affirmative. The next one is a portion of an e-mail that Mr. Joseph Schmitt, Administrator ofCDES, sent and returned to Mr. Chami, giving him the options, what the options were. Basically that he could have the trucks removed and operate the business with trucks being in a location other than there, because it's not zoned for that. Number two would be to have the area rezoned to C-4. And the last of course would just be to completely close the business. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It says there's three options and the Page 66 October 21{)4 1 B 4 third one is, or petition the board. And that is which board? MR. MARTINDALE: That, sir -- yeah, Board of Commissioners. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's what I thought, okay. MR. MARTINDALE: The third element here is an excerpt from the current Land Development Code. The highlighted area is what pertains to this particular case. The first one states that this type of operation cannot be conducted in a C- 3 zoned area, it must be operated in a C-4 zoned area. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: This site also has a gas station/convenience store, laundry facility where you can drop off your laundry and a post office. What is the use for a gas station? MR. MARTINDALE: I do not know, sir. I assume it's in C-3. MR. LETOURNEAU: I believe that gas station was permitted there originally in the site development plan in the PUD. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What PUD was it under; do you know? MR. MARTINDALE: Yeah, it's the aIde Cypress PUD. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: aIde Cypress PUD, okay. (Mr. Letourneau was duly sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, Jeff Letourneau. And I do believe that gas station was originally permitted in the PUD. MR. CHAMI: It was permitted as multi-use retail facility. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It was what? MR. CHAMI: Multi-use retail facility. It was not permit as gas station but multi-use retail facility. It's around 11,000 square feet facility . MR. LARSEN: Mr. Martindale, I mean, I assume that the violation is because it says that this is some kind of wholesaling use and that it's associated with the need for outdoor storage of equipment; Page 67 1l tI:. ;:: October 2i~o09.L B" is that correct? MR. MARTINDALE: That's correct. And it specifically states in the ordinance here that rental equipment is not permitted. MR. ORTEGA: I have a question. This is a PUD, you stated? MR. MARTINDALE: Yes, sir. MR. ORTEGA: What does the PUD say; do we know? MR. MARTINDALE: That's why I consulted with the planning and the zoning people. And they're the ones that gave me the information for which I cited the gentleman. MR. LARSEN: So let me get this clear. You're saying that basically in C-3, even though it's a mixed use retail, that it's more appropriate for them to operate the U-Haul operations under a C-4 because of the specific language of this provision? MR. MARTINDALE: Yeah, it's prohibited in a C-3 zoned area, and it's not prohibited in a C-4. Basically he could run the operation without the rental equipment on-site. Ifhe could relocate the rental equipment and still operate the offices there, which would be extremely inconvenient, I understand, but he could still run the business there but he couldn't have the equipment. By looking at the picture, if you would put that up there, Jen, the reason being for this is the PUD and the way this was all zoned over there, you can see the parking facilities would be extremely limited. Put a lot of materials in there parked in the parking lot. MR. LARSEN: All right. So you're saying that basically the parking that was supposed to be allocated to retail customers is now being taken up by the equipment to be leased. MR. MARTINDALE: I believe that's why the original PUD was designed that way. It's why the zoning was -- like the lady said earlier about the seating and so forth, that's how they go by the parking situation. Page 68 October 22, !~ lIB ~ MR. LARSEN: Okay, thank you. MR. MARTINDALE: Vh-huh. MR. CHAMI: Can I make some comment? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes, sir. MR. CHAMI: Thank you very much. The V-Haul -- I start the business on the V-Haul in 2003. In fact, in September, beginning of September, 2003. So it's a little bit more, over six years we're in business on the V-Haul part. For the last four and a half years, five years, the V-Haul was absolutely not big part of our business or any kind of importance in our business. We're making probably on the whole year around $13,000 max in revenue on the V-Haul. This is gross revenue. For the last 18 months it's totally day and night. For the 18 months -- and unfortunately what's happening in town was happening with people moving, people relocating their homes and different other businesses. The V-Haul business got a little bit more importance. Now, the picture we see here is little bit confusing and misleading. The very simple reason why, because we usually we try to get as much as possible trucks between June and August for when the kids goes back to school, to colleges. This is why we really need the most possible trucks. And every year this is the best period for us and we don't even have trucks, because it was already very limited as truck business, per se. Now, when we went on 2003, and this is too old for me to be able to confirm it without any doubt, we went through the C-3 definition and all the uses, and went through the C-4 as well. I could not see anywhere I was not allowed to use rental businesses in C-3. Now, if! go back today and goes through the definition and the permitted uses, yes, C-4. And frankly, even four months ago I was having some problem to find in C-4 where is written permitted use is rental equipment and rental vehicles. Page 69 October~~2iJol ~ B 4 i In June when the problem started, we were very taken by surprise. We could not even understand how this happen, how can we have this problem right now. Mind you, we had around 14 calls on us within, what, two weeks, I believe, from one businesses to code enforcement for many, many violation. Most of them were not founded. Unfortunately we had around four ofthem which are to be discussed. One ofthem was the U-Haul. We went back and forth with the county with regard to see what to do with the U-Haul business. Frankly, we could not understand the whole issue about the U-Haul. For us it was a little bit surprising. The little I can say is very . . surpnsmg. Now, Mr. Schmitt, what he told us to do is to go back to the board, the county commissioners board, and to petition the board to see, since we had this business for six years, to see if we'll be able to -- the county will be compassionate with us and try to give us enough time either to make a determination about the use or to make also a rezoning or conditional use or no matter what the business is. Now, for time being the business, the parking part, is extremely -- I wish we were busy. I wish we were able to say that we are able to not having any problem. The parking is most of the time empty. And the summer we got was probably the toughest summer, like everybody else in town, the toughest summer we ever had in eight years in business, or seven year in business. I understand that probably when business start going back, if we're still in business, it will be probably a problem if we have this kind of trucks. But we always kept our trucks and the U-Haul area to five to six spots. We always did. Unfortunately not around August and September. But the problem was never in our mind a problem until in June or in July we end up having this in our face. Why we never reacted before to this, because frankly, summertime was very, very tough, and Page 70 October 22~ Rol.l ! B ~ we had the major problem first of all to deal on signage for my tenant. Unfortunately he was here until -- he had a meeting at 11 :00. He had to leave. But unfortunately we rented the space to a pool company. And this is the second case you'll be hearing after. And unfortunately this has bothered one business owner in the area. And she like to find around 14 or 17 code enforcement on us, three from the fire department, we have four on the transportation. We had probably kind of nice game going, which is calling constantly on us. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right, we're not hearing any other cases -- MR. CHAMI: Exactly. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- so let's just try to keep it focused to this case. MR. CHAMI: So basically what happened here, to make it -- we try to get the person a sign. And my whole correspondence with the county, my whole focus with the county was about giving this tenant his sign, what his due -- or his right to have a sign. And this issue went totally on the side. Never even paid attention to it, never even petitioned the commissioners or anything like this. What I'm ready to do -- unfortunately it's too late. When I got this notification for the hearing, it was too late for me to really react. What I ready to do today basically is to go request the comment -- the comment period for the County Board of County Commissioners to request from them at least to hear my case on the comment area next week on Tuesday. I understand it is not enough time for them to do anything. Probably they will not even make a decision on Tuesday. What I'm doing as well today, I have to petition the board as well. We have 14 days in advance notice for the board to be petitioned, which I will do as well today. So basically will do a comment and I will file for a petition as well today to give me enough Page 71 Octob: g, ~O~ ' [341 time not for this next meeting but for the following one hopefully to be able to get in front of the board and express the problem to them and see what they would be able to do. Sorry, I'm breaking your equipment here. So basically what I'm trying to do is to go in front of the board hopefully next week for a comment period. We understand around 10 minutes. And probably will be no decision, no -- but at least to bring it to their attention. And 14 days later or 15 days later to be in front of them as a petition to be able to see if they will hear it as a petition and to see if they will determine it as being acceptable use. Because it's very vague. The wording is very vague. I understand the way we're reading it today. Am I grandfathered or not? I don't know. And this way I would like to see if am I able to be grandfathered or go through a zoning to rezone the property. But this is take around two years. And Mr. Schmitt told me he has no problem to do this, he will work with us to rezone it. But frankly, I would like to have a little bit more time because I want (sic) to start spending 10 or $15,000 right now for rezoning when I'm able to use this money to keep my business open. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you know if there was a LDC change? MR. MARTINDALE: Not to my knowledge. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. So in 2000-- MR. MARTINDALE: There's constant updates, but this is the most recent. But I have no idea when the last one was. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you have not looked at the Olde Cypress PUD to see if it states in there that this use would be approved? MR. LETOURNEAU: For the record, we did ask the planning department to take a look into this, and Planner Ray Bellows made the Page 72 October b~cIo91 ! B" . determination that this was not an acceptable use for this PUD. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. LETOURNEAU: So I do believe he went over it and he made the determination that it was equivalent to a C-3. MR. CHAMI: The PUD just talk about all the uses permitted within the C-3. This is the wording in the PUD. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, very good. Any further discussion, questions from the board? (No response.) MR. KELLY: I make a motion that a violation does exist. MR. LARSEN: I second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Do you have a recommendation? MR. MARTINDALE: Yes, sir. We recommend that Code Enforcement Board order the respondent to pay all operational charges in this case. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you put that up on the screen, please? MR. MARTINDALE: I'm sorry. In the amount a of 86.14 incurred in the prosecution of this case Page 73 October l~JoJ. f B 4 within 30 days, and abate all violations by: Number one, ceasing all outside storage of rental vehicles and equipment; or number two, relocating rental vehicles and equipment to an area designated for such use; or three, having the described property rezoned to allow for such use. Failure to comply with option one, two or three within "X" amount of days of this hearing will incur a fine of "X" per day until brought into compliance. And if the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may abate the violation and use the assistance of the Collier County Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this agreement and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. MR. KAUFMAN: Mr. Chairman? How many vehicles are parked there today? MR. CHAMI: Today proba -- I can tell you probably from yesterday. It was a lot. Yesterday we had probably 10 vehicle -- probably between nine and 11, probably. And probably six trailers. MR. KAUFMAN: My question to the county would be, on the time limit on this, how many days? And it looks like that you are going before the BCC sometime within the next 30 days? MR. CHAMI: Absolutely, yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: But they're not going to be making a decision. MR. KAUFMAN: No, I understand that. And our next meeting isn't until December, as I -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No, we don't have a meeting in December. MR. KAUFMAN: Oh, we have one in November. Ifwe were to meet halfway on this, give the respondent time to get before the BCC and see what they're saying, and not start accruing the fines until 60 or 90 days, we would have the ability to be as fair as you could possibly be to both sides. Would the county have any Page 74 .J. ,- October 22,'loi91. '" B 4 problem with that? MR. MARTINDALE: We have no objections to that, sir. We just would like to be, at least I would as the investigating officer, kept abreast of any status changes that he may get as soon as possible for the record. And I don't think it's a health and safety issue, it's just a violation of the ordinance. And we don't want to cause any financial problems with anybody, these are just -- you know, we're doing our job. We go out and it's down-printed on paper and that's what we report. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: He has been in front of us before for . . a sIgn Issue. MR. MARTINDALE: I believe so, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. LARSEN: This is the property across from Gulf Coast High School? MR. CHAMI: Exactly, yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That's correct. MR. LARSEN: And your vehicles, when you pull in, you've got the pumps out front, you've got the post office inside, and these vehicles are actually parked behind the building, aren't they? MR. CHAMI: Behind the building. MR. LARSEN: And there's other parking spots out in front. MR. CHAMI: Exactly. Along Immokalee Road. We have 57 parking, I believe. With a full occupancy for our building, which we're not, we're -- I believe it's 49. What we should be having -- what we're requested to have, if I'm not mistaken. So we have 57, around eight spot more. Even with the full occupancy of the building, the 11,000 square feet. MR. LARSEN: What's behind the parking spots on the other side ofthe fence where you park the V-Hauls? MR. CHAMI: We have the Bougainvillea -- I believe the Bougainvillea Shopping Center, Zookies and the other Pinch-a-Penny Page 75 -,~__--",,_~____~,,_,~~,__~~~,~~,_'H~__..,_..,~._..___..,_. _ 1611 October 22, 2009 B ~ and other businesses. MR. LARSEN: It's not residential. MR. CHAMI: No. The residential is on -- we have a buffer, in fact. Like we have in the PUD, the commercial PUD is on the front and then you have kind of preserve area and then you have the residential on the other side. MR. LARSEN: Right. So, you know, there is no neighbors being impacted by this. MR. CHAMI: No. Absolutely not. MR. KELLY: I'll make a motion that we accept the county's recommendation with 120 days and a fine of$100 per day. MR. LARSEN: I second that motion. I think that's more reasonable. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? MR. LARSEN: And of course the -- but the payment of the cost of prosecution will be within 30 days? MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to add one thing to the motion, if possible, and that is that Mr. Chami be in contact with code enforcement to let them know what's going on with your deliberations with the county. MR. CHAMI: I will. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Larsen, would you like to amend your -- MR. LARSEN: Yeah, I amend the second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And the first? MR. KELLY: Sure. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right, thank you very much. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. Page 76 October 22~2~/l B" CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. CHAMI: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, next will be J. Peaceful, LC. Case No. CESD20090012961. (Mr. Martindale and Mr. Chami were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Land Development Code 04-41, as amended, Section 1 0.02.06(B)(1)( e). Description of violation: Alterations to structure without obtaining required permits, subsequent inspections or issuance of certificate of occupancy completion. Location/address where violation exists: 7770 Preserve Lane, Naples, Florida, 34119. Folio 68391446166. Name and address of owner/person in charge of violation location: Georges Chami, 7675 Margherita Way, Naples, Florida, 34109. Date violation first observed: August 5th, 2009. Date owner/person in charge given notice of violation: August 11 th, 2009. Date on/by which violation to be corrected: September 7th, 2009. Date of reinspect ion: September 16th, 2009. Results of the reinspection: The violation remains. I would now like to present Investigator Ron Martindale. MR. MARTINDALE: For the record, Ronald Martindale Collier County Code Enforcement. Page 77 -M'~-"'-'_'_"___'_____"'____'~_H_'''''__.__..<,.._..,___.._.". October 22: ~oll B 4 In reference to Case CESD20090012961, location is 770 Preserve Lane. And I would like to enter two exhibits, if I may. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Have you seen them? MR. CHAMI: I don't believe so. Most probably, but I want to see these ones. MR. MARTINDALE: Sorry. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. LA VINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. MARTINDALE: While I was investigating the prior case, I also observed what you'll -- photograph one here. This -- I believe this was originally built as a bank, and that was a drive-through there. They've taken the window out and replaced it with two doors. You can see by the fresh stucco around the edges where it's been filled in. It's been since prior painted -- painted since then, pardon me. And upon investigation I couldn't find any permits of any type. Picture two, please. This was a drive-thru area from where you see that box truck up Page 78 October ~2?2JOJ. B ~ to the bank window. They put an elevated ramp across this area up into the -- enter into the business of Splash and Sizzle. None of the work was -- no permits were pulled for any of the jobs. And I sent a Notice of Violation to Mr. Chami on this also. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any other pictures? MR. MARTINDALE: No, sir. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Are you done with your testimony? MR. MARTINDALE: Yes, sir, I'm sorry. MR. CHAMI: Thanks a lot. And my apology for getting two cases in front of you today. This case, frankly it's little bit mind boggling in one way. We rented the space to Splash and Sizzle around end of August of this year. And Splash and Sizzle has another company called Slab to Shingle, and they are general contractor as well. Now, they started the construction. They assured me all the way that I hired Nova Engineering for all the permitting to expedite all the different inspection and so on. And frankly, I have nothing to say beside good things about this tenant. They are really very, very nice, very good -- doing their work in very professional way, and I never doubted a minute that everything was being filed on time, everything was done. Even at one time the whole place was -- the racks were in, the fixtures were in, everything was ready to go. Even the shelving was totally full, all the product were on it. The fire department made an inspection and we're still waiting to open the doors. And the reason they told me we cannot open is because we want our occupational license, and we can't get occupational license until the structural department at Collier County will provide us with the permit, with a sign, a final inspection on the door. So everything led me to believe, and I'm still -- I'm not able to understand what happened here in between. Because we were waiting Page 79 .'-'<~---"---'--------,._,-_.'-""--~-'---~---' .,." -- It; l '7 October 22, ~009' B 4 over four days until we got a license occupation. And this was waiting for the doors to be permitted and to be inspected and everything was from structure and everything was supposed to be done. Suddenly we got the license for occupation. We have it. And I don't know then what happened. All what I know, that one business in the area made a complaint, code enforcement came in another time, and they found basically that the -- to my understanding, the complaint was about doing the work without permit. They inspected, and obviously code enforcement found that basically no permit was being provided for the door, and it was in between Nova Engineering and between a final-- frankly, this is details I don't really know exactly what happened in between. This is why I was having my tenant here to explain to you in detail what happened. Now, from this particular point we had another problem came back after, which was the ramp. And the ramp which was supposedly somebody at the county told Nova Engineering you don't need to have a permit for this particular ramp. All what you really need is permit for the door. As we speak today, I understand they filed the permit for the door, they filed the permit for the SDP, so basically to show basically the ramp was being done. But this is all done after the fact that code enforcement was on-site and basically they found us we are not in conformance. So what happened in between, how come we end up having this occupation license and how come the door was being inspected but was not being -- I don't know, frankly. I fail to understand. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The actual violation is? MR. MARTINDALE: Performing work without inspections. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What work in particular? MR. MARTINDALE: The door, the ramp. Anything that Page 80 1 October 2~ loJ ;f B'" they've done there without any -- obtaining any permits. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: That elevated area there? MR. MARTINDALE: Yes. That was the drive-thru. And it's essentially -- I don't think that's the issue. The issue is just the construction of a structure, and that is a structure, without any approval, permits, subsequent inspections, COso MR. LETOURNEAU: I believe they removed the drive-thru, changed the -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I'm not sure if you -- you haven't been sworn in, have you? MR. LETOURNEAU: Do I have to get -- I'm sorry. (Mr. Letourneau was duly sworn.) MR. LETOURNEAU: Like Investigator Martindale said, there was a drive-thru for a bank. I believe they modified the window there and put a door and then built a ramp leading up to the door, basically what's going on there. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further questions? MR. KAUFMAN: Mr. Chami, did you speak with your tenant and specifically ask them did you get a building permit for this work? MR. CHAMI: Yes. MR. KAUFMAN: And they said? MR. CHAMI: Yes. And they told me -- later on their understanding from Nova Engineering that Nova Engineering was presenting -- fighting for the permit. But I fail to understand -- this is why I was really hoping that he will be with me here and we explain. But I believe -- I thought he would explain everything to code enforcement about all the details. Because until today I still fail to understand how Nova Engineering did all the inspection without having a permit filed. Usually you file a permit and then you do the inspection after. How this happened, I have no idea. MR. KELLY: Engineers are allowed to file a permit by affidavit Page 81 ---- .,'---,_._.., '---'""_"'___~"'_~'______'__"_~'~n_'~~"_"<..._._.""__..."_'~".._'"."."',~p_ 16" '"!~n "" j!' ll,.,.; ';""( '~. LJ' ~-ttr October 22, 2009 and basically do the work and then just say afterward it's up to code. MR. CHAMI: Okay, thank you very-- MR. KELLY: And that's probably his intention. But Mr. Martindale, you've checked CDS and CD plus has nothing. MR. MARTINDALE: Several times. MR. ORTEGA: Permit by affidavits are limited to residential, not commercial. But permit -- private provider can do it, but you still have to apply for a permit first. Obviously the ramp impacted the SDP, so that was one issue. You had to take care of that before you -- actually, you could do the building permit, site development plan both or the amendment to, but apparently that was never done. MR. MARTINDALE: I believe the tenant is trying to get an insubstantial alteration to the PUD because of this. I don't know what the story is completely on it, except it's obvious that the structure has been modified and there's no record of any permits. MR. ORTEGA: This may not qualify for that. But are you in the building department now? Are you proceeding with this? MR. CHAMI: My understanding, everything was being filed on Friday or on Monday. MR. ORTEGA: Do you have any proof of this? MR. CHAMI: Uh-uh. MR. ORTEGA: That's very easy. The contractor can give you a copy of the permit application, then you know for sure, as owner of the property. MR. KAUFMAN: I'd like to make a motion that a violation did exist. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Does exhibit. MR. KAUFMAN: Does exist. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: For the record, I'd just like to note that there was a speaker slip filled out. Mr. Dan Deerey -- Page 82 October 21 &el> I-a 4 MR. CHAMI: He just left. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- and he left. MR. CHAMI: He left. MR. LARSEN: Yeah, I second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Do you have a recommendation? MR. MARTINDALE: Yes, sir, I do. The Code Enforcement Board -- we request the Code Enforcement Board order the respondent to pay all operational charges/costs in the amount of 86.14 incurred in the prosecution of this case within 30 days. And to abate all violations by: Obtaining all required Collier County building or demolition permits, all required inspections through to issuance of a certificate of compliance or occupancy within "X" amount of days, or incur a fine of "X" per day until brought into compliance. The respondent must notify code investigator when the violation's been abated in order to conduct a final inspection to confirm abatement. If the respondent fails to abate the violation, the county may Page 83 October l~ 2,09 , B 4 abate the violation and may use the assistance of Collier County 1 f Sheriffs Office to enforce the provisions of this order and all costs of abatement shall be assessed to the property owner. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All right. Anyone like to take a stab at this? MR. LARSEN: Well, I'd like to suggest that basically we give the respondent 120 days and then $100 per day until-- for every day thereafter. MR. KAUFMAN: I'll second that. MR. KELLY: And that's obviously accepting the rest ofthe recommendations by county? MR. LARSEN: Yes, it is. With the proviso that the operational costs are paid within 30 days, not the 120 days. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. CHAMI: Thank you very much. Have a wonderful day. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You too. MR. MARTINDALE: Thank you, gentlemen. MR. LARSEN: You have Horton next; is that correct? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is that the last case? MR. LARSEN: If so, I have to recuse myself once again. Page 84 1 ,!, l~ ~n" ":"u J ;',' October 22, 200'9.... B" CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do we have a whole package for them? MR. MARTINDALE: Jeff just made me one. MR. KELLY: Have we got some old business? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Mr. Horton? THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Horton, I just want to remind you that you are still under oath from the previous time you were here. MR. HORTON: Urn-hum. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Didn't want you to run off and miss it. THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Paul, I just wanted to remind you that you are still under oath. MR. PAUL: Okay. MS. WALDRON: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, we don't have all the original case documents with us because we weren't prepared to rehear this today. I don't have the statement of violation to read off. I don't have any of that, so -- because usually it's a request for rehearing and then it's scheduled for another day. MR. KELLY: But it's in compliance. It might be relevant. MS. WALDRON: I'm just telling you that I don't have that to -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Can you read at least the -- MS. WALDRON: I have the previous order. MR. KELLY: If at any time you feel as though county is unable to properly -- MS. WALDRON: I think the investigator can present the case without us reading the statement of violation. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We did ask that before and I think-- MR. PAUL: Yes, I can present -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: -- you did state that you are prepared to hear the case. MR. PAUL: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you need to read anything in? I Page 85 - . "--""--'~.'~-"'-'-~~-<'-"'-"'.~~>-'--""'_._,,~,~~---_."_.-------- - October 22, ~~9/ 1 j~J3 ~ mean, can you -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, I think we can read in what was in the prior order. I've got that in front of me, if you'd like me to read it in, or you'd like to. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I mean, at least you could state the case, state the violation. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. Well, the alleged violation was Section 1O.02.06(B)(1)(a) of the Collier County Land Development Code. And the violation was: There was an addition to the rear of the home without first obtaining a Collier County permit. The address of the property was 2128 55th Street Southwest, Naples, Florida. Folio 36379480008. I think that covers the pertinent part. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, as long as that's enough for the record. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I believe so. Mr. Horton is here, so he has received notice of the hearing. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. MR. PAUL: I can go ahead? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. PAUL: For the record, Renald Paul, Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator. Again, the reference, Case No. CESD20080011966. Violations of Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended, Sections 1O.02.06(B)(1)(a). Addition ofa lanai with no permits. Service was given on 1O-90f'08. I'd like to present some case evidence in the following Exhibits B-1 through 3. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a motion to -- MR. LA VINSKI: I make a motion we accept -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Well, first before I say that, has the Page 86 _-.o"~~~_"'-="~"_.___~~_'___~_';~'..__...'ifL._,~~_,",.~~_...,,~~_..~__.,. _ _"....._ _,___ October~~ 2tJ .,j B 4 respondent seen the pictures? MR. PAUL: No, he hasn't seen them. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you could please show him. MR. HORTON: Yeah, he showed me a little bit ago. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I just want to make sure. And if you can just state on record that you have seen -- they were presented to you. MR. HORTON: Yes. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Very good. MR. KELLY: Motion to accept. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a first? MR. LA VINSKI: Yeah, I'll make a motion. MR. KELLY: Oh, that's right. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. PAUL: As you'll see in the first picture, it shows the picture of the lanai. MR. ORTEGA: I remember this one. MR. PAUL: And the second picture is the property card from the property appraiser's. I don't know if she'll be able to zoom in. But Page 87 -----."-.---'-..- _.~~~-------~,_.-.--.-,---~-----~~_.,---"---~._,_... 16"1B4 October 22, 2009 what it pretty much shows is there's a little writing that talks about the date that it was actually added. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Where are we looking? MR. KAUFMAN: Left side. MR. PAUL: Right there. They've got little points that point to that that show that they were added in like '95. I'm sorry, it's very difficult to see. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: The one to the right. MS. WALDRON: '96. MR. PAUL: '96. MR. LEFEBVRE: I can't tell if that's '95 or '96. MS. WALDRON: It's '96. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay, the second line down right where the line is. And then on the other side right where the line is, it says '96. Okay. MR. PAUL: Okay. And the third picture is the original 1990 permit. It's actually a survey. And on the survey you can see that there is no lanai. This case began on 9/8 of2008. I went to the property, I spoke with Mr. Horton. I had explained while I was on-site, somebody originally complained about a different violation, as I told him that I would have to research and get back to him. On 9/25, checked with the permit department, they still had not gotten the plans back, so I was still monitoring. On 10/9 I had received the information back, found there were several violations on the property at that time. On 10/9, I was on-site. I had spoken with Mr. Horton and I had explained the several violations, which also included the lanai. At that time he did not sign the Notice of Violation, he had refused. But I did give him a copy of the notice. On 11/18, after research, found that the violation remained. On 12/17, found that the violation had still remained on-site. Page 88 -"---~---'-'--~"-"'--",----, October 2/ ~JJ l' B ~ On 1/27 of2009 we had a meeting with the permitting department, me and Mr. Horton and several persons that work for the permitting department. Some of the violations were found not to be violations at that time. But he still did have other violations that were still on-site that needed to be corrected. And he was informed on how to correct these issues at that time. On 3/2 of 2009 he came into the office to take care of most of the violations, but the lanai hadn't been taken care of at that time. On 3/23 he had asked for an extension of time, which was granted due to finances. So I just continued to monitor the case. 4/30 of'09, called Mr. Horton on the phone. He advised that architect told him that the way that the lanai was built would not pass today's codes. He was going to check with some other persons to see if there's a possible way that he can get this taken care of. 5/18, I had spoken with Mr. Horton, he said he was speaking with the architect at that time, and there was a possibility that he could get this into compliance. 6/1/2009, Mr. Horton advised that the screen company was coming out and would be able to fix what needed to be done at that time. And I told him I'd continue to monitor it. On 6/22 I spoke with Mr. Horton on the phone. Said that the work was done but he didn't know when he was going to get the permit. I informed him that he did not -- if he did not have the permit by next week, I would prep the case for CEB, and he said he understood. On 7/15 of '09 after research found that the violation remained. Owner has still not applied for the permits for the addition, so I prepped the case for CEB. On 8/4 of2009 the Notice of Hearing was posted at the courthouse and the property. On 8/14 I had spoken with Mr. Horton before the last hearing. I had informed him that the case was prepped for court, and he said that Page 89 --._-~~-----_._-..__._~_._-,-._~._-"'-,_._-- J.OIl I October 22, 2009 B ~ I he understood. And I told him what the operational costs were. On 9/23 of'09, after the first hearing, Mr. Horton did come into compliance with the lanai. He did get the CO. He had -- he was issued the permit on 9/23 of'09 and got the C.O. on 9/29 of'09. And we're here today. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: If you'd like to speak now? MR. HORTON: Yeah. The only reason I'm here today is to ask for a waiver on the fees for today. And I have a sheet here chronologizing everything that's happened so far. Some of our dates were off. But it explains the delay from why it wasn't in compliance. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Would you like to enter that into evidence? MR. HORTON: Yeah. How do I do that? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Has he seen -- MR. HORTON: Yeah, I showed it to him a little bit ago. MR. KELLY: I make a motion we accept it. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. LA VINSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Just give us a minute to have it passed out, then we can take a Page 90 1 1, October 2~ JoJ . - B~ look at it. Is the house for sale currently? MR. HORTON: No. MR. KAUFMAN: In reading this, unless I missed something, it looks like the only problem here was item three, respondent must notifY code enforcement within 24 hours of abatement. I believe that's -- looks like everything was done. MR. PAUL: From the prior, correct? From the prior hearing? MR. KAUFMAN: Right. Yeah, everything was done on 9/23. Permit, everything -- MR. PAUL: The CO was -- he had gotten the CO on the 29th, on 9/29. MR. KAUFMAN: Which is prior to -- MR. PAUL: The hearing. MR. KAUFMAN: -- the reinspection on the 30th. MR. PAUL: Correct. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay, how did you find to reinspect it on the 30th ifhe didn't notifY you? MR. PAUL: We're able to just check the computer system. It's just a random check that I do. And when I checked it, I noticed that he had gotten the CO, even though he didn't call me. MR. KAUFMAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Has everyone had a chance to read this letter? MR. DEAN: I was the last one to get it so it's taken me a little longer. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No problem. Just let me know when you're ready. MR. DEAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any questions from the board? (No response.) Page 91 October ~2~2to! B 4 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do you have any further statements? MR. HORTON: No, do you have any further questions, though? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I just asked the board and doesn't seem like there is. Do I hear a motion? MR. KAUFMAN: Let me try a motion. Given the ordinary benevolent things that we do on this board, since everything was in compliance and the only thing that was missing as far as the general public is concerned, they're not harmed, I'd make a motion that we find that this was in compliance. The key here is the fine, if you will, is zero. The court costs are the question in mind. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Right. Now, if we find -- we have to find ifthere's a violation or not. If there's no violation, then the operational costs would not have to be paid. If we do find in fact there was a violation but it was corrected, then yes, a fine -- not a fine but operational costs would be incurred. So are you trying to say that -- MR. KAUFMAN: Based on the problem with the e-mail going to the right place at the right time, I find that a violation did not occur, that it was attempted to notifY the county. MS. WALDRON: Just for clarification on that, the e-mail was only the request for rehearing, it did not have anything to do with the case details. That wasn't part of the getting into compliance. MR. PAUL: Right, there's no proof that -- MS. WALDRON: Right, that doesn't have anything to do with the -- MR. KAUFMAN: Well, I'll stay with my motion, that-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Hearing none -- MR. KELLY: I make a motion that a violation did exist. Past Page 92 16/1 October 22, 2009 B" tense. MR. DEAN: I'll second that motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? MR. KAUFMAN: One. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Okay. Motion passes that there's a violation that has been found. MR. HORTON: What does that mean to me? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: What that means is that if no violation was found, then you wouldn't have to pay operational cost. But because a motion has been made and seconded and approved by the board that a violation did exist, you are responsible for paying the operational cost of -- what was it, $87 and some change? MS. WALDRON: $87 even. MR. KELL Y: The key here was timing. MR. HORTON: The whole point of me coming in here was to show you the timing of what happened in between, you know, right around, you know, July and August. MR. KELLY: And that's what I was anxious to see. But since it was brought in front of the board and we did go through the expense of hearing the case before the CO was achieved, in my mind there was a violation because the permit was not finally approved at the time we heard the case. MR. HORTON: I show here on July 20th, I paid for the permits Page 93 16 11 1 B4 October 22, 2009 and I sent -- I went into the county or over to the Horseshoe and gave three sets of plans. I called the inspector on the same day to tell him that that was the case. Then you see on 7/27 is when I received my notice for the hearing. It's out of my hands at that point. It's in the county's possession; is that correct? MR. KELLY: Yes, sir. But the actual CO, the finalization of the permit, wasn't achieved until almost -- well, to the end of September. MR. HORTON: Well, the reason there's a 30-day lapse there is because once I got my notice after the first hearing that I was in violation, they said I had 30 days. I was in no hurry to make that payment. I think I waited till the 28th day to do that. MR. KELLY: I hear you. MR. HORTON: That's the lapse there. MR. KELLY: I can appreciate that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: There's been a motion, a second and there has been a violation found, so you will be responsible for paying the $87. MR. HORTON: How do I -- do I do by writing you a check now or do I go downstairs or what? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You can write a check right now. That would be -- MR. HORTON: Well, I can't do that right now, I don't have my checkbook with me. What do I do? MR. DEAN: Within 30 days. MR. HORTON: Go to Horseshoe Drive? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. HORTON: Very good. Thanks. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Thank you. MR. KELLY: In the case, I make a motion that the violation did exist and the corrective action is to pay the operational cost of $87 within 30 days, and there's no other further action. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: I guess that would be the Page 94 16 I 1 October 22, 2009 . 'B4 i recommendation? MR. KELLY: Well, we made a motion that a violation existed. Now we have to actually make a motion for the order, correct? MS. WALDRON: Right. We just need to put some wording that the violation has been abated to the date of this hearing. MR. KELL Y: I'll amend my motion to say that the violation has been abated. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear -- MR. KAUFMAN: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Amend the second -- MR. KELLY : Well, we never had -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Oh, okay, I thought you were amending your previous one, sorry. MR. KELL Y: So we had the motion. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: We have a second. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. Weare moving on. MR. LARSEN: Just for the record, ifthat had to do with the prior case, I'm abstaining and I'm excused. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Next case -- or motion for imposition of fines would be Theodore and Karen Wasserman. Page 95 16/1 October 22, 2009 B " (Ms. Perez and Mr. Scofield were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: This is in reference to violation of Collier County Ordinance 04-41, the Land Development Code, as amended, Sections 1 0.02.06(B)(1 )(a), and 1 0.02.06(B)(1)( e). Location of violation: 410 Cristobal Street, Naples, Florida. Folio 52450200000. Description of violation: Electrical boatlift added to the west side seawall property without first obtaining required Collier County building permits. On May 28th, 2009, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order ofthe Board, OR 4460, Page 2921 for more information. An order of continuance was granted. See order OR 4442, Page 2234. The respondent has complied with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of September 30th, 2009. The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing a lien for fines at the rate of $200 per day for the period between September 25th, 2009 to September 30th, 2009, five days, for the total of$I,OOO. Operational costs of $87.57 have been paid. The total recommended lien amount is $1,000. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to abate the fine. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. Page 96 October 21 ~ck 1 B 4 CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MS. PEREZ: Thank you, gentlemen. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You understand what just -- MR. SCOFIELD: No. MR. KAUFMAN: You get an out of jail free card. MR. SCOFIELD: So the fine's been waived? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Yes. MR. SCOFIELD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: And you paid the operational cost, so you're all set. MR. SCOFIELD: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: You're welcome. Have a great day. I think that's one of the quickest ones I've ever seen. All right, next case is CESD20080003864, Jose Rodriguez. (Mr. Walker and Mr. Rodriguez were duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: The notice of hearing was posted at the property and the courthouse on October 1 st, 2009. This case is this reference to violation of Collier County Ordinance 04-41, the Land Development Code, as amended, Sections I 0.02.06(B)(1 )(a), 1 0.02.06(B)(l)( e), and 1 0.02.06(B)(I)( ei). Location of violation: 607 Glades Street, Immokalee, Florida. Folio 63857400007. Description of violation: Bedroom and bathroom addition built on side of structure without first obtaining proper permits. On April 23rd, 2009, the Code Enforcement Board issued a Page 97 October 21 ~o~ 1 B 4 finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4449, Page 2446 for more information. The respondent has not complied with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of October 22nd, 2009. The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing lien for fines at a rate of $200 per day for the period between August 25th, 2009 to October 22nd, 2009, 59 days, for the total of$II,800. Fines continue to accrue. Operational costs of$86.71 have not been paid. The total recommended lien amount is $11,886.71. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to impose the recommended lien amount of $11 ,886.71, and of course the operational cost in the amount of86.71 be paid. MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Although those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any nays? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. MR. WALKER: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is that it? Page 98 16 I 1 ;,B" October 22, 2009 MR. LARSEN: No, we've got-- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Step up. Case CESD20090003484. Federal National Mortgage Association. (Mr. Keegan was duly sworn.) MS. WALDRON: Property and courthouse were both posted on October 5th, 2009. This is in reference to violation of Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, buildings and building regulations, Article 2, Section 22 to 26(b)(104.1.3.5). Collier County Land Development Code, 04-41, as amended. Sections 1O.02.06(B)(1)(a) and 10.02.06 (B)(l)(e). And the Florida Building Code, 2004 edition, Chapter 1, Section 111.1. Location of violation: 3141 Pine Tree Drive, Naples, Florida. Folio 48780640001. Description of violation: Garage converted into living space, bathroom and kitchen, interior walls erected and plumbing and electrical work completed without first obtaining Collier County approval, necessary permits, inspections and certificate of completion. On May 28th, 2009, the Code Enforcement Board issued a finding of fact, conclusion of law and order. The respondent was found in violation of the referenced ordinances and ordered to correct the violation. See the attached Order of the Board OR 4460, Page 2930 for more information. The respondent has not complied with the Code Enforcement Board orders as of October 22nd, 2009. The county's recommendation is to issue an order imposing a lien for fines at the rate of $200 a day for the period between September 25th, 2009 to October 22nd, 2009, 27 days, for the total of $5,400. Fines continue to accrue. Operational costs of $88.43 have not been paid. The total recommended lien amount is $5,488.43. Page 99 16/1 October 22, 2009 B " MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to impose a lien in the amount of $5,488.43, which includes the fine plus the operational cost. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. KAUFMAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. MR. KEEGAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. All right. Any new business? (No response.) MR. KAUFMAN: Next meeting will be held at? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Reports? Do we have a report from -- for foreclosures? MS. WALDRON: (Shakes head negatively.) MR. KELLY: I like the new shirts. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Is that under new business or comments? Just comments? The next meeting will be November 19th, 2009. Location will be at the community development and environmental services building. MR. LARSEN: Mr. Chairman, do we have to take any action on this letter from code enforcement bright dated October 15th in regard to foreclosure, collect authorization -- CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: It's under the consent agenda. Page 100 16 I 1 '134 October 22, 2009 MR. KELL Y: Consent agenda. MR. LARSEN: Okay. So no further action needs to be taken? CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: No further action. MR. KELLY: Motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Do I hear a second? MR. DEAN: Second. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: All those in favor? MR. DEAN: Aye. MR. KELLY: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Aye. MR. LARSEN: Aye. MR. ORTEGA: Aye. MR. KAUFMAN: Aye. MR. LA VINSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN LEFEBVRE: Motion passes. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 11 :58 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY CODE ENF Cij. NT BOARD ,I ./ VRE, Chairman These minutes approved by the board on presented or as corrected , as Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 101 Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta -' 16 Ilto~~2009- , , TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida October 15,2009 RECEIVED DEe 0 2 2009 Board of County Commissioners LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Conunission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" ofthe Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Donna Reed-Caron Karen Homiak Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David J. W oltley ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Joseph Schmitt, CDES Administrator Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager Thomas Eastman, Real Property Director, CC School District Page I Mile. Date: bl l?-- lV Item.: lwILl (' , t. \..-.op!es o. .___,~_.._.,.,~.~._,..,_",_,._..___. __N_, ... __ ~' // ~ 1 :';' 'j,' r 1(;", ;'" C.'J 'ft..) ~-' ' - October Ii, 2009 .., CHAJRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Ray. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the October 15th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If you'll please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was rccited in unison.) Item #2 ROLL CALL CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Roll call by the secretary, please. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Mr. Eastman is absent. Commissioner Koltlat" COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Sehilfer'? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney~ COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron'? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain'? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is here. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wollley'? COMMISSIONER WOLF! ,EY: Ilere. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And Commissioner Homiak'? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. Item #3 ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, next is addenda to the agenda. And I have been told that we're possibly going to be requested to continue the Vanderbilt Beach restroom variance request. If that's so, if anybody would wish that continuance, it would be a good time to ask for it now. MR. McALPIN: Thank you. Mr. Chair. For the record. Gary McAlpin, Collier County. We are in fact requesting a continuance for thc Bluebill bathroom variance until the first of the year, based on recent infonnation received on the draft FEMA maps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that will be an indelinite continuance then') Because we wouldn't -- I imagine you don't have a date at this point. MR. McALPIN: Well. we believe that the -- if we can in lact work the details out, we will not request a variance. But if we -- we believe we'll have better inl()rmation by the first of the year. So we would like to continue this until the lirst of the year; the lirst meeting after the first ofthe year. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why don't we set it up as an indefinite continuance then whenever the maps come out. Because I believc they're actually supposed to come out in February and then they havc a review process. So cifhdl'w,ry,\ve'lI cover it by an indelinite continuance, if the board so pleases. Ray, did you h,ave something you wanted to add to that" MR. BELLOWS: Yes. Ijust wanted to put it on record. it'd have to be readvertised anyway, So it'd ~ e. ...; ,~ ' Page 2 1: , 6 1'1 octBrE 20091 be best to continue indefinitely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And by the way, if there are any public speakers here for this issue, we still can entertain the public comments. So if you still want to get on record for what you've got to say, although this may not even happen now, you're more than welcome to stay until we can call that item up for public comment. So with that in mind, is there a -- does the Planning Commission wish to accept the recommendation for continuance? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: So moved. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, seconded by Mr. Vigliotti. (At which time, Mr. Eastman enters the boardroom.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signity by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye. COMMISSIONERMIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And for the record, Mr. Eastman has arrived. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just so everyone knows, that was advertised as number 9.A ou our public hearings. Petition FLDV -PL-2009-443, Collier County Coastal Zone Management. That item has been indefinitely continued, expecting to come back, if at all, at the first part of the year. The other item that I want to mention we need to add to the agenda under new business would be -- well, the first meeting of every October we have an election of officers. And we didn't have a meeting the first of October, so we'll do that under new business at I].A today. - - ..... Item #4 PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Planning Commission absences. We have a very busy schedule next week. On the 19th and the 20th we have our GMP days. I can assure you that we will be using both those days in full. We have a carryover day to the 29th. And since we have no meeting on November 5th, by the way, because we have no scheduled cases, I had asked staff to leave that day open for us, in case we can't finish the GMPs on the three days we currently have scheduled. But as far as the 19th and 20th, is everybody here intending to make those meetings? Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: I'll miss the 20th, but I expect to be able for all the rest. Item #5 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - AUGUST 20, 2009, AUGUST 25, 2009 FLOOD ORDINANCE, SEPTEMBER 3, 2009 FLOODPLAIN, SEPTEMBER 3, 2009, REGULAR AND SEPTEMBER 17,2009 Page 3 --' ." ',~".~""""--',..~'-"""" -..-..,..-.- .---..,,"'....--.- 1611~B5 October I 5, 2009 ,,", ',," CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. thank you. As I said earlier, too, so everybody's aware of it, the November 5th regular meeting is canceled. So if we don't have any carryover from the GMP, we won't be meeting that day. The approval of minutes from August 20th. 2009. Anybody want to make a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Mr. Vigliotti. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ave. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ave. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAiRMAN STRAIN: The minutes of August 25th, 2009 for the tlood ordinance. Is there-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- a motion to approve? Me. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak seconded. All in favor. signity by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye, COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye, COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye, COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. The minutes from September 3rd, 2009 1l00dplain. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second cd by Ms. Homiak. All in favor, signity by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ave. , COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISS10NER MlJRRA Y: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY Aye, Pagc 4 16/1 85 " October 15, 2009 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. And the regular meeting of September 3rd, 2009, is there a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak again. All in favor, signity by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA 1': Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Motion carries. And the last regular meeting, September 17th, 2009. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Might as well make it again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made the motion. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak seconded. All in favor, signity by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA 1': Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Looks like all the minutes got issued kind of one time there. And by the way, we have a unique situation today. It was determined that Cherie' needed competition to see how she could keep up versus someone else, so we have Cherie' and Jackie in dueling clerk reporting positions today. Now, what will be nice is afterwards we ought to compare them side by side and see if they got everything the same. So we need to use acronyms that Jackie wouldn't be used to but Cherie' would excel at, and Tor would love. Item #6 BCC REPORT - RECAPS - SEPTEMBER 29, 2009 AND OCTOBER] 3,2009 Page 5 -,.._"-~~.~_.,._...._._ ... ......'__.0..._.~~.'...r ".' . , J.:.., .t - I' .-r'l,' , "d' , I .\ J~: -: B5 October 15. 2009 'f , " CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The BCC report. Ray, for September 29th and October 13thry MR. BELLOWS: I don't have the recap for October 13th as that hasn't been published yet. And you said September" CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, someone put on my agenda September 29th and October 13th, MR. BELLOWS: I don't have that one either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I was just reading the agenda. Item #7 CHAIRMAN'S REPORT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, chairman's report. There are a couple of issues to go over on chainnan's report. And I'm going to start off and then Mike Bosi has some information for us. Next week the GMP meetings I expect will be very well attended by members of the public. And there are clusters of groupings in the way these GMP amendments have been submitted. We have five of them in the east side 01'951 in the eastern part of Golden Gate Estates. We have one in Golden Gate Estates, but it's over by Santa Barbara. But all the rest are either county-wide or west of95]. The staff reports, and I have read all 10 applications and all the backup to all 10 applications; that's what I did on vacation. In the staffreport. you'll see many references to how staff looked at all these as a package in regards to the quantity of square footages and things being asked. And they evaluated it as all of them, which is a good thing to do. because if all were approved the evaluation then becomes more relevant. But I thought that it would be very good for us if we were to consider the five items that are east of 951 in a holistic package first. And what I mean by that is that this board would ask the applicants for a presentation -- for each one of their presentations we would entertain the public comments. we would hear the staff reports and go through all five so that we could evaluate the live of them. and out of the five of them see how many of them are really the ones that should be approved, if all of them maybe. And I think we can better do that in a holistic pattern than trying to take them piecemeal and believing that maybe the first one up is the right one but then beeause the first was approved the second one might not be or the third or the fourth. So I went and met with eomprehensive planning on this. They had actually thought of that idea as well but hadn't yet suggested it. So it was something they thought would be more -- a better way to handle this kind ofa GMP amendment cycle with so many of them in one area, as they all are in Golden Gate Estates. So with that in mind, I want to ask the Planning Commission if you all had any objection to the following procedure -- go ahead. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No objection whatsoevcr. I think that's actually excellent planning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank vou. , Well. the five that we would be talking about would be 2007, number one, two and three, and 2008, number one and two, They are not exactly the first five up. The third one up happens to be 2008-3, and it's the one over on Santa Barbara. So that one would have to be put off until we finished discussing those first five. But at this point in time that shouldn't be a problem at all. And I think it would be -- if we can accept that idea now, staff could be better prepared in their presentation on Monday to look at it in that context. And I don't necessarily -- well, to Mr. Klatzkow, do we need a motion since this is an agenda item for Monday? MR. KLATZKOW: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. From a consensus viewpoint, is that comJortable Jar everybody on the board? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody have any objection to it? Page 6 16 I 11 octobeR~009 ' Mr. Koltlat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA 1': Mark, could you give me those numbers again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, 2007-1, 2007-2, 2007-3, 2008-1, and 2008-2. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, and another item. That's half of our GMP amendments. A couple of them aren't going to take a lot of discussion in the end, the remaining five. One of them's an ERP amendment that really isn't much more than a text correction. I'd like to ask this panel, for the benefit of the public who wants to attend, either the remaining five or the five we're going to be talking about, if you all would agree that on Monday the 19th we are not going to go beyond those five, even if we get through them. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good. That's good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that way you all can bring just the books and the data and read pertaining to those five. And we have three other days to finish up the other five, which I can assure you won't take nearly that amount of time, if we get through five on the 19th. But I think if we limit the 19th to those five, we're doing a good service to the public for those that want to attend. They know that if you live in Golden Gate Estates, that's the day you attend, and keep those people not having to wait that day. So is that okay with everybody? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. Then on the 19th, Monday the 19th, our GMP amendments, we will be hearing five amendments, 2007-1, 2 and 3, 2008- I and 2. And those are the only items that will be heard on that day for those GMP amendments. And there is one public speaker because I had asked one of the members of the civic associations in Golden Gate what they thought about this. Mr. Tim Nance, he liked the idea, because it also brings everything together. I just wanted to make sure, Tim, did you want to conunent on it? You're more than welcome to. MR. NANCE: I'd just like to make one brief statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, go ahead. MR. NANCE: Mr. Chairman and members of the Conunission, Tim Nance. I'm representing the board of directors of Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association. I really appreciate the consideration of the Planning Commission in approaching this what I consider to be a very special circumstance in a comprehensive way. I can't emphasize, the members of the civic association and citizens out in Golden Gate Estates have fairly widely attended the neighborhood information meetings on these proposed growth management plan amendments. Because they're all commercial and they're all affecting Golden Gate Estates east 01'951, they are going to have a very profound effect on Golden Gate Estates when taken as a whole. And I think it's -- I will say, I will thank the commission in advance, because I think you've done historically an extraordinarily good job in advancing good guidance to the BCC. And Ijust wanted to let you know that the civic association is most anxious that you give careful consideration to these plan amendments a~ a whole so that we can get the best results for the community of Golden Gate Estates and its residents. So I thank you in advance and I'm very appreciative that you're going to handle it in a comprehensive way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Tim. Okay, Mr. Bosi, did you have something that you wanted to add today? MR. BOS!: Thank you, Chairman Strain. Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning. Nothing adding to the specific process within the GMP amendments on Monday. I was in attendance today for the consent agenda item, reviewing the AUIR recommendations that were proffered by the CCPC at their special workshop. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We so rarely see you, so I always like to hear you speak. Page 7 '*: f" ,1 ,,..., ,,,. 'i/ ".'.l!!,' '-'" 'j "'- " ..J "r', October l5, 20\J9 B 5 ;,~ ! Mike. one thing, though. Did your department bring any handouts for us? We were supposed to have -- I had e-mailed back and forth with David Weeks about some additional material. And I said it would be better ifhe just brought it here and handed it out than try to send it e-mail. MR. BOSI: And Ekna Guevara, our Administrative Assistant from Comprehensive Planning, will pass out the additional information related to one of the GMP amendments. I'm not sure if that is related to one ofthe ones you'll be hearing on Monday or not. based upon the title. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Would you please also make sure David is aware of the decision we made here today regarding the operation on how we're going to handle things on Monday? MR. BOSI: Well, the secondary intent of my purpose of attending. not only for the consent agenda item, was also to take notes and convey the decision made by the Planning Commission regarding the process of how the GMP amendments were going to be heard. so I most certainly will take the message back and convey it to David. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I had met with David, either yesterday or the day before. I went over some other -, in reading the 10 packages, there are some issues that I think we're experiencing for the first time, And I asked David to provide us with more detailed explanation on how tbey affect the GMP amendment cvcle. . One ofthem is House Bill 697. I'd like to sec an cxplanation of that, because it's more or less a h'feen house bill, and it factors into every one of the comments you guys made. And then the CIGM. J know you're involved with that. Mike. but the basis under which the Board of County Commissioners accepted that as a tool and the strength and weight that that tool ought to be put on the various amendments that we1re reviewing. these are two first-time things for us to see from your department. So I think it would be helpful to explain those to us on Monday. MR. BOSI: And I've had that discussion with David. And the intention is whenever that (sic) the pleasure of the Planning Commission on Monday morning. I will be prepared to give just a real short brief history of how the CIGM became adopted as an additional planning tool before the Planning Commission and ultimately by the Board of County Commissioners. Just to give you a little bit more context of the utilization of that tool within the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think from our perspective, it's weight on your criteria. Because you use that as a reference in almost every single amendment. And it's the first time that's happened, because we didn't have it last time. So I think the weight that that carries and the accuracy of it ought to be discussed. And I would suggest that you get all these done in your introduction on Monday so that we have them as a basis of understanding throughout the discussion for the day. Okay') MR. BOSI: Yes. sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. BELLOWS: In regards to the meeting minutes, I've been infonned that Norm Feder would like to make a comment on that. if you would allow it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Now you can't tell me Nonn spent all this time reading five packages of minutes for our meeting. MR. FEDER: Mr. Chairman. members of the Planning Commission, I appreciate the opportunity to be here. I'm Norman Feder. Transportation Administrator, for the record. I know that you've gone through your minute meetings. I know that we presented to you the AUIR for fiscal year 2009. We started developing that as you know in March and April. a little bit earlier on the AUIR this year. What I'm showing you up here is what's happening to our funding sources. The one in particular is the one that you see on the top of that graph. It used to be on the top. it's now working its way to the bottom. It's called impact fee collections. So what I want to tell you is while I know that you've taken action to endorse or at least recommend the transportation's AlJIR. the road and bridge to the board. I need to make you aware that what we're looking at is probably a reduction of about five million a year in impact fee collections in our projections out. Page 8 1611~ ct2r 15, 2~f9 Our AUIR that we presented to you showed 17 and a half million for '10 and 'II, and then showed 20 million for the subsequent three years of the five-year of the AUIR. We're proposing now that we should be at 12 and a half, 12 and a halfpd then 15 for those balance of the last three years. Obviously that will require us to make some adjustmenfs accordingly, and we'll do , that before we bring it to the board. But I didn't want to leave it not on your reCord, and I apologize that it wasn't at the meeting when you reviewed it. But basically we looked at this year end. How did we get surprised a little bit on this? We had changed the COA provisions. As you remember, it was 50 percent at final plat or plan, 50 percent within three years or sooner, as development occurred. That 50 percent the following three-year 50 percents weren't coming in. Obviously the economy is very tight for the development community that worked with us on that proposition in the first place. And so we had worked with the board on a provision that for the second 50 percent it could come in over five years, ] 0 percent a year, or even someone starting up, rather than having to pay 50 percent at final plat or plan, that they could pay 20 percent a year for each of five years. We thought that that would bring in further collections. It has not. So I want wanted to just make you aware of that. I didn't want to surprise this board. You've worked very well with us so I wanted to make sure you're aware that we're going to make those adjustments before we bring the AUIR to the board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you providing this information to the Productivity Committee as well? MR. FEDER: We will be on the 21 st as well, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And as far as how these numbers impact the -- what I would consider your cover sheet which talks about your revenues and expenditures, that sheet then is now changing; is that correct? MR, FEDER: Yes, the whole AUIR sheet will change. It will change obviously by $25 million, from what I've just related to you, other than any other changes that might occur. The result of that, just very quickly, and we're trying to work through that, obviously we're trying to not have that as the AUIR provides for concurrency not make major impacts to our construction that we rely upon for concurrency items. Realistically it will probably impact the Valewood project which had construction in year 'II, and probably the Santa Barbara extension to the north, which was slated for the fifth year of the program. Now, that is in a TCMA, even though it is a deficiency area, but it's in the TCMA, so it won't have has as significant an impact on our concurrency issues right away. The balance of that funding will come out of our other program areas, bridge, intersection, bikes and paths, as we're anticipating right now. Just to give you a feel. And I apologize, it hasn't been reworked yet. I could show you specifically. But that gives you a good feel for where it would end up. It will not necessarily change that deficiency map where we do have some deficiencies, even at our level of service D and E as we presented to you, but plans to try and respond to them as best we can under the revenue situation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The problem I want to bring up is that we voted in full public meeting on your proposal, on your AUIR package. We vetted it in the public, we had all members there asking questions. The public could ask questions. Your staff was interacting. And now between the time we've done that and the time you're presenting this to the BCC -- and I understand your reasoning, you're telling us that this has all got to change. MR. FEDER: I want it to be as realistic as it can, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I appreciate that, Norman. I'm trying to make sure, though, that whatever we pass on is consistent with the process it was supposed to follow. MR. FEDER: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's the part of it that is open to the public and benefits the public, honestly, in knowing what to expect down the road. And for Mr. -- I hate to dump this on you, Jeff, but I would like to understand from your perspective, this is the planning agency for the state of Florida -- for Collier County as represented by the State of Florida Page 9 -....-^., ...,----'-"---,~.__.,.~-- ",0:': Octo~r I 51 20B :5 j as well. So I want to make sure that whenever this happens, it's done correctly. MR. KLA TZKOW: Well. unfortunately these are the times we live in. And this is a rapidly sinking target we have here as far as funding goes. It's like dropping a stone in a well. AliI can tell you, Mr. Chairman, is that, you know, if you think that these changes are going to materially affect what your recommendation was and your review was, that you hear it again. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I agree. MR. KLA TZKOW: I mean, just this one element. I'm not saying you open the whole thing, but just this one element. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How does that work into our time frame in regards to when this goes before the BCC? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning. AUIR Project Coordinator, The AUIR is to be heard before the Board of County Commissioners on November 3rd, so the -- and that is the only time. I would introduce the understanding that the AUIR only sets the blueprint for the CIE amendments, which will be before the Planning Commission. And I understand that the recommendations were based upon a different revenue structure than what Nonn is going to be presenting to the BCC. But that presentation that Nom] will be providing to the BCC will be echoed within the CIE review that the Planning Commission has afforded j()[ the annual update, which Corby Schmidt will be the coordinator. I understand that that does leave somewhat ofa gap within the process. but because of time constraints between now and November 3rd and meeting room and availability for the Planning Commission, I'm not sure what -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think I might have a solution then. On the 29th of October is a carryover day for our GMP amendments. Now, we're not going to need -- I don't hopefully expect to need that whole day. Even if we do, we eould squeeze this in as a separate meeting during that day. And then you would have at least a verbal from us to report to the BCC. Because I really don't want to let the Board of County Commissioners down in regards to our review. I think that they enjoy our reviews and they somewhat may rely upon the fact we do look at everything. MR. FEDER: I think both of those are true. And I assure you that we do as well. We get good input from this body. And so we weren't wanting to surprise you. We could have addressed this issue, brought it to the board and then hit it in our CI E. That happened to us last year and it happened to others as well. You can see by the graph, you see why it happened last year as well. So you'll see it again, as was pointed out. in the CIE and it will be fully vetted as well there. But we'd be more than happy to come on the 29th. show you what we think the impacts will be at what we're going to present to the board for the AUIR. And again, the AUIR is an opportunity to look at anticipated revenues and level of service at what deficiencies might result to either decide whether or not you're going to modity your level of service, whether you're going to modity your revenue stream or potentially try to, or to accept that you're going to have some deficiencies in what you1re doing in an interim basis to move towards it. We're there already. But again. as you point out, wc value your input, so we'd be happy to be here on the 29th and show you those impacts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, wc did not continue the last AUIR meeting. We ended it. So that means -- do we have an advertising issue that has to be dealt with on the 29th to rehear this? MR. KLATZKOW: Look, we'll advertise it as best we can. There's a timing issue here. But I do think that it will be good for the Board of County Commissioners I(l[ your review and your recommendation. Becausc quite frankly I think ifthcy hear what Nonn has to say they're going to send it back to you anyway. So I think thisjust prevents the trip. The public's had the input. We'll advertise it as best we can, Ray, and, you know, move on. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. and then could you -- someone extend the invitation to the Page I 0 L Productivity Committee members who attended to -- that we would meet in this room, we would have this first up on the 29th at 8:30 in the morning, and ask that they attend, if they could as well, and then we can get everything done at one step. MR. KLATZKOW: And what I would ask, that all public speakers that you had on this issue before, make an effort to contact them directly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. FEDER: And we'll go back to the record and try and do just that. We appreciate your indulgence on this. We just wanted to make sure that it wasn't -- since we know it now, that it wasn't something that got addressed at CIE rather than AUIR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Nonn, I think it's very good of your department to come forward first instead of us having found this out after the fact. We sure appreciate that. Thank you very much. MR. FEDER: We'll never try to surprise you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Item#8A PETITION: CU-2008-AR-13786, UNITY FAITH MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH, INC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we have two consent agenda items to discuss. And one is the -- and we'll go right into those right now. The first one is Petition CU-2008-AR-13786, and it's the Unity Faith Missionary Baptist Church, Inc. And that's the church in Golden Gate Estates. Having received the consent agenda item, is there any comment from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a recommendation for -- or a motion for approval? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mr. Wolfley. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signity by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA 1': Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLI01TI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Item #8B REVIEW OF ANNUAL INVENTORY REPORT AND UPDATE The second one is actually the AUIR report, and I believe basically we're looking at the whole report, with the exception now of the transportation element, until we rehear that one. Page 11 _'__H_'~,",,~=."_'''~__,'''''___ __ . ---.~.-._._.,,--_._-~_._----- ""\fi' ; ,.: '\",'., . I ",. -, October It 2d~9 ,- , -, ,~11 _JJ , " . Does anybody have any comments on the way the report has been drafted? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I will not be voting on this. CHAIRMAN STRAfN: That's right, you weren't here. Okay. so Mr. Wolfley will be abstaining. Anv other comments? , (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Bosi, you did a good job. I appreciate the way -- I know you had one member of the -- during that day, who was a little difficult to deal with in regards to his vote, so ] appreciate the way you handled that. So all those in favor of the -- with the exception of the transportation element, all those in favor of the AUIR report. signity by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLlOTfI: Aye, COMMISSIONER CARON: Ave. . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ave. , Anybody opposed~ (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0, Mr. Wolfley abstaining. Thank you, Mike, appreciate that. MR. BOSI: Thank you, Planning Commission. I will see you on the 29th and also see you on Monday moming as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Look J()[ward to it, thank you, Item #9A PETlTlON: FLDV-PL2009-443. COLLIER COUNTY COASTAL ZON!:' MANAGEMENT- CONTINUED CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we have two advertised public petitions left. And we do have -- the first one up was the variance for Coastal Zone Management; that has been continued. But if there are public speakers for this one and they would like to speak, you're more than welcome to come up and talk at the podium at this time. Anybody wishing to speak') Mr. Burkhard. MR. BURKHARD: For the record. Bruce Burkhard. Vanderbilt Beaeh Residents Association. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Excuse me. I'm sorry, I forgot two things, because this was continued. I guess since you Ire speaking \ve still need to s\\/car )/Oll in. MR. BURKHARD: Okav. sure. , (Speaker was duly SWOIll.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. BURKHARD: I'm not sure how all of this is going to bear, since this is continued and I guess we don't really know where it's going, But I'll put my two cents in anyways, and you guys can listen. This bathroom is a result of negotiations leading to a settlement by a threatened Burt Harris lawsuit. The settlement agreement states that in number tivc that within 30 days of the execution of the settlement agreement by all parties the property owner shall contribute to the county $500,000 towards improvement of beach access amenities related to this casement. It was understood tbat the bulk of these funds were to be used to construct a public bathroom facility along a granted easement t()r a public beach access along the property's northern boundary, Page I 7 c I 16/1' , , 1":' . c_.b;},ber 15~09 Subsequent to the agreement a good deal of wrangling took place between the property owners and our association regarding siting and designs. It was an arduous process. However, the conforming design , was finally arrived at that satisfied both parties. I At this point our neighborhood felt that a relatively satisfactory deal had been reached. In July we were advised that the Collier County Coastal Zone Management Department had made a formal application for variance from the LDC flood hazard protection requirements, and also the flood damage prevention ordinance. No prior consultation with our organization took place. This notice came completely out of the blue. Needless to say, we were stunned. It seemed that essentially the county was breaking a deal that we had spent countless hours arriving at. I don't know about you, but where I grew up we have a saying that a deal's a deal, and we feel like the deal may potentially be broken. It's been eXplained to me that the idea behind these variance requests is purportedly to save the county money by constructing a non-confonning single-story building as opposed to the conforming two-story building with an elevator provided for handicapped access. Once again, I refer you back to the $500,000 that's already been set aside to construct the facility. The county already has the money and it has been dedieated to this purpose. To say that we're saving money appears to me to be voodoo econom ics. Beyond what I've already said, I think we all should have a problem with the government at any level, but especially here at the grass roots level, granting itself waivers for existing codes and ordinances. If they expect us, the citizenry, to explicitly follow all their rules, then common decency says that they need to set the example and follow the rules, too. I guess you'd say it's a fairness issue and a leadership issue; i.e., one leads by example. Further complicating this whole issue is what can happen if the waivers are granted and FEMA height rules are ignored. I think others can probably do a better job of eXplaining the consequences of such an action as it relates to our flood insurance premiums. Even assuming that some money could be saved in the construction of a single-story building, the entire population ofthc county that pays flood insurance could potentially be socked with higher premiums which will continue as long as they live in their houses. Where are the savings for them? I imagine that this idea was certainly a well-intentioned idea, but upon closer scrutiny appears to me that the negatives of granting the waivers and constructing a lower building far and away outweigh what were thought to be the benefits. On behalf of the VBRA and all of the potentially affected citizens of the county living in designated flood zones, I ask you to deny this proposal and that you recommend the same to the BCC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, thank you. And I wish to express my appreciation to the County Parks and Rec Department, or Coastal Zone Management for realizing that they have had probably a difficult time here today, and to continue this was a very wise recommendation. So I think it works better for everybody. And hopefully when it doesn't come back and it adheres to the floodplain codes that are adopted soon, then maybe that will all solve itself and go away. But we respect your wishes and thank you for your comments today, Bruce. Okay, the next item. We have two items. We will-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark, let me just-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's an administrative question, probably to Ray. Ray, in the FEMA ordinance they note that there's a variance required to wet floodproof a project. What is the administrative trail ofthat? MR. BELLOWS: I didn't catch the last part. Could you speak up a little bit? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: In other words, how do you -- in the FEMA regulations there's a requirement to get a variance if you want to wet floodproof a building. What is the procedure for that? MR. BELLOWS: You mean for applying for a flood variance? Page 13 ,.~ .,,-, ~-..............._.~-_."._~~~._.~ ..,---... - 1. 'S ~ctl~, 2009 '1 5 t COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Right. I mean -- MR. BELLOWS: Well, there's an application, a pre-application meeting, and -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ijust wonder where it goes, where it doesn't go. MR. SCHMITT: For tbe record, Joe Schmitt, Community Development, Environmental Services Division Administrator. Brad, the only time you need a variance, if they're going to build the -- any of the structures below the floodplain. The issue here will be if this goes from a VE to an AE zone, which we expect. and it appears that this will now be an AE zone. they can design to the AE standards rather than the high velocity or VE standards. It depends then on where the. as you well know. the electrical panels or any other type ofthose type offacilities. ifthev're built below the base tlood elevation. In essence what you're asking is the design should comply with the AE standards, which means it's got to be floodproofed to allow either for a wet or dry floodproofing. It depends on how they design it. But my recollection, there's no variance necessary: they just meet the requirements for an AE zone. And it has to be designed to comply with the requirements, But it's not a variance. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. I mcan, my understanding of it, you can only get a variance for wet tloodprooting in an AE zone. but -- so I think they'll -- MR. SCHMITT: Ifvou build below the BFE. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Correct. MR. SCHMITT: Base flood elevation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But anyway, the question was what's the procedure, because that's probably what they're going to take. It would be an administrative procedure: it would not come back -- MR. SCHMITT: We review design. If it requires a variance, it will have to come back to the proper board for a variance, which is the Board of County Commissioners. Butl believe in this case there will be no variance required. I think the design will -- they'll be able to design to meet the requirements f(lr an AI' zone, COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. thank you. MR. SCHMITT: At least that's our expectation. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron7 COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, Me. Schmitt. I think it would be a good idea if you just kept the people at Vanderbilt Beach infonned as to what's going on with this. MR. SCHMITT: We certainly will. I mean. the standpoint here is we're waiting to see what the maps will show. And then basically -- well. I'll pass it on to Marla. I mean. it's their project. I will make sure Gary and Marla keep the folks ini,mned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe') MR. SCHMITT: Yeah. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: One question, though, that is puzzling. When Bruce got up here he said that this started oecurring I guess a few months ago. But their homeowners association, who's been so actively involved in especially you know Moraya Bay and how this wholc thing came down, why weren't they even given the courtesy of knowing this was in the works? I just was -- not necessarily by your department, but do you know, is there some reason that the department that's in charge of this can't keep the homeowners association up there in the loop as they modity and change their plans? MR. SCHMIT": Well, again, Gary's gone. I can't answer the specifics. But I know this thing went to the Board of County Commissioners at least eight, nine months ago when we were directed by the board to pursue the flood variance. And this was at the board's direction. When the staff came in to present the design to the board, the board objected to the requirement to raise it on piles, and the height of the building they said to seek a variance. The variance procedures were followed. To tbe best of my knowledge, notices -- all of it was properly noticed and advertised. And specifically noticing the Vanderbilt Beach Association. I can't answer. I don't know if they were specifically notified. The agent isn't here, which was Johnson Engineering, but they were hired as the agent Page 14 16 J locMber 139 , , to move this petition forward. But best of my knowledge, and I'm looking at my staff, J.D. didn't do it, but jay did. But Ray, this was properly advertised and noticed. 1 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, no, I'm not saying it wasn't, Joe. I'm just suggesting that however this got to move forward, the Vanderbilt Beach Homeowners Association is a very active organization, as you well know. You probably know their phone number, Bruce's, by heart. It would be nice, though, if when these issues come up and items that are so sensitive to them, if we know they're coming up, just give them a heads up on it is all I'm suggesting. MR. SCHMITT: Well, I mean, I know and Bruce can attest, I e-mailed Bruce on this probably four or five months ago, explained to him -- when this first carne up, it was -- Bruce had the -- at least the impression or at least assessed that this was a Signature initiative and Signature applying for the variance. I e-mailed Bruce with all the details probably back in June or July, note advising him on -- that it was the Parks and Rec's department moving the variance, it was at the board's direction, and advised him that this would be proceeding directly to the Board of County Commissioners. What happened here -- again, I'm trying to do this by recollection, probably in September when Commissioner Halas then brought it up witl1 his peers on the board, or his colleagues on the board, and asked that the board approve that this be remanded to the Planning Conunission for review. And that's how we were here today. It was at again at the board direction. There's no requirement for a flood variance to go to the Planning Commission. This was at the board's direction that we remand this to the Planning Commission for your review and analysis. And so that's how it ended up on your plate. But I think -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's line. MR. SCHMITT: -- like I said, I mean, I thought Bruce was well aware of it. I have the e-mails that basically explained to Bruce what was going on and I believe that was as early as Mayor June. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No. that's -- I just wanted to get an explanation, Joe. Thank you. And I also appreciate the Board of County Commissioners sending it to us, because now we've fixed it for them. It's gone. MR. SCHMI1T: At least -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can't ask for a better outcome than that. MR. SCHMITT: Best results right now. Item #9B and #9C PEnnONS: CU-2008-AR-14085 AND V A-PL2009-37, (JDM) FLO TV, INC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we'll move on to the next two petitions. One is a conditional use and one is a variance. They're both for the same piece of property, so we will entertain the discussion for both all at one time but vote on them separately. The first one is Petition CU-2008-AR-14085, FLO TV, Inc. on 5860 Crews Road. The second is Petition V A-PL-2009-37, it is also for FLO TV, Inc. on 5860 Crews Road. All those wishing to participate in this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I've had discussions with staJf. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I mean. I'm sure most of us had. I have too. But that -- anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then young lady, it's all yours. MS. MADISON: Thank you. Page 15 "~._. "~~----''''''''''-'~'-'''~_..''~"~'._~'-'-' "l A" fl , ..,\. " i , .,.i,' " .' 11, "" , . ~ October 15, 2009 ._,~. -- "C- ry , , Good morning, Planning Commission. My name is Kimberly Madison, Attorney with Ruden-McCloskey, 40 I East Jackson Street in Tampa, Florida. I have with me today Mr. Rob Thompson, Site Manager for FLO TV, as well as Keith Grant of Overland Construction. And we are here on behalf ofthe petitioner, FLO TV. We're before you today, as was stated, for two separate yet interrelated petitions pertaining to a site at 5860 Crews Road. At the outset I just want to note a couple -- or dispel a couple myths that may have been had, primarily that this pertains to an existing tower. The applicant does not seek to build or construct a new tower at this site. Rather, if both petitions are approved, it will allow the -- it will legitimize an already existing structure and subsequently allow the applicant to use that tower in its capacity as a tenant to install an antenna and related shelter equipment. That being said, tbe first request, agenda Item 9.B is for a conditional use to pemlit the installation of the shelter and related equipment for FLO TV, The second request is a eompanion item to that petition, and it is for a variance to accommodate the existing locations of guyline anchors which currently fall outside of the front and side yard setback ' requirements. The applicant seeks to have a conditional use to install an antenna on a tower that was originally constructed prior to the second tower. It is what has been coined an after-the-fact conditional use petition. It is to legitimize the older towcr that was supposed to be removed some time ago. I would like to show some pictures now. just to acclimate everyone with the site. Those are the two towers facing -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Miss. you'll have to use a portable mic, because everything you say only gets picked up on recording when you use the mic. Thank you. MS. MADISON: Thank vou verY much. , ~ We have a photo here of both towers. The older towers, this one right here, is the one to which thc applicant seeks to install its antenna and equipmcnt. A few unique features of the propcrty is that it is surrounded literally by very dense natural vegetation. It is somewhat isolated. And here we have a picturc of -- looking from the property towards the east. Here's another picture. You can see the guyline anchors here. But again, those are located in very densely vegetated areas. This is a picture depictingjust south of the site where thcre is currently construction being undergone for the -- a new highway on 864. And here is another picture facing north, and you can see the towers to the right, right there. And I have a couple other pictures. This rcally depicts how isolated the site really is and how it is in fact surrounded by natural vegetation on all sides of the property. And here's a picture depicting the enclosure and one of the shelters that currently exists on the site. So what the applicant simply seeks to do herc is to install an antenna on the site as it already exists. Given that the site has been in existcnce for nearly decades, what the applicant proposes will in fact provide little to no minor alterations to thc site, as it presently exists and has existed for nearly 20 years. There will be 110 additional employees at the site. As a result, there will be no need for increased parking or spaces to accommodate the installation of this equipment. There is no additional building square footage that will be associated with the installation. Conditional use approval is governed by Section 10.08.00 ofthe Collier County Land Development Code. And it does state in subsection D of that provision that before any conditional use shall be recommended for approval to the Board of Zoning Appeals. the Planning Commission shall make a finding that the granting of the conditional use will not adversely atTect the public interest, that satisfactory provision and arrangement has been made concerning the Idlowing areas: One, consisteney with the Code and Growth Management Plan; two, ingress and egress to the property and proposed structures thereon; three, the effect the conditional use would have on neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects: four, compatibility with adjacent properties and other properties in the district. Page 16 16 J i BS IS, 200f The applicant stipulates that because this is an already existing site, what the applicant proposes by way of installing equipment on this tower will have at best only minor alterations to any of the four provisions that are addressed in the code. Further, the proposal is consistent with Section 5.05.09, sub A of the Land Development Code, which expresses the county's desire to maximize the shared use of specified tower sites and to minimize the need for additional tower sites. The project is consistent with design and buffering standards. It is also already an FAA approved site. The means of egress and ingress onto the site have been satisfied. There will be no public access to this site. It is a virtually unmanned facility. And the ingress and egress is satisfied to the extent that maintenance is required and maintenance workers are required to have access to the site. And that is granted by a private dirt road that extends off of Crews Road. Again, because this is an already existing site, applicant's proposed installation will have virtually no affect on any noise, odor or economic impacts. Nor will it disturb the existing compatibility it shares with surrounding properties. In accordance with the code requirements, the applicant did host a neighborhood informational meeting at the Fairfield Inn Maniott in Naples. No one from the public attended. During the time that this application has been under review we have entertained approximately a handful ofpublic inquiries; one which was a direct call to myself from a surrounding property owner stating that she had no objection to either request and that she was very familiar with the site. Two others were based upon the misbeliefthat a new tower was being constructed. To that end, I worked jointly with staff to dispel those myths to the extent that we were able to contact the people who made those inquiries. Weare in agreement with the terms and conditions that have been provided in the staff report regarding the conditional use -- the conditional use petition, and note that staff had no objection to that particular request. I don't know if we want to discuss the conditional use, or should Ijust go on to the variance? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to hear them both at the same time, but we may have, yeah, questions specifically on conditional use first, and that's fine. So are there any questions specific to the conditional use from the Planning Commission? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, the conditional use is to legitimize that first tower that according to your current conditional use was supposed to have come down. MS. MADISON: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: Why did your clients believe that they didn't have to follow the original conditional use and take the first tower down? MS. MADISON: To that end, Ijust want to note for the record that the client that I represent is FLO TV. They are seeking to become a tenant on Renda Broadcasting's tower. I cannot truly speak as to why that occurred on behalf of Renda. COMMISSIONER CARON: Wait a minute. FLO TV and Renda are exactly the same. They are corporate entities. They're the same. If you call -- if you look at, their e-mail addresses are the same. It's a subsidiary of Renda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have another problem based on what-- MR. KLATZKOW: Let me just ask a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. KLA TZKOW: You're the applicant, correct? MS. MADISON: Correct. MR. KLA TZKOW: And you represent who? MS. MADISON: I represent FLO TV. MR. KLA TZKOW: Who owns the site? MS. MADISON: Renda Broadcasting. Page I 7 ". -'~--"_'--~~----'~-~~"-"""'-"'-"--""" ",'''~'.'''' " ..1' ., "./ , ',"., Q', " " " r....:i _.''C\ , '." .t " II October 15, 2009 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: They have to be here. MR. KLA TZKOW: Okay, are you authorized to act on their behalf? MS. MADISON: I am not authorized to act on behalf of -- MR. KLA TZKOW: Then you can't be here. COMMISSIONER CARON: You can't bc here. MS. MADISON: I'm authorized to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Lct cvcrybody speak one at a time. So it's just between the two attorneys right now. Go ahead. Go ahead, ma'am, you're line. MS. MADISON: I'm sorry, I'm authorized to be here on behalf ofFLO TV, the people who have submitted the application. MR. KLATZKOW: And they're asking for-- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ijust talked to John-David, who's the assigned plmmer to this petition, and he indicated that there is an agreement trom thc property owner for FLO TV to act on their behalf for this conditional use. MS. MADISON: Wc've been authorized to procecd with this application. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 10 of lOin the report there's an affidavit trom Bill Mueller on behalf of Renda Broadcasting, allowing Kimberly Madison of Ruden-McCloskey to represent them. I just happened to notice it in the packet. Then on -- there's a following ailidavit from Deborah Barrett of Media FLO USA. an applicant for a wireless installation on that property. allowing the same. I guess the question comes up then -- MS. MADISON: I can certainly have-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. before you go on. lct mc ask you a question. I mean, it's more of you and the County Attorney both. The applicant in this case is FLO TV. They are not thc owners ofthe property. The owners of the property have provided affidavits allowing Rudcn-McCloskey to rcprcscnt them. MS. MADISON: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But do we need anything to allow Ruden-McCloskey -- that'd allow FLO TV to apply for changes to the property owncd by the other company? MR. KLA TZKOW: I'm okay if the property owner has authorized this. But I'm hearing from the attomey she's not authorized to speak for the property ovmer, so there's a disconnect. MS. MADISON: May I clarity the record? I am not authorized to testity as an attorney on behalf of the property owner, I do believe that much is aeeurate. Ilowever, I do have a representative here. I'm sorry, we kind of got sidetracked, but I do have someone who is able to testi(v. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's your name again? MS. MADISON: My name is Kimberly Madison. I'm an attorney. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Madison, I've got an affidavit that's from Renda Broadcasting authorizing you of Ruden-McCloskey to represent them. MS. MADISON: And I do represent them. We may be getting caught up in a bit of legalese. But as an attorney I am not testitying. I am representing. I can provide someone who is able to testity. MR. KLA TZKOW: Well. you have an outstanding question from a Planning Commissioner. If you have a client here who can answer it, that's fine. Y Oll don't have to answer it. MS. MADISON: Absolutcly. It would not be my client, but it would bc a representative of Renda Broadcasting. IfMr. Tony Renda-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the way you originally answered your first question from Ms. Caron got the County Attorney and I both oh, my goodness, what are we dealing with. MS. MADISON: No, I apologize. Ijust totally got sidetracked. I'm sorry. MR. RENDA: Do you want me here, or over there? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Either one. sir. would be fine. And vou need to idcntiiV vourselft()r the rccord. . "" MR. RENDA: For the record, my name is Tony Renda. I'm prcsident of Renda Broadeasting. And Page I 8 ~ 16/ t~lB, " THE COURT REPORTER: Were you sworn in? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, he was sworn in. MR. RENDA: I was sworn in. THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. Is that R-E-N-D-A? MR. RENDA: R-E-N-D-A. Let me try to answer your question as best I can regarding the tearing down of the first antenna. I might tell you, I have no excuse in that regard, I have some explanations. Processes like this are generally a long, long term. This application was actually -- let's just deal with the construction of the new tower. This actual new tower was granted back in 1993. The process that took place after that, but was not granted to us, I believe the name ofthe company was Sterling Broadcasting. In 1999, Renda Broadcasting purchased the radio station in Naples, as well as the tower and the right to construct a new tower. We then proceeded to ask for a modification, once we took ownership, to lower the tower, actually. And we did. It was granted, and in '99 and probably as a completion sometime in early part of 2000 the new tower was finished. And at that part we began the move ofthe radio station's antennas and other people who were on that tower. Through the years the people who were on the old tower, some moved, some did not move. And we as Renda Broadcasting never put anybody new on that tower. One of the clients on that tower has remained to be the FBI. They have a lease that grants them I believe the right to cancel after a year. Moving from the old tower to the new tower will incur some costs for any tenant. We are not on the old tower. There are only three people who are on the old tower. We have not called the FBI and said move off that tower. We have not done that. But we have made them aware that there is another tower. I think we find ourselves in this position right now. Tower space is ofa premium, as you well know. We know that if this tower is allowed to remain that it's in an area where for the entire property I think the tower and its guywires and the building occupics about 20 percent of the total property. We would like quite frankly to have the tower remain. We think it's a -- it is a revenue producer, it's a tax producer. It has been approved for the FAA -- by the FAA. And it's nonintrusive. And the tearing down ofthat tower, I might say that we -- we probably kicked the can down. I personally cannot attest to that, but I don't think that we were trying to kick people off, but allowing their leases to expire. And as I said, there arc only three attendants on that tower. I believe -- I think two arc paging systems and one is the FB I. So I hope that answers your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, it does not, Mr. Renda. The question was, according to the conditional use that you were supposed to be living under today, the original tower that now has a couple of tenants on it, including one being the FBI, was as a condition of that conditional use supposed to come down. MR. RENDA: I agree. COMMISSIONER CARON: My question to you was why you didn't follow your -- the conditional use. MR. RENDA: I have no excuse in that. I don't know that -- I'm a little weak here. I don't know if there was a time table on that original issued 1993 to the previous owner or not. But I can only explain the circumstances that dragged on probably for too long. COMMISSIONER CARON: The reason for my question is because you are now requesting another conditional use. And how do we know that you will live up to this conditional use? MR. RENDA: I think that's a fair question. I think one of the things that we have demonstrated is not adding to that tower, not taking any tenants on that tower and strongly recommending that the tenants who are on that tower either move or leave. I can tell you that I probably will be much more personally involved, if this is granted, in making sure that any Page 19 ~ - --"~~"'..~,-",,,,..,"",",","-~.,,,,,_._~--,-,, - --~""'~>".~ ,~~~..,. - ,,,-,,-,,,,-'.-",.-.-,. ._--~.._.- ,~;. .. -,' " '" "'l if, '. '.:'"' , '. ~'bet~)ber 15,229 - condition that is set forth will be followed by Renda Broadcasting. COMMISSIONER CARON: In addition to that, when the current conditional use was granted, the height of that tower was supposed to have been reduced to 394 feet. That tower-- MR. RENDA: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: .- is 450 feet -- or 452 feet, aecording to what you told the FCC. MR. RENDA: Ma'am. the overall -- there are two separate items in a tower. There is the tower structure itself. In addition to the tower there are antennas, The tower by itself does nothing. It is what is put on the tower. The original tower was requested to be as high as the old tower. And the idea or the intent of the previous owner was to hang an antenna on the side of the original tower. We requested from the FCC, and if I'm not mistaken from Collier County, to reduce the tower, but the same height would be made up from the antenna put on the top of the tower. So the.. if one were to say the tower height with the antenna pole, which to some degree almost represents a tower, but it is of the same exact height. It is not one inch higher than what was granted. MS. MADISON: May I interject on that? Because we did address that very specific issue during the review process. And it may in all fairness be more of an engineering question. I have an engineer here available, ifneed be. But yes, the 450-foot measurement does include the tower and the pole-mounted antenna. That is in compliance with the tenns of the existing conditional use which regulate the height ofthe tower. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. then that will be a question then for staff. Because according to the staff report, that's not thc case. And if that needs to be corrected. that's fine. MS. MADISON: Okay. COMMISSIONER CARON: I very well. Mr. Renda, understand the difference between the antenna base and the antennas that go on top of it. I too was in your business for many years. MR. RENDA: Good, good. COMMISSIONER CARON: And we'll need to get that c1arilication, because right now according to what I'm reading, that tower. your new tower, with everything should be 394 feet tall and it's not, as we all know. The issue for the county only has to do with the very top of the tower. Because the county's issue and interest in this is safety. Should your tower jail -- MR. RENDA: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: -- we don't care about the 394 that's down here, we care about the very top of that tower, because that's what could impact other people. So any height that is ever mentioned here should be to the top of the tower. It should be to the red light on the top of the tower. Because should anything happen to that tower and it falls over, the interest to the county is in where it might land, not where half of it might land. MS. MADISON: And also to address that issue, I do believe one of the conditions to which we have no objection to in the staff report does limit the height, put a place limit of approval of spanning no additional height. COMMISSIONER CARON: To what it is today. MS. MADISON: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: Actuallv at 455. . MR. RENDA: Right. The tower -- I think we're saying the same thing. The tower is not any taller, including the antenna, than what was granted. COMMISSIONER CARON: According to what you say. not according to the information that was given to the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, when staff report comes up, that will certainly -- we need to get that clarified. So we'll do that. make sure we get that clarified then. Are there any otber questions of the applicant, Ms. Caron') COMMISSIONER CARON: Right now you can go ahead. other people can ask questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? Page 20 16/1d ~ 0865,20&11f COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And my concern is what are the requirements for the collapsed zone around the tower? Does it have to fully collapse within the site? MS. MADISON: Okay, I'm going to bring an engineer up to testity regarding that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That would be good. CHAIRMAN STRAlN: Well, actually we have that -- that's an issue to deal with Collier County, so J.D. could probably respond to that. MR. MOSS: Yes, Commissioner Schiffer. For the record, John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. The requirement in the LDC for most towers is two and a halftimes the height. However, for essential services, which staff has deemed that this site would be considered, there is no height restriction, and there is no collapse zone restriction. MR. KLA TZKOW: Can I hear the engineer, please. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, please. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, because I'm going to have a problem with it too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it's interesting. So if a private sector puts up a tower and it falls and crushes a house, that's got to stop. But if a government puts up a tower and it falls and crushes a house, it's okay. Interesting. Go ahead, sir. MR. GRANT: Keith Grant, fTom Overland Contractors. Towers generally don't fall over. They Z down. They're made so that the bolts will actually snap that hold the towers together. So your fall radius is not truly the height of the tower, it falls within a smaller pattern of it. On this tower you would expect it to fall actually no more than one-half the distance of the height of the tower. So this should fall within 200 feet, which would put you well within the range ofthe property that it's on. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I don't think so, because the width ofthis property isn't that. So it's MS. MADISON: It's 4.77 acres. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What is the dimensions you have ofthe property? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's 33. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So what you're testitying is that this whole thing as designed and collapsed would totally maintain itself within the property. MR. GRANT: I believe so, sir. Without having the paperwork in fTont of me. MS. MADISON: I can -- do you need a map? MR. GRANT: Please. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, the width ofthe side, this thing's sitting about 150 feet fTom property lines, maybe less than. MS. MADISON: I just want to state again, before you testity,just because you may not have instant knowledge, the site area is 4.77 acres. The nearest residential I believe is over 300 feet away. And it is, as mentioned before, surrounded by natural vegetation. With that being said, if you could elaborate on the collapse zone. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But let me add to that, though, that it is private property around your site. And there would -- MS. MADISON: There is private-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- there's the potential for people to develop that, so -- I mean, you're saying that the thing's 455, so 225 feet is half of that. The width of the property is 333, it's sitting in the middle, so it sounds like you could go over the neighbor to me. MR. GRANT: It possibly could, sir. I would have to sit down and review and actually put this for our engineering staff to -- Page 21 - .- -"""'"''~~-'-''' .....,.,____~,----..."._~..'....~."".. ~._.,,~---._--""~,-,_.,.P.,....-----_.~ - '- -"~,,,,,,-,-~._-~-~,-'.'-'" 16 /1 - October 151:~09 ~ COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. So in the design of the tower, which I don't know if you designed this or not. MR. GRANT: No. sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is the collapse zone something that is engineered, or is that something that Mother Nature gives us in the event -- MR. GRANT: Actually, it's engineered. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And so somewhere we should have data as to what that is? MR. GRANT: Yes, sir, that can be calculated. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we don't have it. MS. MADISON: Yes. And here again, I would just like to reiterate the fact that FLO TV is simply coming in seeking to be a tenant on this tower. So to the extent that this tower has existed prior to 1993, we don't have the benefit of the actual engineers who constructed the tower. MR. KLA TZKOW: Let me ask a quick question. Could you get us that information between now and like two weeks rrom now? MR. GRANT: I can certainly try to. MR. KLA TZKOW: So when this comes back to you on consent you can have that information, if you so wanted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, as we get into statements and -- there's more missing than just that. So we may find that you have to bring back a lot of data. But let's just -- I certainly agree with the way you're moving, Mr. Klatzkow. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And let me continue on, too. Here's the concern, is that you have a new tower and an old tower. MS. MADISON: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Both ofthem are kind of old. And in the collapse ofthose, I mean, one is going to affect the other. So somehow -- and the dimensions or this property is not that great that these things can't go over on the other people's property. so -- even by your testimony. So I think that's a major concern as to -- now, I don't care if you're just a tenant. The issue here is the old tower is still up, the old tower could collapse and take down the new tower. So I think we really should know what the collapse zone, especially iftwo towers together, would look like, MS. MADISON: I'm sorry. just to clarity fix the record, I thought the collapse zone was already established as could not-- COMMISSIONER SCIIIFFER: Well, it may have been established with the expectation of the old tower being removed. MS. MADISON: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's one thing I think we should see too. MS. MADISON: Okav. ~ COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And there is controversy as to the height. If you're saying, you know, it will approximately collapse within half its height, you know, adding more height to it does add more collapse zone. But I'm through, Mr. Chair, thank you. MR. GRANT: We're not looking to add more height to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As a followup, are you engineered -- certified in the State of Florida? MR. GRANT: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Then you can't call yourself an engineer. MR. GRANT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sorry. MR. GRANT: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MlJRRA Y: Madison -- Ms. Madison. MS. MADISON: Yes, sir. Page 22 ~" ,I '" I .\. . I' "'. / l ~~r 15, 20f3 5 "1 , \( COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You showed us a bunch of pictures and you said very quickly there's a development to the south. How far away is that development from the end of the property? MS. MADISON: Let's see if I can pull out this map. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Or is it directly adjacent? MS. MADISON: It's not directly adjacent. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: As a road. MS. MADISON: There is-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I guess you should answer the first question that I posed to you instead of my comment. MR. MOSS: If! may, Commissioner Murray, there is an aerial photograph on Page 2 of the staff report that might help you to see what the surrounding area looks like. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I could take a scale and I still won't get it. MR. MOSS: Okay. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm asking for information, how far away. We're talking about something very important that I'm very distressed to hear, that an attorney representing in one instance and then not representing in another instance. I recognize your perception of charge, but in my mind I will tell you right now, this is a failed petition. The people who should be petitioning us are the ones who can answer the questions without question. So I'm very turned offby this, unfortunately. And I rarely react this way. MS. MADISON: And I apologize for the reaction. But I suppose what we're saying for the record is that you feel that Renda should be the applicant. Because I am simply representing the applicant who seeks to use the tower. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: It reminds me of an ice cream truck and the person's got the fj-eezer and he's in control of the freezer and the ice cream goes bad. Who's at fault? MS. MADISON: I understand your point, but I will tell you in an attempt to explain, as an attorney it's quite conunon if you represent someone who's a lessor who seeks to lease something on a property. That is a very conunon situation, as is the county requirement that you get permission from the landowner to seek whatever zoning approvals that you need for the particular piece of property that you seek to lease. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, ma'am, I understand. But it was already a deficient conditional use. And the parties who are responsible for ultimately making good for any destruction that occurs, would that be FLO TV? Should there be a collapse, would it be FLO TV that would be responsible to make a payment in claims for destruction of property? I don't think so. It would be the owner of it. And maybe you have an agreement that makes you liable, for all I know, but I don't care. The first party is the one who has ownership of the unit. If you wish to just simply be on that unit, that's a matter between you and they. They should be the petitioner, in my mind. Perhaps I'm wrong, Mr. Klatzkow, but that's what I think. MR. KLA TZKOW: I don't disagree with you, COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, we've -- this item has come before us and been continued before. And I think that when you get done hearing the discussion today, before we vote on it you ought to continue it and come back with a list of items that I'm writing down that you may want to bring back to buffet your case and to clarity the responsibility. Assist us in the collapsed zone and the certifications of the existing towers. Even though they're old, they still need -- we still need to know that those towers will collapse in the manner in which your engineer says. MS. MADISON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think we can salvage what you're trying to do, especially since the towers have existed for 10 years or more. But I think we need better data. And it's not -- and I implore you, you very carefully articulated our conditional use -- MS. MADISON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- element of our Land Development Code. MS. MADISON: Yes. Page 23 . -._...._--~. ~.....~_._--+<_......~~..','--_...,,,,,-- ",,", -..,.,---.-.---.,..--..-.-.,.., CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you may have gotten it off of munieode or wherever. But you need to go and pull up Section 5.05.09. MS. MADISON: Okav. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because that is a special section attributed to just communication towers. MS. MADISON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so if -- your conditional use, you have to still abide by that section as well. MS. MADISON: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There are some elements in that section that I will be questioning. And one ofthose is, for example, you're supposed to have an inspection report filed with the county manager not later than December I st of each inspection year. I asked county staff and no one has seen any inspection reports on these towers. That doesn't mean they don't exist. The county's big and something could have got lost somewhere in a drawer. I don't care about the old ones as much as I care about the one todav. MS. MADISON: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you reschedule and come back, I think you ought to come back with an inspection report on those two towers. showing that the towers are eertified to whatever condition they're supposed to be certified to in order to take the loads and impacts that they're supposed to have. I also think you need to have the cngineering acknowledged that we have a collapse zone designated for this and how that's done and where it's limited to. And that will take away the concern, hopefully, of going beyond the property lines, if that's in fact where the collapse zone limits itsclfto. The distances from thc property lines. they're not really shown clearly on this plan. I think you need to show those. MS. MADISON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you need to show the distances in a larger format to the nearest structures. All these things will help give us a level of comfort as wc move forward. And I think that you oughtto come back and clean up your representation. Because if you're here talking to (sic) FLO TV-- MS. MADISON: Okav. ~ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we necd to answer some Rena (sic) too. And if you could -- if Rena would just engage you and we can get all the answers from you, that makes life real simple. MS. MADISON: And that's -- and here again. I guess appearing before zoning boards in different counties, again, that is typical that we do have -- I mean. obviously you have to get authorization from the landowners to seek an approval on their land, so we did get their consent. I guess from the legal perspective I certainly don't construe that as representative. But it's just -- it's really just a play on words. I mean, and so that really is a non issue. I ean work to get Renda representation here in their capacity as the owner and those who have the most intimate knowledge ofthe history of this particular site. I also did want to just address a couple ofthings on the record. We have by no means been trying to hide the ball or anything of that nature. We sat down with stafl'it would have to be like six, seven months ago for our pre-application meeting at this point, and was told, we were informed, that this would have to be an after-the-fact conditional use because of the fact that the existing conditional use does require the replacement of the existing tower. That was never done. As a result, there are two towers that sit there. In order to correct that, we wcre told to seek an after-the-fact variancc -- I'm sorry, eonditional use. To the extent that that is provided f(Jr under the code. we have come forth fully acknowledging of the deficiency that currently exists on this site. Because ofthat, wc have also been working very diligently with staflto respond to every concern. We are more than happy to do so again today. As you all are aware, this very hearing has been continucd on several occasions because we wanted to make sure to address every single concern as it arose. So Ijust want to clear the record to say that that is absolutely not a problem, and we are more than happy to address these concerns as they eome up. Page 24 J.6/2 i October Is8G ., CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From a liability issue for your client-- MS. MADISON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I think that at the time he probably purchased the property I would have imagined good due diligence would have had him inspecting those towers very thoroughly. So that inspection and those towers' conditions should be known to you guys; you should want to know that now. And this collapse zone is a critical issue for the zoning aspects of this board. MS. MADISON: And Mr. Grant is here in the primary engineer's substitution. He had a-- understand, he was able to attend the first meeting as it was originally scheduled. He did have a conflict for this one so he was unable to attend. But Dave Kuhn does have intimate knowledge of the structural analysis. Again, we did not purchase the property, but yes, certainly to the extent that they were seeking to be a tenant on that property, they have performed structural analysis, and I believe will easily be able to provide you concrete information concerning the collapse zones. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The site plan that you provided shows a fence around the accessory structure and the tower itself. The code section I referred you to requires a fence around all outdoor equipment, accessory buildings and accessory structures, guy anchors and tower bases. So you'll need to show us a site plan where the fencing is that protects the guywires that you're asking for from a variance viewpoint as well. MS. MADISON: And that site plan was drafted with the conditional use. It's since been brought to our attention that requirement, and it is one of the stipulations in approval of the variance request in the staff report, that all areas be fenced in and cnclosed, and we are more than willing to see that that occurs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you also were supposed to have notified Collier County Mosquito Control District of the tower's height and its location. We would need confirmation that you've done that. MS. MADISON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'd suggest you send something to them by some method or means and get an acknowledgment they received it, and bring that back to us as well. So I think with those five or six items, you've got some work cut out for you and that you may want to consider. If there's no more questions [rom this board, that is. You may want to consider requesting a continuance for a future date. But let me see if we have any -- are there any questions from any of the members ofthe Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Of the applicant? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of the applicant. We'rc going to ask for staff comment and then we'll come back to the applicant. J.D.? MR. MOSS: Thank you, Chairman. For the record, John-David Moss, Department of Zoning and Land Development Review. I don't know if you need a presentation from me. Ijust want to state on the record that with the conditions of approval included in the attached resolutions that staff finds this application to be consistent with the LDC and with the provisions of the Growth Management Plan. I'd just also like to say for the record that we often receive requests like this where an applicant acts on behalf of a property owner and they have authorizlltion to do it. And so I apologize for the confusion this has caused, but we didn't think it was anything irregular. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I think the confusion was the young lady can't speak for both parties, unfortunately. And I think that needs to get cleaned up so when she's here answering questions that are really the responsibility of the property owner, she's doing so with authority and it sticks. By saying she doesn't represent the owner, we're getting questions that don't mean anything. And especially about the collapse zone, about the tower inspections, about paperwork, like that, she can't commit for this owner to get that to us. So I think the direction is loud and clear, we need that information. Mr. Vigliotti, then Mr. Murray, then Mr. Wolfley. Page 25 "- "0 , , ~ Octobe/ I Joo B 5 COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: J.D.. wbere do you sit on the Emergency Services part ofthis~ MR. MOSS: Staff is satisfied that this has been -- this requirement has been fulfilled by the placement of the FBI tower on the site. Staff is considering the site as a whole to be an essential service facility rather than each individual tower. So one of the conditions in the attached resolution is that there will at all times be an essential service provider's antenna. Doesn't necessarily have to be the FBI but it will have to be some government approved essential service operating at all times on the site. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Will the county seek space on these towers? MR. MOSS: Not that I know of. And that's probably a question that's better addressed to the agent. But as far as I know, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray') COMMISSIONER MURRAY: J,D.. you have a tower that shouldn't have been there and you have a new tower. How did you come to the conclusion that a lesscc should be the petitioner for an event to change for conditional use? They're leasing it. MR. MOSS: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That may represent an activity that if they are responsible -- are you then suggesting by intimation or directly that every tenant on there is part of the conditional use? MR. MOSS: The conditional use runs with the land. so it's not attached to the applicant. But the applicant, by requesting the conditional use. they have received authorization rrom the property owner to act on their behalf. And the site would be required to eome into full compliance with the provisions of the conditional use in order for them to get C.O.'d in order to construct the new facility and direct any new antcnnas thereafter. I mean, that's how this whole thing became discovered is when they came in to apply to attach a new antenna on the tower and the county realized hey. this tower was supposed to have come down. what's it still doing up. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I appreciate that. So you're telling me it was luck of the draw. Had it been FLO TV, MO TV or JOE TV, they would have been carrying the ball for the conditional use? MR. MOSS: They don't necessarily have to. The applicant -- FLO TV didn't have to be the one that applied for the conditional use. It could have been Renda Broadcasting. But it just so happened that it was FLO TV because they were motivated to get their antennas -- COMMISSIONER MLJRRA Y: I appreciate that-- MR. MOSS: -- on the tower. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- if it runs -- if the conditional use runs with the land, doesn't that then derive to the land's owner'? MR. MOSS: Yeah, ultimately the landowner is responsible. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So I'm really mifl'ed. I'm completely confused why we would be-- I understand the thesis about why somebody is doing something. Believe me, I assure you ofthat. But Ijust don't know that it seems to be the appropriate thing. Because it suggests. as I've just indicated -- MR. MOSS: Right. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- to you that ifthcy have a liability issue then, then every one of those tenants have equal liability issues. MR. MOSS: Right. I mean, it would come down to the property owner who's -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Are you saying right-- MR. MOSS: -- going to be liable. COMMISSIONER MLJRRA Y: -- you're testifying now. You're saying right. MR. MOSS: It's my understanding, and Ray, you might want to interject here. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, for the record, Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager. COMMISSIONER MlJRRA Y: So every pa.1y on that antenna, on that structure, has as equal a liability should that structure fall and cause damage or injuries'> MR. BELLOWS: In rcgards to the conditional use, I'm not speaking about liability about a collapse, Page 76 1611'f. October 15, 095 but in regards to use of the land it's no different than a contract purchaser on a rezoning property for a property owner that once the rezoning goes through they can close on the purchase. The property owner has given that agent or that contract purchaser the right to act on their behalf on rezoning property. This is a similar situation. Renda has given permission for FLO TV to act on their behalflo get a conditional use that will run with the land. 'If So in that regard staff is line with the process of eontract purchaser or a future tenant on this tower to act on behalf of the property owner to get a conditional use that applies overall to all the users on that site. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I hear you. I hear what you're saying, but I heard what Ms. Madison said. And our Chairman has indicated that that has to be qualified, and I agree completely. MR. BELLOWS: And I don't necessarily disagree. I heard what our County Attorney said, and it probably is a good idea for the property opener to get more involved. MS. MADISON: And may I for the record say that nor do I disagree. I just -- as an attorney, when -- the word representation and engaged, no I have not been formally engaged by Renda Broadcasting. So in that sense, you know, in one court here, you know, that is an inaccurate statement. But I assure you like before the Florida Bar that would not be accurate to say I represent them and they are my client. They are not my client. But to the extent that we have sought to use this property, the applicant, as a lease, we did seek their authorization as a property owner to do that. And just to piggyback on the examples that I've been given, it would be no different if we were seeking a commercial space in a shopping center and we wanted to get a particular parcel zoned for beer and wine packaged sales. The property owner really has no individual interest in what each individual unit has within that shopping center. However, thcy will authorize us as their tenant to seek whatever zoning approvals that we need to make the maximum use of that space. And that was simply what we were trying to do here. I really hate that you have been personally offended by it, how I presented that, and I apologize for the -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm not -- don't take any offense to you personally, Counselor. I think the converse is true, though, that you as a person coming here with them saying here, here's my property, you can put your device on it. You need to know -- if you're going to represent in some fashion, you need to know every detail about what we're going to ask about collapse and the rest of it and be able to have somebody testity to the facts. That's all I'm saying. MS. MADISON: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Please don't take-, MS. MADISON: No, no, Ijust wanted to make sure I clarified the record in terms of that. No, I don't disagree -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: County Attorney has a comment to make. Mr. Klatzkow? MR. KLATZKOW: Just for clarity. Next time this comes back -- and this is not just you, this is everybody -- I want the person who's the applicant here, which is really the owner, okay. I want the owner's representative here, somebody authorized to speak for the owner, period. MS. MADISON: Okay. And I would say just-, MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no. MS. MADISON: -- to clarity that, the applicant is not the owner. MR. KLA TZKOW: No, no, no, no. J-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes, it is. MR. KLA TZKOW: The owner -- no, no, no, I've got an affidavit in the material here that you are-- that this applicant was authorized to speak on behalf of the owner. MS. MADISON: Right. MR. KLA TZKOW: You're telling me you're not. I understand that, okay. What I'm telling you is next time you're here or somebody else is here, you're going to be authorized to speak on behalf of the owner or we're not hearing this. Page 27 ..,,-. --."_._-""--"""~""',-----..,,,,,.,,_'----"'-".'_-- ..-.-. ..--" 16/1'''''5 , October 15. 2009 MS. MADISON: Okay. And just to clarify the record, I am authorized to the extent that I have-- MR. KLA TZKOW: No, no, not to any extent. MS. MADISON: May 1-- MR. KLA TZKOW: Whatever question's asked of you, you know, we're going to get an answer and not a qualificd answer. MS. MADISON: May I speak? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MS. MADISON: Ijust want to say that I am -- again, to the extent I'm not making this clear, to the extent I misspoke, yes. we do have signed authori71ltions for me on behalf of Ruden-McClosky on behalf of the petitioner, the applicant, FLO TV, as well as the owner, Renda Broadcasting. Point one. Point two, I do have a representative of Renda here. he is the president, Mr. Tony Renda. And that would be to address the second point. And I will bring Mr. Renda and any other authorized representation that we seek from Renda as we see lit to any continued hearing, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so you know. these meetings are of course public record, and we go back to these meetings at times in the future if we have questions about what happened. Your statements havc to be able to be committed to a point where the owner has to abide by them. And that's why we're so careful. Because whatever you say -- MS. MADlSON: Absolutclv. ~ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we're going to stipulate. And if it gets stipulated, the owner's going to have to live with it. So wc don't want anybody up there answering questions that don't stick. And that's I guess the short of it, so -- MS. MADISON: And Ijust -- and to the cxtent I might be getting confused, Ijust want to say for the record that a representative of the owncr is present. And I don't know if Mr. Renda has approached the stand again -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, go ahead, We're in the -- a lot of people are talking right now so you might as well join in. Go ahead. MR. RENDA: Ijust want to assure counselor that indccd Renda will be represented and we will be here. I hear you. I hear you loud and clear. I hear the board. And we will be here answering your questions. And I apologize for the use of your time today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. I think it's being very constructive use. You've got a facility that's been there a long time. MR. RENDA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think the emphasis needs to tind a way to make it compliant so it can stay there. And I think if you can listen to what we say today, come back with the right documentation, it will go a long way to get us there. And with that I still have three speakers lined up that want to comment. I'll go to Mr. Wolfley next, then Ms. Caron, then Mr. Eastman. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: John-David. are you in possession of the inspection reports? MR. MOSS: No, I'm not. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, And as our Chair, that would be a good thing. Are the beacon lights on both towers operational right now') MR. MOSS: I don't know, because I don't have tJle inspection reports. But I do have a report trom the Mosquito Control that Mark Strain asked for. And it was approved, reviewed and approved by Mosquito Control, so they wouldn't havc done that if the lights were not on the tower and operational, I assume -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: On both. MR. MOSS: -- but I don't know, COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: On both. MR. MOSS: On both, right. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. The -- I mean, whether it's the FBI, I mean, I really -- you Page 28 16 I 1 40ctob~I~009 1 know, I'm a little bit upset about this above-the-Iaw routine but -- where the government can do what they choose but, you know, the public can't. Is it the intent that the old tower is going to stay? MR. MOSS: Yes. And the code actually encourages the collocation of antennas on a site, rather than having multiple antennas scattered throughout the co""ty to meet the needs. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I got that. Okay, I was just wondering ifit was because it was the FBI. MR. MOSS: Oh, no, no, no. That's just what the code says. Any essential service, which is any governmental entity, such as the FBI. It could be anyone. It could be EMS it could be fire, the sheriff. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, all right. MR. MOSS: This just happens to be the tenant they have. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I had some other things, but I think I'm going to wait for the next. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron, then Mr. Eastman, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: To answer Mr. Wolfley, there is only one light and that's on the new tower. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's what I thought. COMMISSIONER CARON: Mr. Renda, could you come back up again? Ijust want to ask you one question. What is the relationship between FLO TV and Renda? MR. RENDA: FLO TV would be a tenant on the tower. There is no ownership, comanagement; there is no relationship whatsoever. COMMISSIONER CARON: So you have no interest at all in FLO TV? MR. RENDA: None. None whatever. COMMISSIONER CARON: You don't own any ofthose-- MR. RENDA: Not-- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- TV stations, nothing. Okay. MR. RENDA: I don't believe they're a TV station ownership. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Broadcasting. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, but-- MR. RENDA: But I have no ownership. None whatsoever. And they have no ownership in my company. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: J.D., my question relates to the essential service classification of the site. And that's due solely because of the FBI's leasing on the tower? MR. MOSS: Yes. MR. EASTMAN: And in the event that the FBI were to cancel their lease, is it no longer-- MR. MOSS: That's right. And that's why there's a condition of approval in the attached resolution stating that there has to be some sort of essential service operating on the site at all times. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Or what? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we'll get there. I think I know where you're going, so that's a good question, but we'll get there. MR. EASTMAN: I just found it interesting. The owner Renda had said that the FBI could cancel the lease within one year, so it seems like we may be treating something as essential service that doesn't have that permanent staying power of -- MR. MOSS: Right. MR. EASTMAN: -- essential service. And that was the only point I really wanted to make. MR. MOSS: Well, I think if the applicant were actually having the site reviewed annually and submitting documentation to the County Manager's Office or his designee, that could be something that staff checks for in order to track it to make sure that there is always an essential service in operation on the site. MR. EASTMAN: Thanks, J.D. Page 29 1 etJ,erJ5, 20& 5 -1 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Schiffer. Mr. Midney, Ms. Caron and Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And .10.. this is for you again. I'm kind of piling it on, so walk me down the same trial. This is a privately owned properly (sic) antenna. Everything on it is privately owned. Then comes along something that would be an essential service on its own. It attaches itself to the site. Now the whole site is a part of the essential service. If the FBI rents an office in the space the whole building becomes part of essential services. MR. MOSS: No, it has to have all antenna in order for it to be -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The point of the matter is-- MR. MOSS: -- considered essential services. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- who made the detennination that -- what the code meant by cssential services') It could have meant antennas that are owned by cssential services in the county. So where was that determine (sic) made that once something that is rightly considered an essential services placed on the tower the whole thing, the whole site, the whole project becomes an essential service" MR. MOSS: Oh, that was a determination that was made by the director. That's not a conclusion that I drew on my own. Because there were two towers already on the site and one of them was going to be an essential service, the director determined that it wasn't necessary that the other one also had an essential . service user. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So the determination that an antcnna described as an essential service antenna means any antenna, privately or publicly owncd, that has an essential service on it. MR. MOSS: No, I don't think it's -- the antenna cannot be privately owned, it has to be a governmental entity. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well. he owns the antenna. MR. MOSS: He owns the tower. COMMISSIONER SCIIIFFER: lie owns the tower. okay. MR. MOSS: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okav. Well. it's thc tower-- ~ MR. MOSS: It's the antenna that has to be -- COMMISSIONER SCIIIFFER: -. I'm worried about falling. MR. MOSS: -- governed -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You know, thc antenna could fall off the tower. I'm not worried about that. So the way the code's written is that an essentially serviced tower means could be a privately owned tower with an essential service antenna or -- MR. MOSS: That's right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- use on it. MR. MOSS: That's right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Send me a copy of that. I'd like to see that. MR. MOSS: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, I'm through, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Midney. then Ms. Caron, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: J.D.. at any point did anyone think of asking for some sort ofa sanction for this violation? MR. MOSS: Well, they are pcnalized by the code whenever they apply for an after-the-fact conditional use and an after-the-fact varianee. The fees that we normally charge for these applications are doubled. And that's the penalty for requesting it. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What's the fee') MR. MOSS: We double it. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: What is it" MR. MOSS: Normally the fee is $4,000 for a conditional use. Is that right. Ray, 4.000 for a conditional use? Paue 30 " 16 Iltlrl5q9~ ~ ':~ 'f MR. BELLOWS: 3,000. MR. MOSS: 3,000. And then it's doubled. And for the variance it's 2,000 and that's doubled to 4,000. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: But I mean the amount of money that they can get by leasing these things over many, many years is probably going to outweigh that. MR. MOSS: No, you're absolutely right. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: So my question is, what's to prevent another applicant rrom a tower from just deciding well, let me just take two towers, because these people did it, I can get away with it too, no one's going to do anything. MR. MOSS: That's a good point. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I'd just like to answer that question too. There's another component to a situation where a nonconformity may occur. If say the FBI use or some other essential service use would leave, it becomes a code enforcement action. And code enforcement can bring them to the code enforcement board where they could be fined until either the tower comes down or they find another essential service user. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Another question is that when you were considering this, and looking at the two towers, I would have thought to say or ask the owner why he didn't ask the FBI, look, I want to put up another tower, but in order to put up the second tower I have to get rid of this one, would you please, you know, move your tower somewhere else so that I can do the second one, instead of just putting it up, you know, and assuming well, since the FBI's on the first tower, that one is safe. You never thought of asking that question? MR. MOSS: No, I'm not sure I understand the question. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well, the owncr should have said, I want (0 build a second tower. In order to do that I have to get rid of the first tower. Let me ask the FBI to simply put their tower either on the one that I'm going to build now or somewhere else. And you never thought of asking why the owner never did that? MR. MOSS: I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Thc petition, when it came to us, was that they want to keep two. So it doesn't matter really what happened before, why they didn't tear it dov.n. I think the owner of the tower gave a fairly good explanation why, that they were waiting for leases to go or whatever reason. But when somebody applies to the county for a conditional use for an essential service communication tower and they say they want two towers, you know, they're allowed to ask for two. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: That doesn't seem to me like a good explanation. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but with that thought in mind, let's take a IS-minute break for the court reporters. I want to compare their notes and make sure they're both keeping up with one another. So we'll come back at 10:25. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, we're back rrom break. When we left we were going through more discussion rrom the Planning Commission, and we certainly have a few more comments we want to make before we run this out. Next speaker -- oh, Mr. Midney, did you finish? Okay, sir, go ahead. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Yeah, my question is other than the sanction of a higher application fee, is there any other sanctions available for when people cheat in this way? MR. KLA TZKOW: I can answerthat. Atthe end of the day, if it was the county's desire to do this, and apparently it wasn't, we could have that tower taken down. So anywhere between fines and we're taking the tower down, we've got that authority. We didn't do that, but we have that authority. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Is there anything in between? Because that's, you know, like a drastic thing that would probably not be done. Page 3 I -'-"'---~._"".~...,---_._~..-~.,.~,-,~,.,,_.,-,_., . ,',______...____'.._n,.' . 16111'f --is ~ O!ober 15. ;009 MR. KLA TZKOW: Well. we can require them to come back in and amend their conditional use and put whatever requirements we would want after that. But, you know, if it's not supposed to be there, it's not supposed to be there. MR. BELLOWS: And for the record, that's what we're doing here is getting a new conditional use to allow new conditions of approval to help ensure safety of this site. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Well. I guess my concern is also safety. But just from a profit and loss looking at it, you could gain -- you know, with what these things are worth, it would be profitable, you know, just to sort of ignore the -- you know. what you agreed to do, the SOP. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Ms. Caron') COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, and this is for John-David. LDC Section 5.05.09.G.3 allows standalone communication towers with a eonditional use approval. provided that the tower is owned or leased to an essential service that is the primary user. So my contention is that by our very code the Iirst tower -- that's why the conditional use was approved with the first tower coming down hel()re the second tower was put up. MR. MOSS: I don't know, Commissioner. that that's what that means. Standalone, I think it means a tower that's just a tower on the site without a principal use with it. I think that's what it means is more the tower itself acting is a principal use. I just would like to say the director is the one that made this detennination. I mean, this has been thoroughly scrutinized by Susan Istenes, and she has determined that the two towers on the site would be acceptable. And she is the inte'lxeter of the LDe. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, Well. I'm going to hope that Susan Istenes will be here when this meeting comes baek. MR. MOSS: I can ask her to be. certainly. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. Now, I have another question. In tenns of monitoring, if this somehow gets approved, how is it-- since we'vc never monitored these pcople before, how are you going to monitor what happens on this site? MR. MOSS: I'm not -- COMMISSIONER CARON: I mean. I think we need a management plan. MR. MOSS: Yes. there needs to be some 50t1 of monitoring program, definitely. And maybe there is. I mean. I just don't -- I wasn't able to find thc information that was submitted. And we did ask Renda Broadcasting with too short notice to provide that information. So hopefully they have monitoring reports on file that they've submitted, Maybe they know or maybe they can provide them to us, I don't know. But it would definitely be something that we would have to establish in order to track these monopoles. It's in the LDC that these reports be submitted to the county manager or his designee annually. And so it's something that definitely needs to be done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray~ COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Rend", if you would be so kind as to come to the podium again. Thank you, sir. I'm not intending to embarrass you in any way, but I want to ask a question that might bc perceived as that. You're a private corporation. Are you in a position in any way to compel any government entity whatsoever to be a lessee on your tower? MR. RENDA: No. You know the answer to that question-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I do. MR. RENDA: n no. COMMISSIONER MlJRRA Y: Okay. So my question then becomes in the event that you should-- that this were to go forward and in the event that the current or any entity that was the sole entity left on a tower, government entity left on a tower, were to choose to leave, what would Renda Broadcasting do to alert the county or begin a process? Has that been thought out. or is the assumption only that it will always be the case? MR. RENDA: What do you mean the assumption') Page 32 ~ 16 I 1 08~5,20d~1 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, I'm trying to couch it in a way that doesn't suggest any nefarious thoughts on anybody's part. Simple fact. If FBI, the remaining entity, government entity, chooses to leave, leaving the structure and any remaining antennas only to be private, and the requirement of the conditional use is that there must be a government entity, what action plan does Renda Broadcasting, you certainly necessarily not, but your corporation, what plan would you have? Or is it going to be that we are going to have to initiate a search type of thing? MR. RENDA: Mr. Murray, there would be no plan on our part. I think someone suggested up here that we said to the FBI, oh,just stay on that tower and everything will be all right. I can tell you, I can assure you that nobody from my office, my corporate office and even locally even suggested that that would happen. Secondly, and I'I1 try to get to your answer, I don't have a plan, well, if the FBI -- maybe I go get the local city dog catcher to be on there. We don't have any such plan. We're in the radio station business. That's what we do. Ms. Caron, to answer your question about tearing down one tower betore you put it up, that cannot happen. It cannot happen with a radio station, it cannot happen with a television station. What you must do is have a tower go up so you can move the antenna to continued broadcasting. We provide what we think is a pretty good service to the community with our two radio stations licensed to Collier County. We are very, very active in all the hurricanes alerts and all of that. Our business is the radio business. The tower business is a secondary business. We enjoy a very nice record with the FCC and with all legal entities. We're not sitting, planning on how we're going to pick up $1,000 or $1,500 in tower rent. That's not our business. Our business is the radio business. That's what we do. I don't know where this is going. I will tell you this: Counselor had very good advice. We will come in here much more prepared to answer your questions, number one. But number two, when we get up every single day and what we do is we try to serve the people of Collier County. If we do that properly, the listeners, we make moncy. We -- that's what we do and we do it well. We don't get up thinking who can we rent our tower space to. That is -- that's not our intent. We have taken on responsibilities of generator servicc, not only to keep our radio stations on the air, but also during threatening times to make sure that those radio stations remain on the air. Because if we're serving people and we're doing it well, we'll make money. But it's the listener. That's our primary reason and that's our only reason. Everything else is a secondary reason. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Rcnda, I'm certain that everybody in this room and who's watching on TV thanks you for the public scrvice that you perform. And I don't say that in any way sarcastically. I'm quite sincere when I say that. This board also provides a public service in that we're trying to protect the public in one form or another. And I wasn't attempting to embarrass you or entrap you in any way. But here's the point, and I hope you go away with this understanding: Renda Broadcasting, whether it's your primary business or not, it is ancillary to your business. And you should, in my opinion, certainly, and apparently from others, you should be the party seeking the conditional use. MR. RENDA: I agree, by the way. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, okay. In that context then it is important. Because the county representatives have said that there's a predicate. You can have this as long as you do that. So when you come before us the next time, there has to be some means, and not solely on an enforcement basis by the county, but a reciprocal, if you will, or at the minimum your own small plan as to what you would do if. That's what I was attempting to bring out for you, in no way embarrass you. Thank you, Sir. MR. RENDA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other planning commission -- yeah, go ahead, J.D. MR. MOSS: Commissioner Strain, excuse me, I just wanted to add that for Commissioner Murray, there is a stipulation of approval in the attached resolution that states that there must be an essential service Page 33 .,' w_, <__ 'H,."..._.".~,_.."",..,~__"._....~_,"",""__'" '.' ,',.'" - October I;, J9tfB 5 provider operating at all times. What we could do is elaborate on that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He can't compel it. MR. MOSS: Well, what we can do is elaborate that they provide us an affidavit each time that they submit to the county their annual inspection report, stating that we are still -- they're still operating on the side or that someone is, if it's not the FB I. And that is something that we could actually track. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just from a business point of view, they would want to know that themselves, from that -- MR. MOSS: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You've charged them with that, if that stipulation goes forward. That's a biggy. MR. MOSS: We can do that, if you would like to direet staff to do so. Sojust let us know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad~ COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And John-David, since I'm now understanding the difference betwecn towers and antenna -- MR. MOSS: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER SCIIIFFER: Since I'm now understanding thc difference between towers and antenna -- MR. MOSS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: ,- when you get that report from the -- from Susan, would you make sure that -- because there's a lot of discussion about essential service towers don't have to have collapse zones, but in this case we have an essential service antenna. So see if you can clear up that. Because here's what doesn't make sense to me. is that if you have a tower that's privately owned and put an essential service antenna. and you've designed it so that it can -- will eollapse on neighbors property, if that essential service leaves, what do you do to the tower" You'd have to essentially tear it down -- MR. MOSS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- becausc it's no longer-- MR. MOSS: That's right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So in other words, the collapsc zone question doesn't make sense to me. I think essential service towers means that the essential service can own the tower for its use, I think privately owned towers with essential scrvice antennas on them is a different creature. But thank you. MR. MOSS: I'll ask Susan to address that when she comes to the next hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Just one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The statement, it was stated that the FBI was never notified to relocate their antenna on the new one, And it just almost seems like to me that that was by definite purpose, to keep that tower up. And that's -- that just didn't bode when I was reading through this. And then the statements that they were never contacted to move the antenna. Well, I would think by building the new one that all three entities on the old one should have said you're moving. Simple as that. Whether you're an essential service or not we have a new antenna, it's bigger, better, even has a light on it. And -- you know, I mean, please discuss that. I mean later. the next time you come back. I mean, it just seemed planned to me and that just stinks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions? David -- yes, go ahead. J.D. MR. MOSS: I'm sorry. Ijust wanted to clarify one issue that came up with Commissioner Caron very early in the hearing as to where stafT got the inJ(mnation that was reported it the staff report about the towers being 450 feet in height. That does include the antennas that are attached to the towers. But I have a copy of an elevation that was submitted as part of the application I'd like to put on the visualizer, if! might. And I'm not sure if you can read that very clearly, but there are different heights listed on the Page 34 16 I 10ctober J ~91 elevation. But the ultimate height shown for both of the towers is 450 feet. There are lower heights listed. For instance, this one here shows 420 feet. And I'm assuming thif -- well, I don't want to assume anything. It looks like that may be an antenna attached to the side of the towel But anyway, both towers are depicted to be 450 feet, and that's where staff got that information. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. And that 450 feet, actually once they added the lights you wanted to make it 455 feet. MR. MOSS: Right. COMMISSIONER CARON: That is the height that the county should be concerned about, the top of it, not whether the base of the tower is 20 feet and they stick an antenna on top of it that's 100 feet. You need to know that -- the 120 feet. That's the important -- that's where the vested interest of the county lies. Because should the tower ever go over, it's not just going to go over at the base so you're protected because it's only the 20 feet we're talking about, it will be whatever comes down -- MR. MOSS: Well, for the record -- COMMISSIONER CARON: -- and that would be to the top. MR. MOSS: -- with the lightning rod that's attached to it, it would be 455 feet in total. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right. And that is the vested county interest, in height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions at this time? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, J.D., if you could come back up for just a minute. Based on a-- MS. MADISON: May I make a few comments before we close? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not closing. MS. MADISON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm giving direction. But you can go ahead. Go ahead. MS. MADISON: No, go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I'd rather -- ma'am, go ahead. Because it might affect the direction I'm going to give. Go ahead. MS. MADISON: Okay. Ijust wanted to close with my final comments, if all ofthe questions have been addressed. That's -- I wasn't sure if that had already occurred or-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, we've asked all the questions we're going to ask. I was going -- I had made notes of the concerns that we had and I was going to give direction to both staff on what to come back with and then I was going to ask you, give you direction if you so choose -- MS. MADISON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to come back with certain things. And in that process I'm looking at this as an attitude of can do, how do we make it work. MS. MADISON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, we need your help to make it work and we need staffs help to make it work and then we have to hear it this time with everything and all the pieces in place to hopefully grant you what you're asking -- MS. MADISON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- for something that's already been there for 10 years. MS. MADISON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I'm trying real hard to make this work. So that's where it's coming from. MS. MADISON: Okay. And I guess Ijust wanted to elaborate on exactly what you said. FLO TV, formerly known as Media FLO, received a zoning determination from the county in response to its request as to whether or not it would be able to install an antenna on the older tower. And it was in that letter which was dated I believe in '08, I believe, but it was in that letter that we were advised that that tower was in violation, it should have been replaced and removed as a result of the 1993 conditional use. Later we subsequently sat down with staff in June, 2008 to see what if anything could be done to correct the situation to allow usage of that site. And we were told that as a penalty we can do this Page 35 . _...,..-~,-~~,-.__....,--, ._."..~_.., -~ .1 /1 ~, Oct~bef9 5, ; 009 85 after-the-fact conditional use. So I say all that to say that we acknowledge the penalty, we acknowledge the fact that there's a violation. The sole goal here has been to attempt to correct that, and we want to correct that in any way possible. So that has definitely been our goal. It's not been to intentionally -- particularly to the extent I do represent the applicant, FLO TV, who I think hopefully we've established for the record has no correlation with Renda. So FI D TV simply seeks to correct what is an obvious violation with the two towers as they eXIst. So Ijust wanted to note that for the record, Because we have discussed a lot of well, why wasn't this done and why did that not happen. And. you know. many things I know for a fact FLO TV cannot intelligently respond to because we weren't involved. But to the extent that we do acknowledge the deficiency, we do want to correct that. And so I just want to reiterate again that we do acknowledge that this is an after-the-fact hopefully correctivc measure that we're tl)'ing to take. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. J.D., did you have any on record objections to these towers? MR. MOSS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When you corne back. I have at least -- I have three or more things that I would suggest stall come back and -- MR. MOSS: Okay CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: --make sure that when they eome back in with your report they're included . m. Do you recall the Tower Road collapse that occurred a tew years back~ MR. MOSS: I don't know of it. no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm sure, Ray, you must remember it. There was a collapse of a similar tower ol'a similar type on Tower Road off 01'951, south of U.S. 41. It would be interesting to find the collapse criteria of that. meaning not the speciJlcs as what bolt failed here and tbere but where the collapse zone was. Beeause that would provide us with a little bit of understanding of how the engineer's certification when he comes back. validity to his collapse zone. So I think that -- and that should be readily available. I know county was involved in that quite a bit, especially it came before this board f()[ re-approval -- MR. MOSS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to get back up and -- MR. MOSS: Right. I heard about it, Ijust didn't know the details. So I'll deJlnitely find that out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okav. ~ The primal)' user, you know I had a lot of questions about the Section 5.05.09 in regards to essential services and how you establish the primary user. What does the word primary mean? Is it one, is it 51 percent, is it -- what? Does it mean just the fact that you had to have a tower for this one guy and no matter how many you add on. just because that one guy is there it's okay" Those are the kind of questions we're going to need answered the next time you come in. And I know Susan has already addressed those. MR. MOSS: Ycah, that was addressed in the statlreport. too. There is no definition in the LDC, but staff has historically and consistently applied it a certain way. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you address it in rcgards to a temporary user under lease? Because then what happens is if you allow a tower at 450 teet under a primal)' user being the FBI who only leases for a year, they drop the lease, you run into a mess of problems if it's no longer an essential service tower. Because you couldn't even have gotten to 450 feet unless you are an essential service, I think the height prior to that is only 185 feet. So I'm real concerned how the county is looking at these primary users if they're temporarily leased. And that I don't believe was addressed. And ma'am, it would be handy if you wouldn't mind redacting the parts of the lease that are objectionable f"r you to make public record, but I think we would like to see the terms of the lease so we Page 3 6 16/1 ',~.> , , October 15, 2009 know what we're dealing with in regards to what you're claiming to be a primary user based on a lease. MS. MADISON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's something you may want to ask your client, if they would -- I don't care what you redact, but I would certainly want to see the terms and conditions for the length of the lease. That's what I think's most important to us. MS. MADISON: Okay. And just for clarification on that issue, Ijust want to be sure, because obviously we're bound by the code and the eode does not define the word primary user. But you're wanting to know I guess based on usage and experience in the county how they've applied it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, we know now that the FBI being on your tower is a primary-- can be considered a primary essential service user. MS. MADISON: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I've heard J.D. say that's been established, and that's fine. But if they're a temporary lease, which is only a year lease, does that still quality them as a primary user? Then my last task that I would want to suggest to staff is if they lose the FBI or any other essential service user, how long of a period do they have -- and we might want to consider this as a stipulation to a conditional use -- before another user has to be signed up before we enact the actions that need to be taken to make that a nonessential use tower? Now, that takes care of what I would think staff needs to address. As far as from the applicant, I think you need a Florida State -- Florida certified engineer. Not that this gentleman couldn't help; and he's obviously got a lot of knowledge to contribute. But we need someone in Florida to define the collapse zone and to certity those two towers. They have to be certified to the appropriate codes as to when they were built and make sure that the certification is by a Florida engineer. We need to know the distances ofthe towers from the neighboring property lines and from any structures that are nearby. We certainly need the representation of who is coming here today to talk on behalf and who can commit to whom, all that cleaned up. I think we've had numbers of suggestions on that. We need to see a copy of your filing with the Mosquito Control District. And if you have filed any documents as required by our code yearly for the inspections, it would be nice to see -- we would need to see those too. That and along with the primary user's lease I believe is the list that I've compiled. Does anybody else have anything? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeab, there was one thing I'd like to make sure John focuses on, and that is the definition between an essential service tower and an essential service antenna on a private tower. MR. MOSS: Yes, sir, I have that written down already. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's essentially the primary lease question. And then the collapse zone. You know, in the past they may have looked at collapse zone, but they always expected that other tower to be removed, so the collapse zone study has to entail one collapsing, you know, and the other one doesn't; the other one collapsing and the other one doesn't; and then both collapsing. MS. MADISON: Okay. And just to clarity that issue for the record, because again the code does not require a collapse zone, but what you're really wanting to know is for your own -- you want to know what-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray. MS. MADISON: -- that is nonetheless. I just want to make sure I understand. Because we walked in not anticipating a collapse zone to be an issue, which is why I don't have anyone here to speak on it, because there is no such requirement under the code for this particular site. But you are wanting to know the collapse zone within both towers? Ijust want to make sure I understand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Give me a space, I'll come in. If -- you know, we may determine that this may not be an essential services tower. This may be an Page 37 --_. -,.~.~~~-_._~.~_...." ".___.,_._H"'_'~ .._ ..~.'"."_." ,"- -,.,..",,,--~ ~ ~,_._,.~ 6' , ." ':' -,c;.' , Oct~15ert, ~09B 5 ~ antenna on a private tower. So -- and I think in terms of the health and safety of the community. especially the neighbors. we really do want to know where this thing's going to go in a collapse. MS. MADISON: Okav. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I think you have building code issues that are going to make you do that, or should have made you do that anyway. Remember. this -- MS. MADISON: We've not been informed of any issues. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- this thing's been designed as you were going to replace a tower. And that's not what happened. So it's totally different engineering questions out there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Miss. before Mr. Murray speaks, I want to clarify something. You had made a statement it's outside the code requirement. You eould simply choose not to abide by our direction. We could simply choose to vote no. So it would be to your benefit to provide these things, so -- MS. MADISON: And I'm not suggesting that I won't. 'just want clarification, as I do every time we get additional questions. Because like I said, maybe -- I would love to come back next time and have all the responses to all the questions that are being asked. And that by no means meant to suggest that we're not going to produce that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murrav'! I'm assuminu vou're finished, Mr. Schiffer') - ~ ~ COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. I am. Thanks. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I strongly urge all parties to consider that since it appears that the basis here for avoiding a variance for the guys and the setbacks is the so-called essential services lessee being there, or as you're going to try to find out whether the tower is somehow perceived to be in the absenee of that entity, it no longer is an essential anything. it belongs to a private owner. So I would strongly recommend that as an alternative to what may happen here, that you consider the full implications of what would happen under the correct, that is to say. the most restrictive requirements. Do I make mvself clear. John-David? MR. MOSS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MlJRRA Y: And Ma'am, do I make myself clear to you? MS. MADISON: Absolutely. And just to clarify on that. and again. we could only go by what the code says under 2,0 1.03 for essential services. So it was based upon our reading and interpretation of the code that we believed and actually still do believe that the FBI provides an essential service. We submitted that inl()rmation in a timely earlier stage ofthe review process and was told that that was acceptable. So, I mean, that is just the explanation as to why we presented this application. I lad we had any thoughts or I guess forewarning that they may not be considered an essential service or maybe-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't think anybody',-- MS. MADISON: -- a here's a distinction between the tower or antenna, we would have been prepared to address that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, you're missing the point. though. I don't think any of us are questioning the FBI is an essential service. MS. MADISON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that we're questioning the terms, times and locations of -- the length ofthe lease and then which does our code define as the necessarv attach -- is it an attachment to the tower or . is it the tower itself That's an issue not yours, that's more of staW Mr. Murray" COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yeah, Ijust want to quality further for you so that you appreciate where ('m coming from. I have no objections to this tower being there with the other tower eventually under an appropriate setting. MS. MADISON: Sure.okav. . Paue 38 L - 16 1 JObJa,509' COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What I'm trying to say to you is that consider the possibility that we go forward with this, we have an essential services user and then six months later they say bye-bye. What will you be responsible for? What will the county make you and the tower owner responsible for? Tome that's so simple it should have been right there at the outset. MS. MADISON: In the code or in our-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ma'am, I'm not concerned with the code as much as the business ftmction. MS. MADISON: Sure. I-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The code is a means by which we can compel. We can also stipulate things that make it so difficult-- MS. MADISON: Okay, I-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You don't want to get that far. MS. MADISON: No, no, no. MR. MOSS: Commissioner Murray, I'll make sure that we have some way of tracking this in the future. When I come back I'll let you know what the mechanism is and how it will operate. Because obviously this is something that must be done -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you very much. MR. MOSS: -- it's a code requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, is there any other -- Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: John-David, do you intend to bring back another report, or should we work from this one? MR. MOSS: I will provide you a supplemental report addressing the questions that were raised today. But please hold onto this one in ease you need to refer to it again. Becausc my report won't be a complete report, it will just be supplemental addressing these specific questions that were asked. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. MR. MOSS: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: One real quick thing. When the research is done regarding the Tower Road tower. I believe it was a self-standing. I used to work there and I just can't remember, it could have been a self-standing. They do collapse differently than these types of models. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, wc can check that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just want to make sure that-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ijust want to see how the collapse zone of that one worked, then ifit worked as predicted. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all. And we -- then that gives us a little more reliability on what we may hear from the engineer when he comes back with his report. Okay, if there's no more questions, Ms. Madison, we are here to either vote or grant a request for a continuance. And I would suggest it be indefinite to give you time to get your paperwork together, if -- MS. MADISON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that's what you would like. MS. MADISON: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we're discussing Pctition CU-2008-AR-14085, and Variance V A-PL-200937. Are you looking for a continuance or are you wishing us to proceed? MS. MADISON: We would like to request a continuance indefinitely. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On both of those? MS. MADISON: Yes, on both petitions, the conditional use and the variance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, so the continuance -- Page 39 , ""~"--,,,",,,,""..._.... , *~"'_. --',--" .... ," -""'-"-'~'~----"" '(~bb~r lj'2~tB 5 I COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- has been requested. Mr. Murray has motioned both. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Continuance for both. Also seconded by Mr. Wolfley. Are there any other comments or questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none. all those in favor. signity by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ayc. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ave. ~ COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Ave. ~ COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Ave, . COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Ave. ~ COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This item is continued indefinitely. 9-0. Thank you for your time and cooperation today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mr. Chair~ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I want to ask John-David, and I didn't want to ask it within this application. John, the licensure of design professionals. isn't that something you should be checking to make sure they're licensed in Florida') This finn has an extremely high reputation, so don't misinterpret that question. But the documents I have show, you know, a Calif()mia license. So do you check for professional licenses in the State of Florida? MR. MOSS: Yes, we do that nonnally. It is a code requirement. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. Except this time. All right, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. with that, we will -- that ends our advertised public hearings. We'll go into old business -- well, bef(>re we do. I had a public speaking request by Mr. Gaddy. He had on here item seven and then number 12. I believe it was the issue that he was here for that we did discuss under item seven. So I notice he's not here now. so let's just make that assumption. There's no old business. Item #11 NEW BUSINESS CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under new business. that's -- we each year on the Iirst meeting in October, we go through the election process for officers. And I'm looking for nominations. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll nominate. I'd like to nominate Mark Strain as chairman and let him pick his officers. COMMISSIONER VIGLlOnl: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. Okay, well, that would make it simple. I like it the way it is. So if you all don't mind, we can keep the same body in attendance. I'm very pleased with that, if that works for all of you. And I'm honored that you would make that recommendation, so thank you very much. All in favor of that new slate of officers which remains the same, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. Page 40 , 16 I 1 Octbber IB2~ 1 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Ave. . COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 9-0. Public comment? There's nobody left. So I guess we need a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti made the motion, seconded by? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: (Indicating.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley. All in favor? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ayc. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLlOTl'l: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Okay. Unanimous, we're out ofhere. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:56 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING CO ISSI N J ;'0c t ~ AR STRAIN, Chainnan These minutes approved by the board on 1 ch IJI ' l'1,iv'as presented /; / or as corrected Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Reporting Service, Inc., by Cherie' R. Nottingham. Page 4 I Fiala Halas Henning coyle Coletta . J .",_.,_..,~.. . TRANSCRIPT OF THE GMP MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida October 19,2009 RECEIVED DEe 0 2 2009 Board of Coun'" Comml's":,~'''' -__ <J ......",,'j;J LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: Mark Strain Donna Reed-Caron Karen Homiak Tor Kolflat Paul Midney Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David J. Woltle ALSO PRESENT: Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney Randy Cohen, Director, Comprehensive Planning David Weeks, Manager, Comprehensive Planning Misc. Corres: Dale: Page I IlIIm #; Copies to: .,.--._._-..."......--~.,_.__. . ., --".,.~.---_.""',,'-,----.~ - ..'__A~....__.,.,__. __ .._'-,,>--,--~ 1 t. 18 5 October IY, 2J091 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the October 19th meeting ofthe Collier County Planning Commission for the Growth Management Plan amendments. This will be a very lengthy and detailed meeting, It starts today and it's going to go on forever. So if you'll all please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Roll call by our secretary. please. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer') COMMISSIONER SCIIIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midnev') ~ COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is prescnt. Commissioner Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI Commissioner Wolflev') COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here, COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Homiak'! COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Planning Commission absences. We usually review the next meeting date. It happens to be tomorrow. So I'm assuming that everybody except Mr. Midney will be here tomorrow. Is that a fair assumption? Okay. We have a whole listing of public hearings. I'm going to start today, though. by giving you an introduction as to how we've decided to move forward with this agenda and how the process is that evolves after today and after we get done with our portion of it. and then how the speakers can be expected to be heard today. First thing is the agenda process. There are 10 Growth Management Plan amendments in this cyclc. And we'll be referring to the Growth Management Plan as the GMP and you'll hear a lot of acronyms, Prior to the start of each acronym, I'll try to tell you what the acronym is before we get into it too much. We have 10 ofthese items. Five of them happened to be east of 951 in the more or less heart of Golden Gate Estates. They needed to be looked at on a broad brush approach. a broader picture, rather than piecemeal one item at a time. The staff reports all referred to each one affecting the other. In that basis, the Planning Commission discussed it last week as to how to approach today and we decided to limit today to only the five cases east 01'951, And for your reference, those are 2008-1. 2008-2. 2007-1, 2007-2, and 2007-3. There's a couple of those up by Orangetree. there's one at Wilson and Immokalee, Randall and Immokalee and then Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard. That is all we'll be hearing today, so if you're here for any others they won't be heard today. they'll be heard after today, which most likely may be tomorrow, if we get that far. At the cnd of all the presentations, and at the end of public input, and I encourage every member of the public who is here, if you have any thoughts on these matters. please, talk to us. We're not going to be very fonnal in the way you have to speak. There are registration slips out front but I will be asking for speakers ifthere's anybody that has any comments. And you can at that time stand up and come to the podium, make your comment. At the end ,!f all the presentations and all the public comment I'll give the petitioners I,x each petition 10 minutes or less to' have aTiy' final comments they want to make on their petitions after they've heard one or two days of input. And then we as af}.~:pning Commission will have discussion and vote on the five items individually. "-""Tt're1'5mc-ess'l'tiat you're about to get involved ill is called the transmittal process f()f the Growth Management " -~~tf ......... Page ]. L 'j _.', 2lJr 19, ~09 85 },. Plan amendments. It's the first of several cycles of meetings that have to occur in order for something to change the Growth Management Plan. This does not change the zoning. This just allows the zoning to be changed. So what happens after this what's called a transmittal hearing for those amendments that succeed this process and go on for approval, they go up to DCA, Department of Community Affairs in Tallahassee. The Department up there reviews it for consistency with our Growth Management Plan and our comprehensive language in fhe -- we have a Future Land Use Element and other elements in the plan. And then they issue a report, now, whether they agree with us that it can go forward or not. And it comes back to us for a second review, which is called the adoption hearing. At the adoption hearing everything that supposedly needs to be corrected if they survive the transmittal gets addressed and then that becomes the time when this actually goes into more or less an approval for the ability for the property owner then to rezone his or her property. The adoption meeting results go back to Tallahassee and they again, hopefully with all the issues addressed, they bless it and it becomes more or less the law ofthe land. j Once someone has the ability to change their zoning pursuant to the Growth Management Plan, they can then apply for the rezone. The rezone is another public process. It involves additional neighborhood informational meetings. And then it can be done in the form of a PUD or conventional zoning. Then after that rezone, that's when the property can actually be used for the zoning at hand. The transmittal process that you're seeing today, we are only an advisory board. We simply recommend to the Board of County Commissioners. The commissioners on transmittal have to have at least three votes to transmit. If you don't get three votes on the Board of County Commissioners it doesn't get transmitted to Tallahassee and the request fails. If it goes forward and comes back with a report from Tallahassee, we call it the ORC report, the O-R-C, Objections, Recommendations and, I think, Conclusions of DCA. The BCC then gets to vote on it again after we provide them with a recommendation. But this time when they vote on it it takes four commissioners to approve it. So the first round is three, the second round is four. Each round will have public hearings, public meetings, and there'll be more or less three bites at the apple for each one of these actions in front of us. One ofthe other issues that we have you'll hear talked about today is detail. The Growth Management Plan is supposed to be the broad brush approach to Collier County. It's like a giant paintbrush that says this is the color we're going to paint Collier County, this is what can fit in. It's not into the very minutia, the detail, the trim of the issue. It's just general. So there's a lot of things and a lot of details that will be discussed today that some members of the public may feel are necessary, but this isn't the document that those get into. Some will, but not many. The more detailed you do the Growth Management Plan, the more difficult it becomes to deal with it when we get down the road. The speakers, that's another thing I wanted to mention to everybody. Generally we ask speakers to register for the interest that they have, if it's the first, second, third, fourth or fifth case. And there's speaker slips out in the hall. We ask people to try to limit themselves to five minutes, although we don't hold that as a steadfast rule. Basically we're here to listen to you, Any time we have speakers who know they want to speak on a subject, if you could, leave a slip with the desk over to my left ahead of time. That would be helpful, because then when we call you it's more organized. By the end of each group of speakers on each subject, I'm still going to turn to the audience and say are there any more people that wish to speak on this matter. And for those of you that want to speak, even if you didn't fill out a slip, you simply come up and use one of the mics, identity yourself, and we'll hear further input. And I wanted to ask the County Attorney's Office, is this a formal meeting in which disclosures are required? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which means everybody will be sworn in then? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's correct CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you are going to speak, it's important that you rise and be sworn in on -- somebody's -- Page 3 .""~'-~-'- "j1 p ~, ,{;::.. , ; ,"\ , r.:;. C.,, ~ ; -.." ' .-ce;- 'AI " 85 October 19.2009 MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Did I say the wrong thing? MR. SCHMITT: Let David clarity. It's legislative in nature and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I asked the question. So what do you want to correct? MR. WEEKS: For the record. David Weeks of the Comprebensive Planning Department. This is a legislativc hearing, not quasi-judicial. so you are not required to disclose ex-parte communications, nor are you required to swear in speakers. It's your option. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then before we even start, I'll turn to the Planning Commission. On both items individually, does anybody have any problems. feelings on the disclosurery COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I think we should disclose and swear in witnesses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that okay with the rest of the Planning Commission? (N 0 response,) CHAIRMAN STRAJN: I got no problem with it. Okay, so if you are going to speak. even if you don't know if you're going to speak but you think you might. please, when we ask you to be sworn in, rise and be sworn in, that will just save us time later on. Another issue about detail. If you have concerns about a project and you're worried that the developer or the applicant may not follow through with everything they say they're going to do. it is important at this meeting that we get it on record what they commit to, because that record can be used when they come back in for the rezone. For example, if they say they're not going to have outdoor music, well that's not the kind of thing you normally put in a Growth Management Plan amendment. you put it in a rezone document. nut if they say that here and it's on public record. which it will be recorded. we can then use that in -- we can use that to your favor, if that's what your con celTIs are when they come back in for the rezone. We ean make that imposition on them because they stated it on a public record, So that's about all I have as an introduction. It kind of gives everybody the f,:>rmat. I expect we will be here today all day. tomorrow all day. We have a carryover on the 29th and another one on November 5th. So at the rate we -- what's that. David? No, you say the 3rd, it was the first Thursday of November, what is that, the 5th or the 3rd? MR. WEEKS: The 5th is the first Thursday of the month but we no longer have a meeting place available-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. that's right too. okay. MR. WEEKS: We do have a meeting place. the Community Development Environmental Services building, conference room 609 and 610, on Novemberthe 3rd, which is a Tuesday. if we need to get to that fourth hearing date. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So right now it's today. tomorrow, and the 29th of October at this point. We'll make a decision on the 29th. With that, David, I know you have an introductory statement you want to make. And I -- just for the record, I did ask comprehensive staff to address three particular things to this commission, as well as -- this committee, as well as the rest ofthe audience. That is an explanation of House Bill 697. It's a new twist that was added to the revicw proeess, We hadn't seen it before, so I'd certainly like some clarification on that. We have another new tool, it's called tile CIGM. It's a planning tool. I don't even know what the acronym stands for, so when David makes his presentation. I'll let him explain that. That was a costly item. It was paid f()r by the taxpayers. It was voted on by the Board of County Commissioners. And David's statlhas used that to review each one of these applications. So I'd like to know how weighty that should be in regards to the application of it. And the last thing I'd like to ask statfto address, and it's similar to what happened about a year ago, none of the applicants seem to have gotten it right. The data and analysis for almost every application was found to be insufficient or inconclusivc in regards to the way staff looked at it. The applicants have complained. a few I've talked to. that this happens too otten, they can't seem -- they worry that how can they get it right when they're not told till the last minutc that this is a problem. And so rather than have each applicant come up here and tell us how much that's a problem for them, I thought we'd get it nipped in the bud right from the bcginning and ask staff to address that issue as well. So with that in mind, David. it's all yours, MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, again, for the record, David Weeks, Planning Manager in the Comprehensive Page 4 16/1 October 19, 20 9 85 Planning Department. Mr. Chairman, I also have a few other remarks that I typically make prior to this type of hearing, so it will be more than just those three items that you mentioned. First of all, to state a little bit further what you already stated, the fact that this is a transmittal hearing, so that the only final action on -- 1 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a moment, please. Sure, why not, we might as well. Why don't we do a mass swearing in right now, Cherie', why don't you do the whole place. Everybody that thinks they may talk, please rise for -- be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Cherie'. MR. WEEKS: Conunissioners, as I was saying, for the transmittal hearing -- as you've already stated, Mr. Chairman, you are a recommending body, so you take no final action on these petitions. But the Board of County Commissioners that will hear these, it's presently scheduled for January 19th, 20 I 0, to hear these petitions. For their transmittal hearing, if they vote not to transmit a petition, that is if the motion is not to transmit or if a motion to transmit does not gather at least three votes, a simple majority, then that petition in effect has been denied. It is done. But if the board should vote to transmit the petition then, as you've stated, it will come back for adoption hearings before this body and the Board of County Commissioners, where final action would be taken by the board. The state statutes require that at each of these hearings, both transmittal and adoption, that a fonn be provided -- and this form is out on the -- in the hallway on a table -- where citizens have the opportunity to sign up to receive a notice from the State Department of Community Affairs once petitions have been adopted and sent to them, to receive a courtesy notice from that state agency when their notice of intent is rendered. And the notice of intent is the final document from that state agency, Department of Community Affairs, indicating whether they are finding the adopted Comprehensive Plan amendments in compliance with state law or not in compliance with state law. That is purely optional, but should citizens wish to sign up to do so -- to receive such a notice, they may do so out in the hallway. I would also note that staff is required, the county is required to add anyone's name to this list, whether you sign up in the hallway or not. If you speak here today, we are required to write down your name and hopefully be able to get your address, because ultimately we must provide this sign-up sheet to the Department of Community Affairs so that they can send their courtesy notice. I would note that in addition to the staff report and the comments made in there, including the staff recommended changes, as we get to each individual petition there may be some minor additional changes needed as a result of the County Attorney's Office review. And I would like to note specifically it is not the fault of the County Attorney's Office that their review comments did not get provided to you, Commissioners, in advance. I'm going to get to in a moment why that didn't occur, as I touch on some other comments. As always, once we conclude the hearings, whether it's today, tomorrow or whenever it may occur, staff would like to collect your binders, if you don't choose to keep them yourself, because we can re-use those for the Board of County Commissioners' hearings and to send to the various state agencies once the board has concluded their transmittal hearing. As you're well aware, you're dealing with petitions with the numbers 2007 and 2008. The 2007 cycle petitions were submitted in April of2007, about two and a half years ago, and those submitted in 2008 of April then being a year and a half ago. Why has it taken so long? Why the delay? Well, it goes back to the Evaluation and Appraisal Report-based Growth Management Plan amendments that were adopted in January of2007. The EAR, Evaluation and Appraisal Report, is state mandated. It was adopted in 2004. But the amendments, as ljust stated, were not finally adopted until January of2007. Under state law we were prohibited from adopting any other Comprehensive Plan amendments until the EAR-based amendments were adopted. After they were adopted in January, 2007, the 2005 cycle of Comprehensive Plan amendments were adopted Page 5 _ _ _"n___.'._~_..._',,~_ ,......."..__..,._."..__,<~,...__.'- _"~_ ..;>l aa- i ( '1t "11 October 19, 2009J:, 13 5 in December 01'2007. approximately two and a half years after they had been submitted. And then the 2006 cycle of Comprehensive Plan amendments were adopted in October of2008, again about two and a half years after they werc submitted. This schedule for the 2007 and 2008 petitions are presently scheduled to be adopted in mid to late 2010, which is over three years !Tom the submittal date of the 2007 petitions and then over two years for the 2008 petitions. Why such a long delay in that particular ease') Well, there's several factors. Number one, a reduction in staff. We went !Tom 14 staff down to II, despite an increased work load. due to shortfall in revenues -- or declining revenues to the county. - Second, we had a few special, non-cycle Growth Management Plan amendments that had to be processed and ultimately adopted. One of which was the 1 O-year water supply facilities work plan mandated by state law, and the adoption of a public schools facility element and interlocal agreement revisions, again mandated by state law. And we also had the 2008 adoption -- annual adoption of the Capital Improvement Element update. and then portions of that were found not in compliance by the state agency. Department of Community Affairs. So we then had to go through the process of preparing -- of entering into a remedial amendment and then finally adopting the remedial amendment. We have had and continue to have an overlapping process in review of this cycle of amendments, along with the Immokalee Area Master Plan rewrite, which itself is a massive petition. And we've also, as unfortunately is all too eommon, we've had a lengthy and I'll just say challenging sufticieney proccss. Mr. Chairman, this goes to one of the points that you had raised that you asked staff to cover. From the staff perspective, when we review petitions for sufficiency, which is requircd by the Board of County Commissioners' approved resolution that establishcs the GMP amendment process, we are required to review the petitions to identity any deficiencies and notify the applicant in writing of those deficiencies. Additionally, stafftakcs on a position of gatekeeper of petitions, which mayor may not have anything to do with sufliciency. Ifthe application is submitted without page numbers; if the exhibits are not labeled at all or properly labeled; if a referencc is made to an exhibit that does not exist; if there are other missing documents; ifthe acreage figures are in discrepancy throughout the application; if a map is submitted that doesn't have the basic information on it, like a north arrow, the souree, the date. the scale. the subject property identified, we point out all of those things in our sufficiency review. And those things do occur regularly. The sufficiency process is a back and forth process. Staff adviscs the applicant of the deficiencies that we've identified. They in turn havc a time period in which to respond back to staff and so on, back and forth until one of two things happens: Either, onc, the application is decmed sullicient, or two. the applicant says I choose not to submit further information. Which is their prerogative. We cannot make them correct their application or modity their application or revise it or supplement it. It is their application ultimately to submit to the county in whatever means they so choose. What we must have is an application fee, we must have a notarized letter of authorization !Tom the property owner, and we must have the application fonn filled out sufficiently to be able to tell just what the application is requesting. Beyond that, the data and analysis and the quality of the submittal ultimately is up to the applicant. In this particular case we also had the time constraint of hearing dates. We have to -- as you know, several months in advance, it was several months ago that we came bel(Jre you to schedule these hearings. That's required because ofthe lack of availability of the board room. So we havc to plan months in advance for when the hearings are going to occur. Sometimes that's either during or even before the beginning of the sufficicncy process, which means in essence there's that loaded gun to our head. We must meet thesc hearing dates but yet we've got the sufficiency process to get through. I respcctfully submit that it all starts with the applicant and what they submit. If they submit what stalf believes is an acceptable application, then their sufliciency process is painless and it's easy. That does not happcn. In my years here, there's only been one application that I know of that was lound sufficient upon thc first submittal. We're also picky. I've talked about page numbers and other types of things. We'll even point out typos if we see them. So to be fair to the applicants. their perspective may be we'rc too picky. we're looking at too much. I'll also note that this time it around, unlike past years, staff went beyond just sutliciency and wc actually got into some of the substantive review during the sufficiency process. Page 6 Two examples. Number one, we made recommended edits to the appli"'s language. That is, what they proposed, what text they proposed to be adopted into the Growth Management PI.. We usually wait until the staff report. The purpose of doing so up-front was, let's say staff has 10 issues with their language and we propose 10 modifications. lfthe applicant agrees with eight of those, then they make the changes and then there's only two issues come before you regarding that language. We think that's a more efficient process, and we thought the applicants would appreciate that. And I think they do. Secondly is looking at, in particular, market studies. Not just looking to see do you have a market study and are all the components submitted, but going beyond that, checklist type of mentality to review it in detail, review the data for its accuracy, to review the methodology and the approach taken for its professional acceptability. And these are subjective considerations, most particularly the latter point of the professional acceptability. Because there's more than one way to do a market study; there's more than one possible accepted methodology. Staff may prefer one and the applicant may prefer another. Well, again, ultimately it is up to the applicant. The burden is on the applicant to make the case: Here's why my petition should be approved, here's why the Growth Management Plan as it presently designates my property is not appropriate but what 1 am proposing is. The burden is on the applicant. Staffs job is to review the application for the thoroughness, the completeness, the accuracy, the professional acceptability, et cetera. That's our job. House Bill 697 is new, as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman. It was passed by the Florida legislature in the year 2008. This is the first cycle of Comprehensive Plan amendments to be subject to that legislation. Ultimately we're all going to find out how the Department of Community Affairs views that legislation in light of individual Comprehensivc Plan -- or Growth Management Plan amendments. It clearly requires a consideration of greenhouse gas emissions, of vehicle miles traveled. I would say succinctly it requires a better job by local governments of their land use and transportation planning in an effort to reduce vehicle miles traveled and the emission of greenhouse gases. As you note on the individual application -- excuse me, individual staff reports, it varies, the type of response provided by the applicants. Some provided no response, some provided minimal response, and then some did much better. But I don't believe any of them quantified their reduction in vehicle miles traveled or greenhouse gas emissions, which we believe thc state agency is going to require. But again, ultimately we won't know how the Department of Community Affairs is going to view that legislation in light of these petitions until we actually receive that ORC Report from them. I have a few more comments, Commissioners, but at this point I think I want to turn it over to Michael Bosi, he's the other planning manager in the Comprehensive Planning Department, to talk about the Collier Interactive Growth Model. And as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, that is something that we've just used for tbe first time, first time it's been available for a cycle of Comprehensive Plan amendments. MR. BOSI: Thank you, David. Mike Bosi, Comprehensive Planning. Commission, good morning. CIGM is the Collier Interactive Growth Model, the acronym that Chairman Strain had referred to. Just wanted to give you a little bit of context and the history, how we came about to utilize the CIGM as an additional planning tool. The origin of the model was created after Phase I of the Horizon Study. The Board authorized the development of the CIGM to better plan and evaluate the necd of infrastructure and services based upon spatial distribution of population. If you remember, Phase I of the Horizon Study was where we looked out to our distant future, looked at our Growth Management Plan in 2004, 2005. And we said what is the extent of the population growth that we can expect; what is the extent ofthe cost and need for provision of infrastructure and services to support that population? And that's what I'm trying to -- I'm trying to provide the context for what the Horizon Study -- the Horizon Study was looking out into the future trying to figure out what the cost was and what was the extent of the population. When we presented, we went and we talked to the individual infrastructure and service providers, we gave them an end population that was developed in-house, the 2005 build-out study. And we said what would be the need based upon our adopted level of services in our Growth Management Plan to service this population numbers. From that the board said, well, we need to get a bctter handle, not only on the end number, but not only the Page 7 l' ~ ~J ,', 11,.-", "I ' "; " ; '; .' "'''~ October 19, 2009 85 end number but where that end number is going to be congregated. so we can maybe be more efficient within the location of our infrastructure and services, where we can maybe find some advantage for collocation, where we can just have a better handle upon where the necessary infrastrncturc is going to go. The CIGM was developed during the two-year public participation phase, Phase II of the Horizon Study. It was validated through the Horizon Study public participation committee in which the 70,000 so or parcel baseline data which makes up the CIGM was validated from the individual members. In addition to planning or utilizing the CIGM as a tool to evaluate where the necessary infrastructure and services were going to be required, we also developed a commercial sub-model. Based upon the distribution of population, the commercial sub-model could give reasonable general. just general, non site-specific but general estimations as to when certain types of commercial commodities would be required. The CIGM and the Horizon Study. the Phase II was presentcd to the Board of County Commissioners September 29th oflast year, 01'2008. The board directed staff to take the Horizon Study and the CIGM back to the Planning Conunission for a recommendation from this body. December 09 of'08 -- or the 9th of December of last year. it was presented -- the CIGM and the Horizon Study was presented to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission provided a recommendation to the BCC to adopt the CIGM as an additional planning tool, specifically as an additional planning tool. and also to cnter into negotiations for the updating ofthat model. On the 1st -- on thc 13th of January of this year, of 1/13/09. the BCC adopted the C1GM as a supplemental planning tool. Therc wasn't a specilic statcd purpose other than wherevcr staff or advisory boards would see applicable, the CIGM would be -- eould be utilized as an additional planning tool. And as such, the CIGM has been utilized -- currently it's already -- one manifestation was utilized by the Collier MPO. Collier MPO utilized it to further refine thc long-range -- the land use planning within the long-range transportation plan, a necessary component. Whenevcr you're going to have a long-range vision for your transportation plan, you have to try to allocate and provide forthe best estimation for the type ofland use and the intensity associated with it. Additionally, the CIGM helped produce that map from the RLSA property owners of the 22 towns and villages that they had expected. Onee we ran our first iteration of what we can expect, we were provided a little bit morc information from those property owners. So the CIGM has been utilized in a couple different manifestations so far. But lct me point out the original design of the CIGM. The CIGM was never and is nevcr intended to be designed to evaluate a single parcel of land, a single proposal or a single GMP site-specific amendment. The utilization ofthe C1GM within this Growth Management Plan process was simply to test the population and the dwelling units within the market areas supplied by the individual petitions. So if a GMP amendment for a new eommercial center submitted a market study that said within three miles we expect "X" population in "X" year, the only utilization of the CIGM \Vas to test that population in that out year. Let me tell you a couple things -- wcll, a lot of things that you're going to be hearing about today that the CIGM does not try to attempt to do because it does not try to attempt to evaluate a site-specific application. The C1GM doesn't -- it doesn't quantily or it doesn't calculate access. It doesn't calculate road capacity and future transportation improvements. It doesn't calculate transportation costs, income levels, physical barriers, anticipated demographic and socioeconomic changes. base employment within trade areas, disposable income, environmental concerns, land assembly, parcelship: all the things that go into specific market area analysis, specific market studies. Those site-specific individual funetions, the CIGM does not do that. The CIGM basically spatially distributes population. And the CIGM was utilized by the staffto estimate or project the number of dwelling units within the stated market area to evaluate whether those projections were reasonable within those market studies. What thc CIGM does do is allows you to look not on a single site specific. but it tries to better estimate the total demand area based upon the population and the dwclling units that we can expect within a general area. And I think one of the things that you will see, the way that you've decided to hold this meeting today and hold 01T on your recommendations for each individual petition. becausc the CIGM is going to help allow or assist that more global or macro pcrspective as to total demand within the area of these jive requests and what's reasonable in Page 8 16/1 ..01:" "bctobeM~09 . terms of the population and the dwelling units we can expect. And then the determination of what is the most appropriate, iflany, location those site specific avenues, those site specific criteria, that is the job and that's the information that the applicants and the staff are going to provide to you as to why maybe one site is more situated or better able to serve a greater number of the populace within a general area. But I want to reiterate, the utilization of the CIGM for each individual petition was simply just to evaluate the dwelling units and population projections that makes up that ultimate question that goes into the market study and will go into the reconunendation of the Planning Commission. But I wanted to provide for that just general overview ofthe CIGM. And if there was any questions before the meeting and the site-specific questions would come, I'd be more than welcome to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I have-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any questions? Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, Mike, when you use the CIGM, given that it doesn't do all those other things, when you laid it against, so to speak, laid it against your own projections, how much of a variance was there? Because I noted that we used the 2005, then we used the 2007. We had the benefit of knowledge. So I'm just trying to get a feel for how effective a tool was it in your mind. MR. BOSI: I think it's an effective tool. And the longer that you look out, you have to remember, as the population projections that we had just in 2005 within a short period of time, those estimations proved -- in the short run proved rather inaccurate. We've had a litt]e bit of benefit of seeing the change within the marketplace to recalibrate, you know, some of those end projections or the timing ofthose end projections. But what the growth mode] allows you for, it allows you to understand -- and also our 2005 build-out study, it allows you to see where that end number is. Because that end number of what the Growth Management Plan ultimately allows for development, that's a static number. But when that number is going to be arrived I think is what the growth model helps better bring into focus. And as such, I think through this process and through the review process, it did find a benefit within the application for the individual commercial request. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. MR. COHEN: For the record, Randy Cohen. Mike, could you discuss briefly the differences in what the Bureau of Economic and Business Research Population projections were and also what the model showed. MR. BOS!: The long -- I'm a little taken aback, Randy. I'm not sure what-- MR. COHEN: I'm looking at for you to explain the deviation and the variant that existed between the two. MR. BOSI: .!be long-term BEBR populations that go out to about 2030 and the growth model, they're -- right now there's about a three, three and a half percent divergence between the two. So in terms of where it's at, in terms of its long-range projections, in terms of adjusting to the currents trends, it's somewhere within -- it's within that five percent acceptable standard of deviation in terms of where the CIGM is at compared to where the Bureau of Economic and Business Research is at as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on the CIGM? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, I've got one. In reviewing the data, and I have reviewed a lot of it over the last couple weeks, the CIGM is more ofa comprehensive countywide picture. The purpose of the neighborhood or commercial centers that are being proposed are applications that are more of a finer community-orientated application, And I tried to compare the requests that were before us today as to what Collier County has built out to date. And in the coastal area, urban area, we have commercial centers within feet of most housing developments, not within miles. The requests today are requesting centcrs be closer, and some I think the radius is two miles or something like that. In the traffic analysis zones, we are broken down in various portions of the county to analyze the county piece at a time; what is needed for this piece to be, I guess, self-sustaining or by itself, what is needed for another piece. Page 9 1 f?cJerl. :'09 - ,~ , .-1 " If you were to look at the urban area, they don't need -- and by the standards set apparently by the CIGM for the Golden Gate Estates area. you wouldn't need any more commercial in the urban area within the proximity, because they're already there. I mean, almost every comer's got commercial. So the argument is in the Estates we need -- there's been an argument that more is needed. But yet the CIGM, from the analysis I've seen from staff, says no. it's not. So bow does the balance between why it's needed in the urban area and why it isn't needed in the Estates area based on say a more finite package. like a l' AZ, which is, by the way, transportation analysis zone. How does that equate? How do you put that together? Because we're not looking at the broad county here, we're looking at a need for a specific community. MR. BOSI: And we didn't -- and when you see some of these maps that will be submitted within your application packages, and you see the standards that have been adopted as averages for the county, for instance, for each neighborhood center the 13,000, the 110 people. that's what on average the built environment, the existing statement, existing 23 existing neighborhood ccnters. and we found that the population that served that center was ] 3,1 ] O. And remember, that's within the urbanized area. The growth model is a static model /Tom that respect. is when we looked out in the future, we utilized that as our average. The site-specilic conditions that go into the Estates haven't been adjusted to reflect -- to reflect the individual differences. the population densities. the disparities. That's why each individual application is going to have to be -- can cstablish through the evidence that's submitted by their application or by their applicants as to why there is difTerences within the Estates, The CIGM didn't tl)' to determine the population densities' diflCrences between what has established our averages within the urbanized core and tl)' to correlate it towards what that average should be within the Estates, we just said -- we basically said as of now, the experience f(x neighborhood center is one center per 13, II O. But that's in the urbanized area. The conditions that are faced within the Estates, well, we understand that those could be -- there's a lot of differences. And that site specific information, that site-specific information as to whether that bears favorably in terms of the application or has negative consequence, that's f(lr the individual discussion per the individual site -- or the amendment application. The CIGM didn't try to do that. The CIGM basically said here's where -- the population that we expect within the Estates, here's the market area that's being described between each individual application. Just evaluates simply that population of dwelling units. That's the only application that the CIGM has been utilized within this amendment process. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Can I-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mr. Murray" COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Which brings me to --there's -- I don't want to get it out but I think you'll know what I'm talking about, there's a map and then there's a chart and it talks about CC and the regional and so forth. And then it speaks to areas, 237, 351, blah, blah, A lot of those have decimals on them and they are some large and some smaller. And how does one relate to that? How does that relate in the chart? If you can tell me. MR. B051: Well, the TA/s, why they have decimals is because as we have progressed as a county and as individual l' AZs have loaded more people, there's a threshold towards the number of activities that could happen within aT AZ for traffic modeling before another TAZ is required. And therefore, you'll see some l' AZs that have decimals, And the way -- the growth modcl works in a very generic, general tenn. It basically says -- and this is the only concept that staff really wants to get to the Planning Commission. because this is a limited. it's a strict limited use. It basically says here's our population centers, here's where your population centers are expected to be based upon the allowance for h'fowth within your Future Land Use Map and your future land use regulation. Upon these centers of gro\\1h we placed the commercial -- we're going to place the commercial in an area where that wonld provide the greatest market penetration. But we don't even know -- the CIGM doesn't know about roadway access, it doesn't know about physical barriers. So even though it may say this is the best area, thcre may be nine or 10 other specilic reasons why that area doesn't work and an area in closer proximity or maybe outside ol'where the CIGM had projected where growtb would Page 10 16 11 iBS " October 19, 2009 be. So when you see within the CIGM report that it estimated that a neighborhood center would be needed in 2015 in this l' AZ, it's a generality. That's all that it is. It says there's population within that area that seems would support a neighborhood center. But the site specific of where that's going, the model doesn't try to make that it's an authority upon that, it just says that we recognize that based upon the standards that the county has developed through its built environment that a potential new neighborhood center could be supported. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. And I thank you. And I do understand that. That's a good correlation. The problem is from the l' AZ to that table, that the decimal goes away. And so when one wants to look at where you're referring, you cannot be sure because sometimes there are four decimal places, which means sometimes fairly large tracts of land. And it's just a suggestion that in trying to relate to it, it becomes very difficult. And I appreciate what you told me, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any there any more questions on the CIGM before we go back to David? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michael, thank you. Dave? MR. WEEKS: Thank you. A few more comments on data and analysis. I want to back up to that. A couple of(hings we dealt with this time around, I guess I'll say on the negative side before I try to temper some of my comments. We were dealing with additions of property up until late in the process for some petitions and changes to market study boundaries also late in the process, sometimes multiple changes; that is, each re-submittal would have a different boundary, which means staff has to reevaluate that again and again. And that all plays into why sufficiency has taken so long. In my earlier comments that we had hearing dates set, ultimately what happened was sufficiency was still ongoing but we ran out of time. So we had to get to that point for some applications of saying here's your sufficiency letter saying that you're sufficient, but you're really not, it's just that we have to go to hearing. Make sure you address these "X" number of items when you make your final application submittal. That's not the way it should be. And ultimately I think the solution probably is that we should not schedule hearings until we've completed the sufficiency process, and possibly not until we have the staff reports written or near written to try to build it. Because I know one of the criticisms is, as you've already stated, and it's been going on for years, is we get the staff -- we the applicants get the staff report, that's when we find out what the issues are. Well, again, we tried to address that during sufficiency somewhat this time by looking at the subdistrict text they proposed and recommending edits and digging deeper into the market study. But still there are issues that they mayor may not be fully aware of until they get that staff report. And then understandably their response is well, we want time to respond to that. We need a continuance of the hearing and/or we want to submit more data and analysis or we want to change our language that we've proposed. And in fact that has happened this time for at least one petition. I also want to make it clear that I'm speaking in generalities. Petitions vary. Some were of better quality than others. I've painted with a very broad stroke here. Some are of much better quality than others. I also want to say that the applicants, just like staff, we're human, we make mistakes. So I've I think taken -- I've beaten them up a little bit, but at the same time I must acknowledge that staff makes mistakes. Staff, from their perspective, perhaps reasonably so, is being too picky in some instances. And whatever else they want to say, l'IIlet them have their turn. I also want to mention specifically in the defense of the applicants, the two particular issues they had to deal with because ofthe delay ofthe cycle. Number one was this House Bill 697. That didn't even get adopted until I think July 01'2008. So all of these petitions were submitted before that legislative change occurred. So they had to come back then after and some cases more than a year after their petition had been submitted (0 try to address this. So through no fault of their own they had an additional burden as far as their application submittal goes. Secondly, because of the delay, almost all of these petitions had to either completely redo or at least update Page II ,- ----.-.-..." ...-,...-,.........-.. .~- _ _ _ .-..--,.--".,.., ~ ,_... ....,---~_..'-,.~~.,"" ,-,. ,-.'""" '.---.,---_.,-.._--."",._-,.,.,.,'.., ~{,~~1.~ .' ,:.:J~~ October 19, 2009 j .",,' their traffic studies and their commercial demand analysis. Because of that time period that went by, well. population estimates, projections changed, the amount of commercial zoning and development on the ground changed, which are important components of that study. So again, through no fault of their o\\n, they were imposed with that burden of additional time and expense to make changes to their application. In that what I was just speaking of comes back to the County Attorney's Office review being late. Because we were in our department still dealing with sufiiciency; we did not have the applications in-house to provide to -- all of the applications in-house to provide to the attorney's office to commence their review. And likewise, we were not able to complete staff reports until the very last minute; that is, the vety last week of September, for even a case or two on October I st, the very day that you received your staff reports. So the review for most of these petitions by the Attorney's Office did not occur until after staff reports were written and delivered to vou. ~ And I would say again that the comments that came ITom that office are not major, but there are some minor comments that wi II need to be interjccted as we go through each individual petition for some tweaks to the language. And the last couple of items, Commissioners, the Growth Management Plan represents the vision of the community. Collectively it represents the community's desires. The community's desires can change. And under state law we must do and preparc an evaluation and appraisal report every seven years. That is, we must evaluate the Comprehensive Plan or Growth Management Plan every seven years. We've established this vision of what we \V3nt to see our community and how we want to see it developed and not developed. how we want certain areas protected, Is that vision being fulfilled through our Gro\\th Management Plan or do we need to amend it in some way to fulfill that vision, or has our vision changed'> Do wc want to go in a different direction? Either of which could result in the need then for subsequent amendments to the Growth Management Plan. I don't think the Growth Management Plan amendment process is easy, and I don't think it should be, because you are changing the vision for the community. It is a burden on the applicant and I think it should be the burden on the applicant to show why this vision should be changed l()r this particular piece of property. The Golden Gate Master Plan of course is more detailed than the countywide Future Land Use Element. Likewise. the Immokalee Master Plan is more detailed for that geographic area. And the reason is because it is fiJr a smaller geographic area. It is a master plan for a smaller portion ofthc county. The Golden Gate Master Plan was adopted in 1991 with the assistance of a county commission-appointed citizen committee that worked with staff. Thc primary objectives behind that -- or impetus bchind the creation of the Golden Gate Master Plan was a concern by the community of wanting to know where nonresidential uses were going to go within the Estates. Until the master plan was adopted. tbe Golden Gate Estates area was treated just like the urbanized area as far as conditional uses go~ yotlr churches, your child care centers, your nursing hC)Jnes, social-fraternal organizations, et cetera, David Lawrence eenters. Those types of uses were allowed anywhere, simply go through the conditional use process. So that meant any property within the Estates was eligible for a conditional use. It was also a coneem about where commercial developmcnt would occur within the Estates. There's other things, but those were the two main impetuses behind the master plan's creation. And once the master plan was adopted in 1991, boy did the rules change. Conditional uses were subject to very stringent locational eriteria, and they still are. Commercial opportunities are also very limited, both in location but also in the type of commercial. You can only have ncighborhood commercial within Golden Gate Estates. The subdistricts out there limit intensity to C-l through C-3 zoning districts, that's our commercial professional and general office zoning district, our convenience commercial and our intennediate commercial zoning districts. The sizes ofthe properties for the most part were limited to five acres. Think oftbe neighborhood centers. Typically, not always, but typically five acres per quadrant. Very stringent development standards that you do not have in the urban area, which further limits the actual square lootage you could develop on a piece of property. There is no provision in the Golden Gate Master Plan within the Estates designated area lor community scale commercial. None. Only allowanees for neighborhood commercial. Page 12 1 , 16 I 1 'a 5 October 19, 2009 '" And in the cycle there are two petitions that request a square footage and use intensity that staff would say is either community commercial or at the tipping point to transition from neighborhood or community scale commercial. So those two in particular are requesting something that is not contemplated presently in the master plan and I would say therefore not within the vision ofthe master plan. There are policies in the Golden Gate Master Plan that speak to maintaining the rural character, semi rural character of the Estates. There is even one policy that outright prohibits new conditional uses or new commercial zoning on one segment of the Estates, that being the Golden Gate Parkway corridor. It's a different vision altogether from the urbanized area, and we have these multiple requests to change that vision. And in addition to the individual site-specific analysis that staff has performed, the evaluation of the applications for appropriateness of change of the designation, for infrastructure impacts, for demonstrated need, we've also looked at something you mentioned early on, Mr. Chairman, that global approach. This is the first time we've had five -- excuse me, a total of six amendments to the Golden Gate Master Plan in one cycle. That's unheard of. [think the most we've had before might have been four back during the 2005 amendment cycle. And you might recall, during that 2005 cycle staff took a similar approach of time out, let's don't act on these petitions, but specifically that was for the east of 951 amendment petitions, because that East of 951 Horizon Study was underway, and we, I'll say mistakenly, for the staff that were involved in the plan amendments, mistakenly thought that there was going to be a little more specificity about land use in that study than there actually was. Then now we move to these amendments and staff, as you've noticed in your staff reports, saying for all of these petitions in the Estates both east and west of951, we're suggesting that the appropriate planning approach is not a private sector-initiated piecemeal approach but rather a comprehensive approach to reevaluate the Golden Gate Master Plan. Another restudy, if you will. There was a restudy done back during 200 I to 2003, and during that time period the end result was some changes, but not in the overall vision ofthe community. That is still limit commercial to neighborhood scale. And the locations were almost all the same. There were some changed within the Estates. And that maintaining of semi rural character was still the cxpressed vision and policy. My point is from the adoption in '91 through the restudy up to today, the vision ofthe master plan has not significantly changed. And the staff used the multiple petitions in aggregate as a major shift in that vision, and we think it ought to go back through a restudy process to let the citizenry through that process be able to voice their position. Ultimately it may end up the same as what we're seeing today. We don't know. I mean, through that restudy process there may still be a request f(lr some community scale commercial. There may be a request for more neighborhood centers. That vision may change out into the Estates. There may be a desire for larger commercial centers, higher intensity of commercial zoning, allow C-3, C-4. We think the community at large ought to be able to weigh into that process, not through this piecemeal approach. And that's why globally we -- in addition to any site specific issues, we've globally said we don't recommend approval of any of those six within Golden Gate Estates. And finally, Mr. Chairman, I don't think we want to take action today. I don't see any agent here for Petition CP-2008-3, which is not scheduled to be heard today, that's the petition at the southwest comer of the Golden Gate Parkway-Santa Barbara Boulevard intersection. We know, and Mr. Chainnan, I know you're aware that there's an issue with proper notice. The neighborhood information meeting that is required was not properly noticed, and therefore there must be another NIM meeting held. And for that reason that petition cannot be heard today or tomorrow. And their NIM hearing is actually scheduled for either October 29th or 28th, so I don't think it will be able to be heard on the 29th. So I don't want you to take any official action today, but I want you to know that there will be a request to continue that to a future date. And I believe that's going to be at your regularly scheduled November 19th Planning Commission hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just for the benefit ofthc applicant on that particular one, it's my understanding from them that the error was no fault oftheirs. Page 13 ~"",,--,~~--~~~-~~-,,"'~'_..'.~" ." ' '."""""'~""_'._~'~"_'_' ",_,'_'_..~._,_-..~,~~..~~..,~~ _ ._" _._ '._..._,. _,__,,_,'_"'__"___'H~_,_ , ,- -";~' ,<< F' " "1' ',-' ",' 'I I. .~ , ;,r",_, L' ,', .. -6c~bef I 9~09 4"'" 1 ~- ~', " Is that what you understand? MR. WEEKS: I don't know. I don't know who's to blame. But I just know that the applicant is responsible for providing notice, but at the same time I believe they obtained certain infonnation, address lists from the county, so I don't know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of David before we go into our regular hearings? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, I have one more, I'm sorry again. In your denial of all of these applications, you had some standard basic features of why you didn't feel it was appropriate, the CIGM being one. portions 01'-- and some of them House Bill 967 or 697, whenever it was we just talked about. And then you relied apparently on the possibility of a II of these being approved and how if that were the case certain specilic ones then were too mueh. And you also relied upon Big Cypress future town in some of your arguments. In a data and analysis that you do in regards to why something is considered to be maybe overbuilt, if it's built at this time, how do you justity using applications that are not approved and ones that are still in limbo? Like Big Cypress I know has been kind of slowed down in its process to move forward. So if we were to say that you're right, this is too much commercial because Big Cypress is going to have, what, a half a million, a million, whatever amount of square feet they're going to have, yet that one doesn't even come on-line for 10 years because we all know that the commericial in Ave Maria right now is having a hard time. How do you justify that~ MR. WEEKS: Admittedly you havc to temper any consideration of a project that's not yet approved. But I can tell you that the Orangetree I'UD is in lilr an amendment to increase its square footage by I think it's well over 100,000 square feet. I think it's somethiug like 150 or 60. It's a signillcant increase of what they're approved now. We know of it and it's something that we have to I'll say put on a balance. If you absolutely assume that's going to get approved, if we assume Big Cypress DRI gets approved and any of these pending applications, that could lead to one very different conclusion that if we take the opposite extreme and assume that none of them get approved because after all, they are what they are. they're pending. they're not approved. From the staff perspective. two points: One, I think we have to assume that some type of approval is going to occur, whether it's one, the other, both at a lesser scale. We think -- I mean, look at the approval history of the county commission. I don't want to get into politics. I'll just say, though. that the commission approves most of the requests that come before them. I would sccondly point out to you that most particularly ofthe biggest one, the Big Cypress, it is submitted in an et10rt to gain its approval using the Rural Land Stewardship Overlay provision in the Growth Management Plan. That is, the applicant believes that they comply, they're eligible for that development. I can't speak to specifically whether staff agrees with that or not. but they do certainly qualify filr some level of town because the RLSA overlay allows for a town. So whether Big Cypress gets approved or not, some other SRA, Stewardship Receiving Area, will eventually get approved. we think, and actually we hope within the Stewardship Receiving Area -- excuse me, within the RLSA, Rural Land Stewardship Area. Because ultimately that is the goal. I mean, the reason the county adopted that overlay ultimately is we wanted to see habitat protection in that vast area, and the trade-ot1' fClr that was to allow for these Stewardship Receiving Areas, these towns, villages and hamlets, such as Big Cypress or sueh as Ave Maria. So again, whether Big Cypress gets approved or not. we anticipate that some town or towns will get approved within the RLSA, and that's reasonable we believe to assume that they will be proximate to some portion of Golden Gate Estates. Therefore, some portion of the Estates would utilize some of that commercial within the RLSA. therefore lessening the nced for commercial within the Estates, Another thing, if I may. Another thing about the restudy. I was talking a while ago about whethcr the community wants to see community-scale commercial allowed, whether they want to see more locations for commercial. The other question will be even if they do want community-scale commercial to serve the Estates, do they want it in the Estates at all. or would they want it on the edge ofthe Estates, for example, along Immokalee Road or Page 14 1611:f85, October 19, 2009 along County Barn -- excuse me, Collier Boulevard. Or might they want it proximate to but outside of the Estates such as in the RLSA or the rural fringe mixed use district or the urbrnl area of Collier Boulevard, or within the rural settlement area, the Orangetree, Orange Blossom Ranch. We just think there's a lot of decisions; you know, fundamentally what they want to ,fe, where they want to see it, what intensity do they want to see it. And that goes back to why we think that the res~y is the best approach. I hope I answered your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You did. But I have just one comment. You're basing some of your denial then on future projects such as Big Cypress. Say some parts or all of these five petitions get approved today. On the flip side ofthat coin, well now you hold it against Big Cypress and tell them they can't have their commercial. I mean, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. And I'm just wondering, are we looking at no lessening of conunercial? Regardless of what's done here today, if this were to get approved, does that mean Big Cypress can go forward with all their conunercial? Because if that's the case, I'm wondering how you favor one segment over the other. MR. WEEKS: Right. It's certainly conceivable that staff recommendation for Big Cypress or any other development that proposes commercial, whether it be in the RLSA or elsewhere, if it's proximate to these petitions in the Estates, certainly it could affect our recommendation. Certainly. And all of these themselves, as you've pointed out a while ago, the four requesting all commercial east of 95 I are proximate to one another. As the maps show in the staff report analysis, you can see overlapping market studies. If you approve one, that most certainly has an impact on the others in that geographic area. And I'm not only speaking ofthe two big ones, the two large petitions, but evcn the smaller ones. When you have approved one, it has an impact on the other. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's with that knowledge that we made the decision to hcar all these first before we vote today so that we have that ability to sort them out as we go to vote and not have to decide on one in a specific order that may not be the best one for the Estates, if only onc is to be limited. Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: David, if all these are approved today, what is the time table going forward and how many more bites of the apple per se do we get to deny them down the road? MR. WEEKS: Well, ifthey all get approved for transmittal, then they'll come back for the adoption hearings. And if they all get approved at adoption, then their next step will be the rezone stage. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And what is the time period for that, approximately? MR. WEEKS: The adoption hearings are in a state of flux a little bit, but somewhere between July and October of next year. We think it will be July. Wc're actually going to the Board of County Commissioners to discuss the schedule in a week or so. And the effective date of the rnnendments is -- I believe it's something like 90 days or so after that we have to send them up to the state agency and they have to review. And I think first must find the amendments in compliance; secondly, get through a challenge or appeal period and no one file a challenge to finally become effective. So we're talking about effectively the end of2010. Then the rezone petition could be submitted after that. But I should also point out that there's been a change in state law that allows for concurrent submittal of rezone petitions with Comprehensive Plan amendments. So rather than waiting until let's say January of2011 for a rezone to be submitted, it could actually be submitted sometime during 20 10 as a companion to this Comprehensive Plan amendment here that's going through the process. Rewnings, ballpark take six to nine months to go through their process. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Thank you. MR. COHEN: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. COHEN: I wanted to add on something with respect to your question regarding Big Cypress. Because there's a big difference between the properties in the Rural I ,and Stewardship Area and those that you're considering today. The properties in the Rural Land Stewardship Area, they do have an overlay by board policy direction and Page 15 --,._.~~~~--_._--".-."-'.,..- 16 1 lct~8 ~ 2009 "" affirmation of the establishment of that overlay. Those properties allow a petitioner right now to come in today and to ask for a stewardship receiving area that would allow them to have for consideration a vcry large town or village with a commercial component that's self-sustaining. The properties that you're considering today, they don't have that over-reaching land use category that exists today. They can't even come in and ask. So there's a big differentiation between the properties that exist out in the RLSA than the properties that you're considering today. They can ask right now and they can go through a process. At this point in time right now they don't have the land use classifications in Golden Gate Estates that you're considering today that would even allow them to ask. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Before we move on, is there any other questions of staffbcfore we get into the actual hearings? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The way our process works and time trame is that at 10:00 we have -- approximately 10:00 we have a IS-minute break for the court reporter and Kady, who is trying to keep these cameras moving. And then we break for lunch somewhere betwccn II :30 and 12:00, we leave and then we come back in an hour after that. Then we have one break in mid-afternoon, Item #4A CP-2008-1. ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT ___mm_ _______ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So with that in mind, we'll move forward. And the first item up for today's agenda is Petition CP-2008-1. It's the Golden Gatc Area Master Plan, and it's the project on the comer of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevard. All those who -- now, we had a mass swearing in earlier. I havc secn people come in since that time. If you were not sworn in earlier and you intend to speak on this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly swom.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there disclosures on the part of Planning Commission? Why don't we start on the end with Ms. Homiak. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. I had a conversation with Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Arnold. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Woltley') COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No. sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr Murray~ COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti'? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I had a pbone conversation with Mr. Arnold and Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFIAT: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer~ COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron') COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Arnold, and I've received numerous e-mails from a citizen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I had a meeting with Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Arnold. I've also received many, many e-mails. I have forwarded all those on to staff. They may have copies of them with them here today. Therc were far too many for me to even consider printing. Late last night J received tw'O c-mails that have more bearing than some of the rest in the sense that I have to react to them, Page I 6 16 I 1 JctBe~, 20091 One is an II-page document from the First and Third committee. I didn't have the facilities at home on a Sunday night to run out to Kinko's or anywhere from the Estates, because there's no Kinko's out there, in which to go ahead and run off all the copies needed for today's meeting. In the e-mail I had received, I was told the applicant had this agreement and this -- and I was hoping that you had enough copies made so this Planning Conunission could have it. Because based on the agreement there are a lot of items on there that I find question with, and I would like to be able to use that to ask the questions. That's the first question I have. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I think Mr. Banks has nine copies, and I'm certainly willing to give my copy to __ I don't have the final, I only have a draft version, so I couldn't hand out that. We have nine copies, I believe, which would be enough for everybody. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we need one for the court report -- well, we only need eight, and one for the court reporter. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, in the meantime, if the commission office will allow, I'm sure Mr. Banks could get some copies made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I think it's important that the Planning Conunission and the court reporter have a copy. I know it's public record, it was sent -- the county has a copy of it, but it's on electronically. For the quantity of pages, I printed one and I marked them up, so mine have notes on them in which to discuss from. And another letter form of an e-mail I received, I was asked to distribute today, which I did do is one page. And it was from a resident, Ms. McDonald, who lives right near the project on the end of one of the streets. And I told her I would distribute it for her today. And I have a copy for the court reporter and I have a few extra copies, Richard, in case you or your client may want one at break or now or whenever you'd like. With that in mind, I think -- and I haven't received -- I've been on this Planning Commission for nine years and I have never received so many pieces of e-mail and correspondence as I have received on this issue. So the marketing campaign that you have pursued has been paying off, because a lot of people have responded, That's always good. And I certainly want to hear everybody's comment here today when we get into this as far as public comment goes. We'll start with the presentation by the petitioner and of course questions from the Planning Commission following that. Okay, Richard. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, good morning. For the record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf ofthe petitioner. With me today is Wayne Amold with Q. Grady Minor and Associates. They're both the planning and engineering firm on this particular Comp. Plan amendment. Mike Timmerman with Fishkind and Associates will be going through the market analysis we did. Ted Treesch is here to answer transportation questions. And then Jay Bishop is the broker for the project. He doesn't plan on speaking but he's been very involved in this process, and I wanted to make sure I introduced him. Before you today is a request to estahlish the Estates Shopping Center subdistrict on approximately 41 acres at the intersection of Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard. It was an accumulation of 16 parcels, so as tar as the ability to put together parcels to come up with an Estates __ with a shopping center that you would find in the urban area in the rural area is no easy task. And I will tell you that in order to do this, my client took the risk and he understood it was the risk, that he actually bought the properties, owns them outright and did it prior to going through the Comprehensive Plan amendment process. That was the only way he was going to be able to successfully put together enough property, because this parcel actually started the process in the 2006 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle. And we, if we're fortunate enough to get adoption, it will be 20 I 0 when adoption occurs. So it's not an easy task to put together a parcel of property for this type of use. There was a history to this parcel in 2006. I was not involved in the early formation of the Comp. Plan amendment petition, and neither was Wayne Arnold. We came on board late in that review cycle for 2006. We had made some changes to the petition, but there was clearly some bad feelings regarding the petition that was submitted in 2006, and they were exhibited, if you will, at our neighborhood infonnation meeting for the 2006 cycle petition. Page 17 "'..-<.- ----'~" 16 11 ~G 1 October 1'1, 2009 So recognizing that there were a lot of unanswered questions from not only the conununity but the more immediate residents, we sought to continue the petition to the 2007 cycle. We were told we could not continue to the 2007 cycle, that we had to actually resubmit as part of the 2008 cycle. So we did that. So we've paid two petition review fees for essentially the same square footage and transportation and other analysis. There have been significant text changes from the 2006 petition to what you have in front of you today. But essentially other than being updated because oftime. there was a lot of similar data and analysis regarding this particular petition. I heard David talk about community involvement in the amendment process and the desire to delay going forward and doing more of a community-wide review process that -- and I would like to point out that I think that the process that we went through was probably more community-oriented than any process most petitioners would go through. And I can't speak to other petitioners, because I don't know what they went through, but I do know what we went through. And certainly more focused on getting community involvement than any county review process that I've been involved with. And l'Il briefly go through the process that we went through for the public, as well as the Planning Commission, because we've given you a synopsis of what we've done to try to find out, one, does the community want a center and do they want it at this location, and do they want it this size. So wc started obviously with -- after Wayne and I got involved prior to the first NIM back in 2008 for the 2006 cycle we did some focus groups to Iind out were we on track. We also had informal meetings with nearby property owners. We then had the required county N 1M that I told vou didn't go so well. So we took a timc-out from that. , L We also mailed out a survey to people within our market arca to detennine -- there was over 5,000 people we sent a survey out to, and wc got about 1.600 surveys back. and it's in your back-up. So we a got a nice return regarding surveys. And we asked the very specilic question, do you want a 225,000 square foot 41-acre shopping center on this particular comer? And the response, 83 percent was yes. we do. And then we got into the specific uses as well. But it was a yes/no question to do you want it, and then whatever, where the specific uses go, So we did a survey in our markct area and we reported those results to the community. But again, the craving of detail in the Comprehcnsive Plan. And as I explained, the Comprehensive Plan was supposed to be more general, hut in this particular area. since this is new. they wanted specilies in the Comprehensive Plan amendment. So what we actually submittcd as we went through this process was a very detailed Comprehensive Plan amendment, almost to the level of detail that you would find in a PUD, And that was by design because as we were going through this process, staft' has always been of the opinion that you cannot concurrently process a PUD with a Comprehensive Plan amendment. So we made sure that our Compo Plan amendment, if you will, was detailed enough so the community would understand that when the PUD came through we couldn't get out of whack with what was in the Compo Plan amendment. Fortunately the legislature recently adopted an amendment to the rules that allows us to process a PUD amendment concurrently with -- I mean a PUD concurrently with a Comprehensive Plan amendment. And we have submitted a PUD rezone document to be processed concurrently. They can't be adopted at the same meetings, but to be proeessed concurrently with the Comprehensive Plan amendment. And in coming up with the PUD documents. we did that in conjunction with the First and Third group representatives. So the PUD documcnt had neighborhood input as well as the Comprehensive Plan amendment itself had neighborhood input. I got a little sidetracked there I()[ a second going through the involvement of the community. We also did 46 hour-and-a-half onc-on-one interviews with people. It was a fathom study where we did detailed analysis or interviews with peoplc who might usc these facilities, as to what should it look like, what should the uses be, what should it, you know, kind offeellike as a community. And they came back and said it needs to have a lot of open space, lot of grcen space and it just needs to be a cOlllmunity area where people can come, do Illorc than one thing, not just go to the grocery store but they can go to a Page 18 L -. 16 /1 85 ;t October 19, 2009 restaurant and have other services at this community-type facility. After we collected the fathom study information and had a chance to process all that, we started our own neighborhood information meetings. The informal, not the required one. We started close in with the residents closest to the project. And I will tell you that one was a little bit more heated than the ones as we moved out. Because naturally it affected people who were closest to the center. I think the consensus was from the majority of the people that yes, the center was needed but would you want it in your backyard was the feedback we kept receiving. And we said give us a chance to meet with you in a smaller scale and see if we can address your concerns regarding it being in your backyard. And this was mainly the First and 1l1ird group. And I will tell you that that started out as a pretty harsh relationship when the first petition went in, but as time went through and we had a chance to sit down and work through the issues, I think it became a good relationship and a good document before you today as well as the PUD that you will hopefully see some time in the future. We also met with the two civic associations out there to provide more information as to what we're doing. So we all told probably had at least 12 public meetings dealing with this particular petition. And as you've gotten in your backup infonnation, there has been -- I'll do a broader brush picture ofletters that you received, roughly 1,900 letters of support. I'm directionally challenged as we all know, so I think I got north up. Did I? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You may have north up, but it's upside down. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Whatever. If you could scan in. This is our market area, that we got roughly a little over 1,900, almost 2,000 letters of support within the market area for the study. That's in addition to the surveys, and I'm sure t11ere's duplication between the surveys and the letters. But in a closer in-look around the center itself, if David got it right the first time -- after I messed it up the first time. This is a closer in of the bigger map. And you could see within close proximity to the center there's a lot support, letters of support for the project. So we believe from a proposal-- we have a lot of community support for this proposal. We also believe that we've addressed the concerns of a majority of the people in close proximity to the center. There we will be some that are not happy with the center. I didn't get 100 percent approval rating. But we did work hard and we did get the support of the First and Third group for this particular project. So I don't -- certainly no petition that I've been involved in has done this level of community outreach to find out what the community wants regarding type and location of this type of center. So I don't think it would be appropriate to delay again so that we can re-study this issue to see what the community really wants. As we are requesting on this 41 acrcs, 225,000 square feet of community retail. And let me go back to the first map I put up there, because I think I left out an important fact. Within our 4 I-acre request, this parcel, which -- this is Wilson and that's First. Five acres ofthat roughly 10-acre parcel is already a neighborhood center, okay. So it's -- if you look at your staff analysis, they assumed a little over 6,000 square feet per acre on a neighborhood center. We're at 4.98 acres, I believe, of neighborhood center on that particular piece. So we're already, if you will, authorized under the Compo Plan for 30,000 square feet of retail type uses within our request. So the net difference really is an additional 195,000 square feet. Still a big project, but Ijust wanted to point out that 30,000 square feet is already in the review your staff did. And what I notice on the numbers, they counted the 30,000 square feet as available under their analysis of square footage to serve the need, yet they didn't give me credit for being allowed to keep my own 30,000 square feet. So they used that 30,000 square feet against me in the analysis. So they said the entire 225,000 square feet is not justified because of the, quote, need that's already satisfied by these other five-acre parcels. So I wanted to kind of point that out. We met with the neighbors, and what did they say? They said they wanted a 6'focery store. They wanted a grocery store anchor shopping center on this picce of property, and how are you going to guarantee us that you're going to deliver a grocery store? Because they'd heard that before. Those of you who have been around long enough. the center that already exists on the southeast quadrant of Page 19 ... '"._ .___..___.__ ._"._..__...."_"M.'m_"_, _.___....... _.___....._""'..___m_'..'~__~_.~'_ 16 /1 B519,2~ the same intersection started as a grocery store neighborhood center. At one time it was going to be a Publix or an Albertson's. Neither one of them were delivered on that five-acre parcel on the southwest quadrant. They wanted to know we were doing a real grocery store. So in our request we have a minimum size grocery store of27,000 square feet and it has to be the first use to receive a Certificate of Occupancy within our project. So as we've been going through this process, we have bet the entire project on delivering a real grocery store to the community. So we addressed that concern right up-front within the document itself. We also included, you know, bigger setbacks. We'vc included a conceptual master plan that Wayne will take you through to show you building separation to further address compatibility issues and the rural community character. We've met with your transportation staff and we have a phasing schedule forthis. We have 100,000 square feet in Phase I. And then the remainder of the project can be constructed when the intersection at Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevard is built to its ultimatc configuration, We're also providing additional right-of-way for the intersection at no cost to the county. I think that there's no question that a portion of the project is needed today, and I think the staff numbers, although listening to the earlier presentation, I think staff used general numbers on a specific application in my opinion to reach a conclusion of denial. Rut if you look at the staff numbers, there's a need today for the center, at least the first phase and then some. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard'> MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes. sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't want to interrupt your intensity, but is there a bettcr time to break than not? MR. YOV ANOVICII: If you can give me three more minutes, I'll be done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. By the way, at the break. if those copies are available, I'd like them passed out at the beginning of the break so the commission can review. Thank you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The fact that we're providing urban level services in the rural area doesn't change the character of the community. Golden Gate Estatcs still requircs a minimum lot size of two- and- a-quarter acres. It's how do we design the specific center to make sure it fits in within the community. And in fact there are two goals that deal with providing commercial to the residents of Golden Gate Estates. And we believe we're consistent with those goals. And Wayne will take you through that in a little bit greater detail. Because there's no question. the goal says they want urban level amenities and services, but they want it to fit in. And that's what \ve're -- \ve believe we do tit in. Our project, if you look at it, is about 5,500 squarc feet per acre when we develop it as an intensity. As you all know, when we come through in the urban area for projects that are looking at retail, we ask for 10,000 square feet per acre. We're almost halfofthat. And the county, their data and analysis that the county staff has provided says neighborhood centers will be developed at a little ovcr 6,000 square feet per acre. So we're even asking for less square footage than the average the county is assuming for neighborhood centers in Golden Gate Estates itself And we've done that, and we'll takc you through the site plan, for a very good reason, because we wanted to have additional setbacks, additional green space to get us away from our nearby residential neighbors to be compatible and fit in with the community, Currently there are no internal community shopping centers within Golden Gate Estates. I think we all know that. I think your staff report indicates that they probably didn't think somebody could put together 40 acres in Golden Gate Estates to allow for a community center. Because I don't think it was ever really discussed seriously through thc review what was the likelihood of someone being able to put together a parcel ofthis size to address the community-type shopping center needs. We believe that our process has been a very community-oriented public input process. The result of what you have in front of you is based upon those conversations that we've had. And with that, I'll stop here and when we come back I'll let Wayne jump in and start eXplaining the master plan that's in front of you and anything else you may have regarding that. And then we'll have Mike Timmennan follow him regarding the market study issues. Right on three minutes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ycah. that's odd f()r vou. but okav. . ~ , Page '0 .' , ~ ~ctof!t !5 2009 , Let's have a break, we'll come back at 10: I 8. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if everybody will please resume their seats. David, I don't know what you did, our mics are working again. Okay, Kady took care of it. - Thank you, Kady. Okay, for the people just tuning or who might be watching this, we took our break, we left off on the presentation by the applicant for the commercial center in Golden Gate Estates at the comer of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevard. And I believe, Wayne, you were going to continue where Richard had left off. MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. Good morning. I'm Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor. And I thought I would just follow up rrom where Rich left off and go through just a couple of the specifics of our application, and then take you through the conceptual plan we've developed, and then walk you through some of the other more details of the project that we have been discussing with our neighbors. One of the things I thought that I would mention more specifically, you all have the text that's proposed to be changed in rront of you that reflects a pretty significant change, but it also I think is pretty significantly different than some of the other subdistricts that you've seen in the past. We have a fairly specific list of permitted uses and we also have a very specific list of prohibited land uses there. And that was -- that was sort of the thrust of many of the discussions we had with our neighbors because they wanted more certainty, they didn't want an open-ended just you can have C-I through C-4 type uses. Tell us what you want. So we have a list of specific uses with SIC Code specificity. Again, we also have a shorter list of prohibited uses. But in that text you also find the reference to our grocery store. And rrom a land use perspective, we do believe t11at this is the appropriate location for a community-sized shopping center for Golden Gate Estates, especially one that is grocery anchored. And that, as Rich said, we've got the entire project on delivering a real grocery store for the community at this location. There's some other things that are in the text that you'll find, and there may be questions about that later. I'm not going to touch on every detail of it. But it's in an essence is a phasing schedule that we've offered. We have 100,000 square feet initially approved. Of that a grocery store with a minimum size of 27,000 square feet has to be the Iirst C.O. issued. We also have a secondary limitation that limits no other use other than a grocery store to anything over 30,000 square feet. And that was done so that the community could be assured that they weren't getting other large format retail stores. That happens to coincide with what we think some of the other smaller junior department stores are that will locate in a community-size shopping center. So you're not going to get another 100,000 square foot footprint user in a shopping center of this type. It's meant to be scaled appropriately for this community and for what the neighbors told us they would like to see at this location. The other thing that we have in there that's related to phasing talks about road improvement schedules. I can't remember if Rich mentioned it, but we are providing right-of-way for the intersection improvements at Wilson and Golden Gate at no cost to the county. And we are then phased based on that improvement schedule. The other thing that staff didn't really support the notion of including it in your document, but it's one that we felt was important because we had made this commitment to the neighbors was we called it a diagrammatic plan, but it's in essence a very conceptualized site plan that I'll put up on the visualizer. I think you all have that in your packet. But for the audience's benefit, this is a very conceptualized image of the project. The brown areas are meant to be those areas where development could be. You also see our lake area is identified, you see preserve and buffer areas. And this doesn't give you a lot of detail, but when you look at this in what will be the PUD master plan that has been submitted and that will be reviewed by staff and obviously the neighbors, they've also been provided a copy of that, it starts to speak with you how much ofthis area really isn't development area. As Rich indicated to you. this project is almost 41 acres in size but almost five acres of that is presently in right-of-way. Page 2 I ..,.__....,'__."-_"..~'~_.h_.'~'.'m'_._'._.._._ ....._...'_m.._.__~__._..___._...._ .-~ ".-. t_._ . '1 i./ , C"',,: " I'. ': ,., '.' ' ..;,:, UOAtobi!r 19, 2009W / ,,-~./ We also have part of the county's pump station that sits on the property, not a large piece of property, but yet It IS. And then when you factor in what we have for preserves, open space. water management, another large number, we have committed to a minimum 25-foot wide buffers, for instance, along our road frontages. Fairly big buffer. And I think what it starts to tell you is that probably about half of the site could be developed. So your overall development area will be largely half the site. Halfthe site would then be dedicated to open space buffers, an area that we've shown on there as a future package plant for water and wastewater on the site. Couple things that we've done in conjunction with the neighbors. and I'll start with just an example. One of the questions of course early on was how can you make a shopping center compatible with the neighboring community. And what we've prepared here and that we've shown with our neighbors is an example of what you can do on Third Street, for instance, our westernmost street frontage, How you can, through use of a berm and the appropriate landscape materials and heights, you can achieve a visual that is a soft image. I think it works with your goal for Golden Gate to keep the streets feeling rural, if you will. wooded. And you mentioned those things in your goals. Doesn't really talk to neighborhood centers. I think it was alluded to that there might be some prohibition on something larger than neighborhood centers, but I don't read your goal that way. It really talks about how appropriate commercial and limiting commercial 10 speak to the other charaeteristics you have in Golden Gate, which was allowing people to have large lots, keeping f(lwl and being able to have horses and have wooded lots and things like that. So I think between our open space and buffers. we're achieving that goal. Take the Third Street example a little further. And we've broken out the cross-sections. For instance, you can see -- and again we've shared these with the neighbors to show that -- how your view looks across this. And that's how. as Rich alluded to, we've established large setbacks from our property lines that are in our PUD document, because with our lake placement, our buffers and things of that nature you start to achieve these natural setbacks. And I think that the community obviously with their letter of support was happy with that. We did the same exercise for First. And First Street is the street that essentially separates the two larger development tracts that wc have on this project. And again, some ofthe neighbors told us they didn't want to drive on their current street and feel like they're driving through the middle of a shopping center. So what we presented to them were some images showing how with the appropriate buffer that's going to bc 25 feet wide again, with hedge, landscape materials. larger trees, et cetera, you end up with a feel that's not like you're driving in a shopping eenter, yon're going to feel like you're on a nice residential boulevard. We did the same exercise f(lr our northenl boundary on the eastern tract closest to Wilson. There's a residential bome on the lot immediately north of us, And what we've depicted there is a minimum 75-foot wide preservation area that leads to our lake area that's shown in the cross-section on the upper right hand of that page. And then we've depicted what those preserves look like. And I think that you start to get the idea that you can still retain the rural eharacter of the community by retaining the vegetation and dealing with our buffers appropriately, Couple of other things that occurred through the last several months of meeting with the neighbors, going to both the fOnllal NIM plus onr other community meetings and the outreach we had, it's in your packet. And I think Rich alluded to how many of those meetings there were. But we had a lot of dialogue and a lot of diversity I think in those meetings. And people told us that ir you're going to bring a shopping center near us, it needs to feel like it belongs here. We don't want it to look like it belongs in the middle of the urban area. Id doesn't need to be Mediterranean, it needs to be something that speaks more rural, if you will. It's hard to define what that is, but I think something that was more old Florida feeling or jnst something that's a littlc softer in terms or what that design element is, not something that's Mediterranean, for instance, is I think that we heard. Out of the focus groups, and Rich also discussed that, there was a group called Fathom that conducted those studies. And it was more of a -- you know. I call it more of a touchy-feely planning exercise because it was trying to talk to people about what images they felt coml()rtable dealing with. And I think out of that came a lot of green arcas, usable friendly spaces, et cetera, Pagc 22 '! .~ ,.0 So we just came up with some design elements that we were showing people along the way, and I think they received good conununity support. That for instance is just sort of an elevation view rrom Golden Gate Boulevard, for instance, that can show you how you have a low-scale shopping center. That view happens to be what we depict as our primary project entrance on Golden Gate. We took that a little further to start showing some of the building architectural elements as well, just sort of as you start to drive into the main part of this project what it could feel like. And you can see we've depicted on this image something like metal roofs, low buildings, bringing in some architectural elements with walkways and pavers. Because one of the things that we heard loud and clear was people will use the shopping center more as a community space, if you will. And that's why we thought it was important that you have a grocery store but you've also got to have the other elements that are going to make that a successful shopping center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, can you wait till he fmishes his presentation" COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah, I can, I was just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because we all have questions. And I would just as soon we wait and got done with his presentation fIrst, if that's okay. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's fIne. MR. ARNOLD: I just need a couple more minutes to walk through this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. MR. ARNOLD: So what they told us they would like to have is a place where it can be almost a community gathering spot, and it needed to fee] comfortable for them to do that. So of course these are prelim inary images and we're going to continue to develop this. And I think that with the supporting letter and the I I-page document you referred to, a lot of that is embodied in the PUD document that you all have not seen yet but has been submitted to the county. And we're going to try to bring these elements to the greatest extent we can into that, and as much detail as the county will allow us to provide we certainly will. I think one thing that is clear, we haven't tried to hide anything in this project, it's been really transparent. And I think that we've been out there working really hard. And part of this speaks to, I think, one, the demand for a f,'focery store. And you're going to hear Mike Timmerman rrom Fishkind and Associates talk more about supply and demand. But the community I think largely told us there's a demand. And I think the question was how do you make it fIt in the context of Golden Gate. And I think we have. I think you're starting to see the elements of what makes that fit. We're going to keep working on that. But I think you also have to realize you are at an intersection where you have three sectors ofthe intersection already developed or developing with commercial development. Obviously not ofthis size. But again, we're dealing with a 40-acre piece of property that at the end of the day when you start leasing out rights-of-way and other things, you're down to a site that's a lower yield than you would find anywhere in the urban area. And part of that's because we do have our own package plant providing utilities. And we have systems that go along with that that require larger open spaces for us to properly dispose of the waste involved. I think that the shopping center internal to the Estates makes good planning sense from a land planning perspective. You bring the use closer. I think that's -- certainly there's a lifestyle choice for a lot of people living in the Estates who said we don't mind driving eight miles or nine miles to go and get our groceries. There's a lot of other people who don't have the ability to go spend three dollars for a gallon of gas and spend 30 minutes oftime on the road to do that. And I think we've certainly delivered something that makes good land planning sense. The other thing that I think is important, and I'm not trying to misquote any ofthe transportation staff: but I think that they too understand that well-located commercial internal to the Estates has a positive transportation impact on the larger part of your road network because you're taking trips off those other segments of the road that don't absolutely need to be there. So I think this makes good land planning and transportation planning sense. With that, I think I'll close, Rich, unless you need me to address other things. And with that-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you could, whatever, address Mr. Wolfley's question that he was going to ask earlier. Page 23 -'"......~'........_-,.,. ..,.~, _._,_.."..~.,,,,,--',.~.... ''''- -._-', ,,--. "..._..~~----~,_.._._~..". , ll' BS I October 19, 2009 David? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That view, thc picture before this onc, the main entrance, that was First; is that correct? MR. ARNOLD: This one? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. MR. ARNOLD: That's at Golden Gate Boulevard. And that's between First and Third. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, okay, it splits the -- I missed that. Another thing, it's a real small thing, because you were talking about uses and prohibited uses. And this is just -- I don't know why it's a pet peeve of mine, but on other items also, and if this thing should go forward into the next process after this. we talk about for instance on Page 2 of 7. very beginning, we talk about right after correctional institutions, number 12 is Waste Management. Now, that happens to be the name of a company that currently serves us. And in the SIC manual it's called Solid Waste Management Services. And I noticed this in a couple of othcr things where we happen to usc the name the company that performs the serviccs. I'm just wondering ifit does go and it cnds up in a Growth Management Plan, if we could just use the correct term. MR. ARNOLD: Certainly. I think the intent is to go -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It's just a picky little thing, it just caught my cye. MR. ARNOLD: I think that to the extent we can modity the title to coincidc with exactly what it says under SIC Code 9511, it's not a problem f(lr us. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Thank vou. " CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. did you -- I don't know if you finished your presentation, but I'd like to get through your presentation ifyou'vc not. MR. ARNOLD: I'm finished. I was ready to yield the floor to Mr. Timmerman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's line -- oh. Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Out of curiosity, just strumming through all of the intended permitted uses, railroad leasing? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. COMMISSIONER MlJRRA Y: Does somebody know something about the railroads coming in, is that what it is? MR. ARNOLD: No, but I guess in response to the House Bill question on reducing greenhouse gases, that maybe we should have the ability to bring a rail system. But no. it's not our intent to have rail services. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Very strange. MR. ARNOLD: Just onc ofthose things that's in the SIC Codc. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffcr has questions too. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It's just a procedure question, Mark. What are we going to do, we're going to listen to the applicants and then we hold our questions until we run through Exhibit A of each of these or-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. what I was thinking, Brad, is I was going to let them finish their entire presentation on the hope that some of their presentation would answcr some of our questions. And then whcn the last one of their group finishes, we'll go into our questions of anyone of them and then go back to staff after that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my concern is that thc Exhibit A. we're going to walk through that page by page like we typically do? CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: I was intending to, bccause there's really two Exhibit A's. There's the onc presented in our packet. But if you look what stall's recommendations are, they'rc substantially different. So they will take a walk through. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But my question is I'll wait for all those exhibit questions until we talk through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. Okay, we'll do it that way. MR. TIMMERMAN: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Mike Timmerman, I'm with Fishkind and Associates. Wc did the commercial nceds analysis and supply and demand analysis. First thing I want to go ahead and say is that this is the first time that we'vc gone through and done a report Page 24 16/1 h octo;~r~, 2009' with CIGM. We spent a lot of time going through seminars, we spent time with staff just to kind of make sure that we're on the same page as far as how the data is analyzed, how the CIGM is to be utilized as a tool. So we spent a lot of time making sure that we were using the same boundaries and that we were using the same data. And that was very important for us to understand and as well as to work with staff so we have a good understanding. ,1 Our main thing we wanted to go through and focus on today is first of all look at the bounctJies that we -- the trade area that we looked at. This first map goes through and shows the existing centers. The one over to the west is the center of the comer of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard. The one in the north there is the one on the comer of Oil Well Road and Immokalee Road. And then the one to the east is the proposed Big Cypress center. So you can see from this map that there's an area that where our subject is, which is kind of in the middle. I'll give you this next map. There is no other center that currently serves this immediate area. The red boundary on that map -- sorry, they kind of overlap. The red boundary is the trade area that we selected, and that's a I O-mile -- I O-minute, excuse me, trade area surrounding the subject site. And then you'll see the areas that are located to the south and east, those areas of Golden Gate Estates that aren't served within the other trade areas. And we felt we could add that other -- those other areas of Golden Gate Estates to the I O-minute trade area around our subject property. The thing that's important to note is the fact that obviously our site is, as we talked about, 41 acres. 'n,e ability to go ahead and asscmble 41 acres to do a community center is -- provides for us a much more functional site and provides for better goods and services as it works throughout the Golden Gate Estates area. Once we've gone through and determined our trade area, we went through and sent this trade area boundary to the staff so that we were making sure we were utilizing the same trade area. The data that we utilized to detennine demand comes from a source that collects data from the census, as well as from BEBR. It also utilizes information on household eleetrical drops, maildrops, as well as electrical information. So that's how we determined our demand in our study. From the CIGM, they utilized the same boundary, and it intersects with the l' AZ zones, which is the data that they have in order to determine the demand. In the staffs report there was a difference, a small difference in the demand calculation that staff came up with versus the demand calculation that we came up with. Statistically it's not a significant difference. So we found that there was sufficient demand in the marketplace. Because there's nothing in this immediate arca, we know that there is immediate demand and that we know that as the area continues to l,'fOW that demand will also grow. The other thing that was important to note were the locations of the existing sites and the supply that's there. In the analysis we have to go through and identity the existing centers, as well as look at properties that are currently zoned and fall within the FLUE area for the trade area. Within the study area, we found that there were approximately 170,000 square feet of potential lands. A majority of those sites are on parcels that are five acres or less. So they don't offer the same type of functional utility. They don't offer the same size of a center to bc able to provide the same kind of goods and services that our subject property will allow to provide. The fact that our center provides for goods and services within the area allowing for grocery provides for that support of Golden Gate Estates and their demand as a whole. In our report we also identified that some of these smaller parcels ofland we felt didn't compete and couldn't compete over the time horizon of the site. We eliminated some of the smaller parcels that are located on the corner of Everglades Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard to account for the development that would occur over a 30-year time horizon. In conclusion, we found that the demand for our subject parcel over the next 30 years, there will be sufficient demand for that site because of its larger size and because of the goods and services that are allowed in that area. Any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions on the marketing at this time? (No response.) MR. TIMMERMAN: The other thing I wanted to talk about was the other Compo Plan amendment that is the Page 25 ..."'_........_____-'~_4'''""''._. ,..,~,~- // <C. , , Cr ,! s- 20 " I '''. , -, . , ~ -. '.~./ i: October 19,2009 larger 56-acre parcel that's located significantly north of this. The fact that those two parcels are large and provide the same types of uses would also -- they would complement each other because of their distance from one anothcr, they wouldn't directly compete with each other. And as those areas continue to grow, which we know that the area of Golden Gate Estates is going to continue to grow, those areas will complement cach other as far as their demand in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Until you said that I didn't have a question. but now you've raised one. That circle in the middle. the focus is on the dot in the middle that is only a convenience store with a gas station. MR. TIMMERMAN: Um-hum. correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a parcel around it, but that parcel's been difficult to develop, I believe, because of some of the, say, terms in which it would have to be developed. Nothing to do with the county. So you would -- theoretically the dominant commercial in that circle then would be moving it down to Randall. if Randall were to be approved. That means the circle moves down and it touches the proposal that you now have in front of you. MR. TIMMERMAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So how does the fact that you have a competitor moving into your area complement you and make you better, when in cssence it kind of hurts the argument that you've just tried to make with your . I " ClfC es. MR. TIMMERMAN: Wcll. we've also got the Golden Gate Estates area to the south, that area along Everglades Boulevard that runs south. So there's more of the demand's going to be coming from that area. Also, as you look at the trade areas, it's not going to be, obviously, within a concentric circle. There are going to be other areas to the north of that that are going to go ahead and go to that center at Orangetree. So as the market is fluid back and forth. thcy can complement each other yet not to -- there's going to be some overlap but not a major amount of overlap because ofthe fact that our area has got this southern portion of Golden Gate Estates, that propcrty on Randall is going to have areas to the north up where Immokalee Road bends. So there's going to be other interaction between those other parts oftbe market. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, 1 didn't put the circles there, you did, so-- MR. TIMMERMAN: NO.1 understand, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I I' you were to apply a circlc to the proposal that you have, and yet you argue you need the additional area out by Everglades Boulevard south to bc part oftbat area, what happens if that area is eliminated? What happens if you stay within a -- is that a two-mile circle" MR. TIMMERMAN: It's a I O-minute drive time, which is roughly a threc-mile-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What if you stay within the radius of that circle from your facility and you wipc out all that stuff to the east that you're relying upon, what does that do to your market area as far as viability goes" MR. TIMMERMAN: As far as the dcmand'! CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, as far as viability for the facilities you're trying to offer. MR. TIMMERMAN: It's not going to affect it. There's still going to be enough suflicient demand to go ahead and support both sites, The area where Orange Blossom is, that's a little bit higher dcnsity also. So there's going to be a little bit more demand in that area that's going to go to that northern center. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else have any questions? Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: On your area, if approved. wouldn't it get closer to being a regional center-- MR. TIMMERMAN: No, COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- because of the density, the intensity, rather? MR. TIMMERMAN: No. A regional centcr would be something like you find on the corner of Pine Ridge Road and Immokalee where you've got much larger anchor tenants. And it focuses more on a regional area. This really is designed to be focused for the community and the neighborhood and really demand IrDln a standpoint of the goods and services in an area. The filet that there's nothing else there rcally provides for its community character and its community lIses. I'agc 26 - 16/1 '75 , October 19, 2009 A regional center would be like a mall would be considered a regional type of center. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I appreciate that. But looking at the intended possible uses as the PUD permitted uses that they're being sought, bring down the structures to 2,000 squares or less, you could create effectively a fairly large mall. I'm thinking of Sanibel, there's a nice mall out there just before you go over the bridge, and it's not unlike visually what was portrayed here. I recognize that we have distinct, how should we say -- the word eludes me at the moment -- descriptions. But I'm looking at the impact of all of these types of stores. If they were there they would effectively draw from areas outside of your circle. That's my interpretation. How am I wrong? MR. TIMMERMAN: Well, I think a regional center is one that was going to draw -- typically a regional center is half a million square feet or larger. And it's going to run from 30 to 40-minute drive time. There are other alternatives for people to go to from a regional center. People are still going to go to the Coastland Mall if they're looking for something at that facility, or they're going to go to Immokalee -- or excuse me, Airport and Pine Ridge. This really is a designed as a community center because of its size and because of the uses that we're planning on the site. Again, a regional center is something that's going to be very large and it's going to draw from, you know, like I said, 30 minutes, which is going to take all the way in close to U.S. 41. So it's really not designed to be utilized as region -- it's really there to support the community needs on an ongoing basis. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: You've chosen to exclude three out of the four quadrants at Everglades and Golden Gate Boulevard. MR. TIMMERMAN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: Which is part of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan's vision as it currently stands today. Why? MR. TIMMERMAN: The reason we excluded them is because we felt that they were not going to be developed within the time horizon, the planning horizon of the study. They're further from support facilities, they're further from where the growth is occurring at this point in time. And we felt that within that time horizon it wasn't feasible that those properties were going to be built, considering our subject site is developed on the property. That's the reason why we excluded those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else') (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Staff has been critical on a couple of issues regarding the time frames. They're basically saying that the time frame for your needed square footage will be some time after the year 2030, Why does your documentation show differently? MR. TIMMERMAN: Well, because first of all there is a demand for space today. And if you take into consideration all those smaller neighborhood centers which we looked at are not going to typically -- we don't expect to be developed within this time horizon. We feel that this (sic) fact that this center is going to absorb a tremendous amount of that demand. And with that demand being at this center there's not going to be a market need to build neighborhood centers until there's sufficient demand to develop these neighborhood centers. Typically when you build a facility, look Immokalee Road for example, when the schools were developed along Immokalee Road, a tremendous amount of development occurred along Immokalee Road because ofthe fact schools were there. So there was a tremendous amount of development that occurred around that infrastructure. Once this center's put in, we would anticipatc there being more development occurring not significantly right around it but within Golden Gate Estates because this facility is there, which would go ahead and lenl,>then the time for there to be market demand for some of the smaller neighborhood centers, which is the reason why we went through and discounted three of the comers on Everglades Boulevard and Goldcn Gate Boulevard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would imagine if your facility got built, thc other neighborhood center that's further out, I think it's at Everglades and Goldcn Gate Boulevard, I can't imagine anybody thinking they're going to Page 27 ,.,.. "'._--,,---. --+,-_.- "..."..._, - '''''''''--'-,"---" -"., -_'~,,-~'-,_._-_._... : ", ~ Octdbet~, jOOQi -.' ~;- '- " , I '1 \,.,_1. ','- ':f , l~ 1lJ- build that because they'd be wiped out competition-wise from yours. But to your first statement in regards to the need for more commercial, everywhere I drive in this county there are empty commercial buildings. And how do you say we need more in a -- basically we're coming out of a recession, this area's market will take years to get back to wbere we are, if wc do get back to that stage, and we overbuilt commercial in '05 and '06 to accommodate a future we never may see for an awful long time. I can understand staffs position where 2030 may be the year that it comes back or close to that. Why do you fee] it's so different? MR. TIMMERMAN: Because we're looking at an area cast of Collier Boulevard where there is no other facilitv. . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's also an area in Collier County, one of the highest foreclosure rates, too, which means people have left. MR. TIMMERMAN: It's true. But it's also the most affordable land in Collier County. And as the market improves, that will be an area where people will go ahead and continue to move to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, if you want affordability you might want to look at Ave Maria or other places like that because you can buy a house on a lot in Ave Maria for half the price you can buy five acres in Golden Gate Estates. MR. TIMMERMAN: This is true, but not all the properties arc five acres, but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure that's the only -- affordability is going to be the key to Golden Gate Estates, so -- MR. TIMMERMAN: No, but I think the lifestyle out there is also something that people desire. And I think that between the affordability and the lifcstyle peoplc are going to go ahead and move to that area. We've seen it. And the fact that there's -- that's where the majority orthe vacant land is ,- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't feel that turning a neighborhood centers into community centers is changing the lifestyle? MR. TIMMERMAN: I meant the life -- your personal lifestyle from the standpoint of living out in Golden Gate Estates. I mean. that's a lifestyle that people want. The fact that we're putting a center here is helping to go ahead and reduce trips on the roads; there's other planning things that are occurring. The fact that we've overbuilt and not -- and overbuilt is not beeause we overplanned, it's because the market went through and decided hey, there's an opportunity here. In the urban area it's much different than we have in Golden Gate Estates. There's nothing in Golden Gate Estates. And I think that the fact that we're putting a f"cility here to support and provide goods and services for those people makes sense. We've also got to look at a time. a planning horizon, wc can't look at what's happening today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't disagree with you with the looking ahead. Do you live in the Estates? MR. TIMMERMAN: No. I do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The trip length and trip distance and all that, there's not a lot of employment in the Estates. How many jobs do you think this facility will create? MR. TIMMERMAN: I don't think we went through and did that kind of analysis. We looked basically at what the demand ofthe user would be. Obviously we're going to have 225,000 square feet so there is going to be jobs generated from this facility. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the trip length -- trip count or the roadway work that is going -- the roadway let's say lessening that's going to occur for the people that work in this facility will certainly be realized. But if you live in Golden Gate Estatcs and don't work at that comer, you're still going to drive out of the Estates to get to the place you work at, generally. And in doing so you're going to go by the same commercial establishments that I use every day. I do live in the Estates. I've been there 10 years. So that's just from my own personal experience. Does anybody else have any questions on the marketing analysis? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank vou. Mike. Page 28 - J 6 1 1 'tfS'9,20, MR. TIMMERMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, I guess the applicant, you've finished with at least this portion of your presentation? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So I'll turn to the Planning Conunission. We have three tabs. I'd like to hold off on Exhibit A to the last segment of our questions, because that's the actual language of the GMP amendment that's being proposed. We'll get into just general questions first and then we'll go into that second. For the portion that may be applicable to the applicant, there may not be a lot involving the applicant, we may have to wait till staff presentation's finished to understand Exhibit A. But we'll entertain them both as we go forward. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Mark, is staff going to make a presentation on this issue? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Absolutely, yes, sir. We're just now -- you can hold your questions till after staff makes their presentation, but we normally entertain questions at this stage from the applicant. So does anybody on the Planning Commission have questions based on the presentations so far? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let me ask-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. And it really relies on the -- we're showing now PUD type data, which you said neighbors and everybody wanted. Where does that leave us if we had an issue with it? For example, let's say you show an access drive up further north. You have two access drives on the street that divides it. And I don't want to get into that, but let's say in the future we had a problem with the northern one. Let's say we felt it was too close to the neighbors and we did want to eliminate it. If we accept that in this application now, would we be able to do that at the rezone stage, or will you sit there and say, hey, wait a minute, I'd love to take it out but look what you did in the GMP? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let me find the -- we were -- I believe we included a note that just showed them as conceptual and not guaranteed, and that that would be decided at the PUD. It does. It says access points shown are conceptual. The location and number of access points to the project will be established at the time -- would bc established at the time of PUD approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ycah, I was just going to make a comment, I'd like the audience, if you've got conununication between yourselves, you need to step out in the hall, because it has been distracting. So, from now on. Thank you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So Mr. Schiffer, we were trying to address that concern that, you know, should -- we didn't want, and transportation staff said, listen, you know, we don't want to guarantee you any ofthese access points right now, that needs to be decided at PUD. But again, the neighbors, you know, they -- in a craving for detail wanted to know kind of a worst ease scenano. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And my point isn't just about access. So-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- the point is when we go into the rezone, you would guarantee that you'd be comfortable that essentially the whole site plan is conceptual and the whole thing is up for discussion. MR. YOV ANOVICH: At the PUD stage, absolutely. Really what this document was intended to do is to really establish how we've separated our development areas from our residential by putting the preserves on here and the buffers on here and the lakes on here to show that we've separated ourselves from our residential neighbors. MR. SCHfFFER: And I know the edgc that that sword has. It's the other edge I'm worried about, so -- it is a double-edged sword. But if we're comfortable with that, I'm fine with it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's certainly something we ought to verity when we get to staffs presentation, to make sure the language is as clearly as you're indicating or as Richard's indicating. I have questions, but I think I'm going to wait until staff gets done because I'm not sure who they pertain to most. So let me go through staffs -- anybody else have any questions of the applicant at this time? (N 0 responsc.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we'll hear the staff report then. Page 29 'm''___ ,,__^_,_,._____._.,,_~",^._."_ ,'___ 6~t()ber'19,2~0~J 5 And Michele, you probably are getting a lot of e-mails from Corby. MS. MOSCA: I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, I'm sorry. That was my fault. I kept sending stuff to him thinking he was the one in charge of this one. It turned out it was you, so-- MS. MOSCA: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Michele Mosca with the county's Comprehensive Planning staff. Commissioners, staff generally reviewed the proposed amendment to detennine, one, if there is a need for additional commercial acreage within the defined market area, whether the proposed project furthers the goals of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, and if the requested change is appropriate. Staff determined that the existing zoned and designated neighborhood commercial supply of approximately 387,283 square feet exceeds the market area demand beyond year 2030. And this was done with the use of the Collier Interactive Growth Model. However, the existing neighborhood commercial acreage within the market area cannot accommodate the requested grocery-anchored center due to the size of the neighborhood centers and restrictive development standards, both designed to protect the semi-rural character ofthe Estates. It should be noted that the proposed request for the grocery-anchored center commits to an allocation of only 12 percent of its total square feet for the grocery usc. Staff also noted in the report that there is no community commercial acreage in the market area. However, the request to develop up to 225.000 square teet of community shopping center uses will not likely be supported in the market area until sometime after the year 2030, Again, based on the CIGM population of approximately 30,687. In regard to the furthcrance of the goals of the master plan and the appropriateness ofthe request, staff has determined that the request is not consistent with ccrtain goals. Specifically. Goal 3 and GoalS and the vision of the master plan. The development intensity and scale of the project is consistent with urban commercial centers, not neighborhood centers as designed by the area residents !()r the master plan. And the increased noise, traffic, lighting, et cetera expected at the site and surrounding area will most likely alter the rural character of the area. Finally, staff believes that the changes of this magnitude to the plan should be looked at comprehensively, not changed with an individual site-specific request. Based on these findings and tbe findings and conclusions in the stalf report beginning on Page 27. staff is recommending that this hearing body forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to not transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. And Mr. Chairman, before we go on, I wanted to enter into the record, I just received and it was last week, one lettcr of opposition and one in support. Do you want me to read them into the record or no? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's not necessary, But I think the count is what's relevant. Now, I sent Corby many, many e-mails. Did you bother counting those? MS. MOSCA: I did, and those actually were for another project, CP-2008-2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. MOSCA: But the one individual that I believe was related to this particular project, I did include in that number. Also, I received a packet, it was a supplemental packet that was provided by the applicant last Wednesday citing approximately 1,947 Ictters of support. which is approximately 13 percent of the residents within the market area. And that's based on the CIGM population of I 4.443, just for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. you said for the record letters of support. Do you mean feedback on a survey or letters of support? MS. MOSCA: No, this actually was a supplemental document. I believe that the applicant submitted it to the planning commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. MOSCA: Okay, Within there it cites that number. 1.947. This is the packet that I received last week. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. and In within there the 1.947 reference you believe are actual letters? That 1,947 people took the time to write thesc peoplc a letter') MS. MOSCA: I did receive a large box, a plastic bin. I haven't had time to go through to verify who's on the Page 30 ~ II' ..- - , J. 6 J 1 II October 19, 2009 8: t:: ,..; list. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And ifit is, did you notice if the letters were form letters or-- MS. MOSCA: They were form letters, the first packet that I pulled out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good marketing. Are there any questions of staff? Randy? MR. COHEN: I think it's probably incumbent on staff to discuss surveys, petitions, just in terms of generality, and then some specifics that have transpired in the county in the past. And maybe as well as how staff would perceive this applying to Golden Gate in its entirety. So I just wanted to run through some things in general on behalf of staff for the Planning Commission. Normally surveys, there's a sample, something statistically sound. They used to say a sample of30 was sound. Obviously with a larger area it's a larger number. Then we look at margin of error. You know, what is that margin of error? So that's something that you need to take into consideration. Then I think you run into intangibles. And Ijust wanted to run, you know, through a few of these. For example, how was the survey administered? Who administered the surveyor petition, you know? Was it administered by a party with a bias or was it administered by somebody that has no interest whatsoever in the survey? Was it prepared by an unaffiliated professional with professional acceptable background in sampling techniques? Very similar to something that we did with Naples Park when we hired Jim Trullinger to do that on behalf of the county . Are there any idiosyncrasies that may bring in to question the reliability of a survey sample? Always something that we need to take a look at. What was the general context ofthe survey itself? Were the survey participants selected at random? I wanted to kind of talk about that in terms of the context of what transpired in Naples Park, because it's something that you as a Planning Commission and the board as a county commission went through a very lengthy process. Originally we had a very small sample size that went to the Board of County Commissioners and said we want to do a plan for Naples Park. The board approved it, funded it, and it went forward. At that time it was -- the proponents were a very small homeowners association in Naples Park. There was also another homeowners association in Naples Park. So what ended up happening is Dover-Kohl went fiJrward and they prepared a community plan for Naples Park. And there were numerous charrettes that took place, input was taken from various members of the community, and from those charrettes a plan for Naples Park came about. Those charrettes had maybe six to eight people sitting at a table with a whole bunch of people there sitting around and gathering ideas. One of the things that happened was it wasn't a consensus, you know, of -- it was a consensus more at each table rather than individual ideas. And I guess the reason I wanted to talk about that is that what ended up coming out of that particular process was a proposed plan. And there was a group in that community that came forward in opposition to that proposed plan, more along the lines of not what was asked but what wasn't asked. And I think that's very important in the context of when we look at these six petitions today. All they basically ask was would you like enclosed drainage, would you like sidewalks, would you like wider roads, and a variety of other things. They neglected to answer one pivotal question: Do you want to pay for it, and if so, how do you want to pay for it? So how does this apply to Golden Gate as we move forward, okay? And I'm going to kind of keep this a little general in how I do this because I think what went forward was, and I looked at the box that Michele had, which was one particular sample letter, it asked one specific question, okay. It didn't ask a lot of other questions. And I think you need to take that into consideration. Earlier Mr. Weeks spoke about a global approach, about what all the residents in the Estates would want. It didn't ask the question do you prefer this location over that location, if given the choice of multiple locations for a community center. Didn't ask the question, you know, along the lines of well, would you like a grocery store, but yeab, what type, what size, what amenities. Page 3 I , All those things come into play and are very important. Would you prefer this location of a store, a grocery store, over another location of a grocery store? I don't know the answer to that. There's a tremendous amount of questions that are out there as somebody that's been involved in sampling and survey techniques over the years. And when you're asked one question and it seems to be a yes or no, sometimes it takes away from the totality of what you as a body ought to be considering. And I think because of the number of petitions that you have before you today in Golden Gate Estates with respect to commercial needs, it kind of shows you the totality of what's actually being requested and asked for out there and what might those locations bc. you know. in the future. I think the global approach that staff has recommended ties into the survey concept itself, not based on what was asked by this particular petitioner, but by what wasn't asked. And I think that's very important and you need to consider that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Randy. Any questions of Michele at this point" This is the staff report. So go ahead, Mr. Schiffer and then Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Michele, in terms of transportation, if this were developed would that increase or decrease the efficiency of transportation in that area" MS. MOSCA: I'll defer to transportation. But my understanding is that it will in fact reduce some trip lengths. But I'll defer to Nick if you nced to answer that furthcr. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning. For the record, Nick Casalanguida, Transportation. The blunt answer is yes, vehicle miles traveled would get reduced with a shopping center of this size in this location. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Niek. does that mean vou don't need to extend Green corridor -- the Green ~ Boulevard corridor and take out more homcs in Golden Gate Estates and you'll give us back Vanderbilt Beach extension so those homes won't be taken out? MR. CASALANGUIDA: If we do responsible land planning, there will be a reduction for needs of roads. I mean, that's what happens if-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I might hold you to that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okav. that's fine. ,. COMMISSIONER CARON: And please note for the record he didn't say that he would give those back to you, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to intcrpret it differently. MR, CASALANGUIDA: Very astute. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before you leave, Nick, go ahead Mr. Wolfley. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah. Nick. my biggest concern in looking at this project was Wilson north of Golden Gate Boulevard. two lane, and Golden Gate Boulevard east of Wilson. It mean, I have taken to not using when I go out to Jatrophaland (sic) out into the -- to look at some trees that were growing, I never take Naples Immokalee Road anymore. I'm always going up Golden Gate Boulevard, DeSoto, and, you know, past Ave Maria. And invariably, if it's in the morning -- well, if it's in the evening the traffic isjust unbearable. And then I looked through this AUIR and I didn't see anything. any improvements to those segments that I was concerned with, Wilson north and Goldcn Gate Boulevard cast. How -- I mean, this is -- I didn't know whether to ask the applicant or now that you're up here what-- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. That's one ofthe reasons why staff wanted to condition some ofthe improvements or expectations from the center to wait until that improvement was done. Your primary nodcs to get transportation out ofthere east and west is Immokalee Road and Golden Gate Boulevard. And one of the biggest restrictions is the intersection of Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate. We do not have Golden Gate Boulevard as an improvcmcnt in our five-year work program. Right now it's probably not even -- CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Slow down a little bit. Nick, she's got to type as fast as you talk. MR. CASALANGUII)A: Very good. Page 32 16/1 1 BSr 19, 21 .-. ... '. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: In our seven-year program we're in right now, But we're only working in a five-year phase -- but if] was to look at funding scenario, it's quite a ways away. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It is, yeah. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You know, I'd be amiss (sic) if] didn't touch on a couple of things that were brought up today. None of the applications that are coming forward today are consistent with the long-range transportation plan, financially feasible plan. None of them. You have a divergence between your needs plan and your feasible plan. It's always been that way and probably always will be that way. But what we look at when an application comes forward is do they offer us something that reduces that need in the future, whether it's they're helping to defray the cost of right-of-way or water management or if they're reducing a vehicle miles traveled initiative in that future consideration. We did a recent study last year for the impact fee update. We did a trip length study. The board chose not to include it in because there were some disturbing numbers that came out of that. We sampled Golden Gate Estates residents, and they drive almost twice as far as your urban area residents to get to services and employment. Twice at far. And that would mean that their impact fee would be greatly reduced. We don't have a split impact fee. We look at impact fee as countywide. But one of the factors that goes in is vehicle miles traveled, how far do people drive. So when you look at a center like this -- and the map that he put up I thought was interesting. When you submit a traffic impact statement, you get to take credit for what's called internal capture and pass-by. Now, when they submit their study they're only looking at their center. But if you do a traffic analysis of the area and you say I'm going to look at the broader area and do an internal capture and pass-by analysis, that's something, if] was working for them, I would have done. Because what it will show is those trips start to match up. Residents that live within the area start to work at these centers, they start to use the shopping center and the CVSs and the banks and they don't drive farther west. And if you look at what they have shown, there's on Iy two roads really in and out as I had mentioned earlier, Immokalee Road and Golden Gate Boulevard, This center services most of the roads -- most ofthe population to the east and to the south. So you can see someone who lives out there who if they were going to do shopping, was going go to services would not travel as far. We would expect something like this would reduce the vehicle miles traveled in the future. So from a transportation perspective we support something like this. Now from a total staff perspective we defer to, obviously, Compo Planning because they're looking at a more comprehensive approach. But from our point of view, things like this make sense. CHAJRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of Nick? Go ahead, Mr. Kolflat. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: No, not Nick, staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of Nick? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, I have a couple, don't leave. What is the current level of service on Golden Gate Boulevard east of Wilson? MR. CASALANGUIDA: F. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When do you think that's going to improve? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I can't answer definitively. It's not in our five-year plan. Right now it's been trending down, Every year we've had counts go down. If they continue to go down as they've done, next year it will not be failing. It's been dropping about 10 perccnt a year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you think this facility will make them go down or make them go up? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I think the numbers would go up. But you've got to keep in mind what it does to other facil ities as well too, so there's a balancing act. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What other facilities? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Collier Boulevard south of Golden Gate Boulevard. That's a two-lane road that's Page 33 .- -._._,_._~,_."~..~..,.,. el!, . ..,-", "G' l~ t:i~' .' "~ .Joc\~~e} 1 9~~009 i " ":.' coming up as a deficiency in 2011. It reduces trips in that direction. So it rebalances those trips. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, on the other hand, people that are heading to Collier Boulevard, for the most part if you live in Golden Gate Estates you're going to work. And you've still got to go back and forth even if you might on a weekend run into a Publix at this location. But don't you feel that this location is going to now attract more road -- road activity on Golden Gate Boulevard than before, since it now is a large enough size to be an attractor instead of just a convenience? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It will in certain directions. But let's quantity level of service F, especially in the Estates area. Your Golden Gate Boulevard is primarily a commuter road. So when does it fail? Maybe for 45 minutes in the morning and maybe for 45 minutes in the evening. Your urhan area roads cxperience longer periods of congestion because thev're not commuter facilities. . So when we say Golden Gate Boulevard is level of service F. it's level of service F for maybe 45 minutes in the evening hour. The rest of the time it runs probably a level of service B. So primarily during the day and most of the time that road runs great. It's just when people arc heading home you experience that one hour of congestion. It's a commuter facility. So that's one of the reasons we chose to put that out in the work program, because we have priorities in the urban area that experience congestion for longer periods of time. Not to mention we're not through the design and pennitting phase as well, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the tral1ie analysis that was supplied, we had talked about this years ago, that the TIS is done based on usually the least intense use. And that's really unfortunate because when a facility builds out the uses are much more intense and we can count on them. In this one they did the same idea, they used thc shopping center LUI 820, I believe it was. And apparently your department allowed that. When you know that some of the intense uses on there, including convenience gas station and other things are going to be much more intensc than the shopping center category catch-all of 820. How do you justity that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Easy, because we always have this debate. When you use those other categories, you're not taking into account that trip reduction you get from internal captures. Shopping center does that. It's all encompassing. And we've run those many times. You're within five percent of the number, high or low, depending on what you put in there. So when you say highest and best use, you plug in those categories and you run your internal capture and pass-by, then you run shopping center, which has internal capturc already plugged in. They're not that far off. The level of accuracy in the TIS I would beg to argue is at best five to 10 perccnt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Nick, thank you. Anybody else have any -- Ms. Caron~ COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, when wc are talking about putting this shopping center at this location on what you're telling us in drive times are a failing situation, if I work all day am I not going to be making -- and that leaves me my evening, that leaves me on the way home to go shop at this shopping center, amI not making your road even worse at the time it is already failing? MR. CASALANGUlDA: You're using the analysis of you working all day. There's many residents that shop at different times. It's not just a shopping center. it's also is general offiee in there and other uses. So through the course of the day they'll get a lot of interaction that you won't see back at the urban area. So yes, the answer is you will see more congestion in that p.m. peak hour, but you'll see less of that traffic being to the west, the ones that arc not eoming back on that commuter road. so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions on the tTansportation matter? Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't mean to be naughty, but would you have the same conclusions for each ofthcsc that are being prescnted today') MR. CASALANGUlDA: No, not necessarily. Because when you look at the areas that they're presented, it wouldn't -- you know, some of these don't make sense to add to an already existing area. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: This seems to bc removed from thc other commercial centers. As shown on that map, thosc circle maps, hc's showing a drive time of about 10 minutes and he's using a general circlc. But you havc Page 34 16/185 '<<f October 19, 2009 primarily two commuter roads, Golden Gate Boulevard and IrnmokaJee Road. This would service that Golden Gate Boulevard and south area, where the other ones may service the north. But if you've got additional applications side by side already approved commercial in those areas, then it probably wouldn't make any sense. And that's more for a Compo Planning land use perspective than transportation. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Appreciate your comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else on transportation? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Nick, thank you. Michele, see if we finish up with any questions from you at this point. Anybody else? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yes, I have a question for staff. Have you heard any testimony today in which you would alter your recommendation of denial? MR. WEEKS: No. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA 1': Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She's looking at you, David. Is that it, Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA 1': Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Michele, I have a question on Page 28 of the staff report. The very top paragraph says the CIGM identifies a deficit in community commercial serving land uses in the Estates and the rural settlement area beginning in the year 201 0 in the amount of63,817 and increasing to 412,216 by build-out. So that means next year you've acknowledged there's going to be a deficit in community conunercial, which is what we're talking about here today, of at least say about 64,000 square feet. And it's going to increase continually from there. Why then is this not -- let's forget the other matters, but I understand the visioning -- I probably understand the visioning concept better than staff does. Why then do you feel this is not appropriate for square footage? MS. MOSCA: Well, there are other elements out there. David had mentioned earlier about the Orangetree development, they were just approved a binding letter by the state for an additional 172,000 square feet. So that's one component. There might be -- those lots, those tracts within Orangetree however are fragmented. There is in fact one tract at the comer of Oil Well and Immokalee Road next to E's that may be a potential community commercial site. Just don't know yet. Also, you have the RLSA. And I know you touched on this at the beginning with the Big Cypress. Although not approved, it's important to bring that up because the Big Cypress will support a large percentage of the Estates on the eastern side. And then you have your other regulations in place, the rural villages, for example. Or the community may decide to expand the neighborhood center concept. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if this property were developed to a grocery store, and I'm not saying it should be, I'm just saying let's take a theory, that property would be immediately successful, I have no doubt about that. I think everybody in the Estates would use that rather than having to drive outside the Estates. Now maybe that isn't the intent in which the community originally wanted, but that would be the practical result of that center. Knowing that, I mean, did staff look at that practical aspect versus insisting there was vacant commercial land, knowing that there might be hardships with that vacant commercial land as to why it's not producing today as commercial? I mean, I have heard various circumstances why some of the properties you just mentioned can't be developed. Has nothing to do with the county rules and regulations, it just has to do with people and personalities and demands. So it doesn't seem like we're looking at first come first serve in regards to how we develop out based on say desire or need, it looks like we're setting the market up to force someone to be successful in spite of themselves because we're holding off other areas. What do you think about that? Page 35 ".,._-_..,.,~--,-" ,- , _u_. ,_~o",~.,._ _"_'"_,~'_' ,_ ~ , '.J -1 , ,I , , 85 " i;':. '. n October 19,2009 MS. MOSCA: Well, I think that especially in this particular area, if you're going to have a successful grocer, you're going to have to have the rooftops to support it. Now, does that mean the entire population, the rooftops within Golden Gate Estates? Probably not. Because you have people north of Immokalee Road that are going to continue to shop at Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard. You're going to have peoplc on Golden Gate Boulevard that live one, two, three miles in maybe that are going to continue to shop on Collier Boulevard. So this may not be the most suitable location. Or maybe it turns out that it is. We just don't know. I mean, there are other regulations in place that would allow for this type of development. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When we had the community retirement facility before us not too long ago up on Orange Blossom Way, I think it was Serreno Lakes or something like that they showed us something that was done very well. a very detailed demographic showing how the people in that area would support it in their argument why they located it there. Because our argument was you could have found a different place. And they tried to sbow us why not. Corporations of that magnitude do those kind of detailed demographics to show that not only are the households there but the income is in those households to support whatever they're trying to do. Have you seen one from Publix to support a location, this location? Has anybody looked at one or presented one, has the applicant bothered to offer one') MS. MOSCA: Not that I'm aware of. I know at the NIM they informed the community that they did not have a commitment. Now. you're looking at a potential 27,000 square foot anchored grocery store. Again, 12 percent of the total commercial square feet that they're proposing. If you look at the Publix located at Pine Ridge and Collier Boulevard, I think it's Brooks Village. they're roughly at 46.000 square feet, 40 percent of the shopping center. And there's other examples as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. I'm kind of heading in that direction. I'm trying to understand. Because the community that is supporting this is putting most of its support or it seems to put a large chunk of its support in the fact there's going to be a Publix grocery store with a minimum square footage of 20,000 square feet. But -- or I think it's a grocery store, I shouldn't say Publix. But if I was Publix or SweetBay. which probably arc the only two that may look at this, you're going to do a very careful corporate demographics of the area in order to put something there. And I was just wondering if an)1hing has been done, and I'd sure like to see it if the applicant were to offer that for discussion. Richard? MS. MOSCA: I'll have to defer it, right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Mr. Strain, we have had contact trom several major grocers. They have not done the level of -- they have not entered into a contract with us for the reason that we're not a reallocation for them right now. We're in the Comprehensive Plan stage. They have told us they will be ready to sit down and talk to us about a contract when we're in a position to deliver zoning. And so we're confident, so confident that we'll be able to deliver the grocery store that we bet the entire project on the grocery store and being able to deliver a major grocer. We picked the 27,000 square feet number because that was the minimum size prototype that grocery stores have basically right now, full service grocery stores. I don't know, they may do a bigger store, but they certainly will not do a smaller than their smallest prototype. That's where those numbers came trom to assure the community that we were going to deliver a real grocery store and not call a little 3,000 square foot area that we sold food in a grocery store. Because they were -- the community was concerned that, you know, there is -- if that's the definition of grocery store, then you've got one in the Wilson Center. there's a very small -- what is it -- it's a very small little area that sells food. The community said you're not telling me that's what you're going to deliver. No, that's not what we're going to deliver. So tbe answer to your question is I don't have a study from a major grocer that I could turn in because they haven't provided that to us yet because they've said they're not ready until we can deliver zoning. We have Mr. Timmennan who has done those studies on behalf of grocery stores who can basically say that there are enough rooftops to support tbe use that we want to put on this site. Page 36 16 J 1 Bt2r 19,19 So -- and the fact that we've bet the entire project on being able to deliver that use I think answers the question that yes, there's a demand today for that type of use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, Richard, since the community is kind oflike banking on that use, I would hate to see something like this happen and then not that happen. And that's why I'm exploring this, because I remember the detail that your client went through on Orange Blossom to show how supportive they felt that that location was for what they were trying to do there, realizing the same thing could have been done here. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And Mr. Strain, to give you the level of comfort that I think the community wants, I've got a client who's spent about $12 million putting this property together ahead of time. He has every incentive to deliver on getting that grocery store there as the first C.O. So between that and what we've been told by !,'Tocers in our preliminary discussions, we're confident that we're going to deliver that grocery store, or else we never would have made that commitment in that Comprehensive Plan document. We know we're going to do that. I can't tell you who it's going to be, but I do know we'll be able to deliver it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I want you to know that once the die is cast, it's very hard to undo it. And when you put that language in a Growth Management Plan amendment about a grocery store and for some reason it doesn't pan out, your client wants to sell that property, it's just a matter then of coming before the boards again, whether it be these people sitting here today or a new group, which it probably would be, to argue that well, I've already got approval to do commercial here, I've got to change this one line because it really doesn't work we didn't know that at the time. And you would end up getting the political sympathy to make that happen. I just want to make sure where we're going on this thing. MR. YOV ANOVICI I: I don't think I'll get the political sympathy-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, not from us maybe, but you might from others. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think we will, because we've promised it. We've set it up front. That's the condition that we're willing to live with to go forward. And if we can't -- ifwe're not willing to live with that, we shouldn't be making that commitment. And also knowing tbat a Comprehensive Plan amendment takes -- depending on if we ever get back into the regular cycle -- if we get back to the regular cycle it's every bit of 14 months to go through that process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mike, if you have -- have you done any of the studies that I'm talking about for this site? MR. TIMMERMAN: Yes, I have. And Ijust wanted to note in the addendum of this report is a breakdown that shows the amount of square footage by each of the different expenditures, by the different types of uses. And it goes through and estimates the amount of square footage. But yes, we have done those types of analysis. But it typically comes from the grocer. They have -- that's kind of their proprietary -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I was asking. Have you done one, though -- do you do any for Publix or SweetBay or larger grocery store chains like that? MR. TIMMERMAN: We have, but it's been directed by the grocer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's what I was getting at. Thank you, sir. MR. TIMMERMAN: Like I said, there is the detail from the analysis in our -- back of our report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any -- Ms. Caron~ COMMISSIONER CARON: Michele, back to this Page 28 where we started the discussion. You talk about the commercial supply in pending Big Cypress. We've seen a lot of maps with the circles on them. Where would the Big Cypress circle fall? MS. MOSCA: Actually -- thanks David. There's also a map in the staff report on Page 13. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you, Ijust wanted to point that out to everybody as to where -- thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, any other questions of staff before we start looking at the GMP language for comments on that? (No response.) Page 37 " __.,..._~_~___."~_"_._~_.~,,~.__",.,,,,' ^.___.w.__...' -- , " ."" """,... J ..:$>" ''''"., '-.\ .. ..,"'.,. . ;\ , , -'" ,~ " ,..c'.. " October 19.2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Brad, that was the point that you were asking about earlier. Before we get into it, there are two sections ofGMP language. There's one that's produced I believe by the applicant and there's one produced by staff. Has it been agreed to between the applicant and staff which is the more appropriate language to move forward with? MS. MOSCA: We haven't had a conversation. but we would say staff's. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I know you would. That's why we've got to start talking about both of it. And I guess we could start talking using staff's, because we can read then both what you propose versus what was there and -- Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I reviewed the stan's because it had everything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You what? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I reviewed the staff version. because obviously they crossed out what they didn't like. You could view everything with that version. That's the only version you can-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that starts on Page 28 of our packet. if I'm not mistaken. Is that the same page you're starting from? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Same one. MS. MOSCA: It's 28. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that. let's move through tbe staff report and try to understand why staff had recommended the changes and where the applicant stands in regards to those. And then when we finish with that. finally we'll have public input. And we'll need all the input we can get to get us to a point where we can conclude this study. And by the way. we will be taking a break for luneh. We're going to try it around II :45. So we'll certainly eome back and finish right after that. On Page 28 -- normally we take this a page at a time Irom thc Planning Commission. There are some changes on Page 28 recommended by staff. Does the applicant have any objcction to those') You need the speaker. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I guess we eould live with those. I don't know why that language needs to be deleted, but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's put it this way: If stan' has -- it doesn't hurt. I'm not sure it hinders, but we need to know ifthere's any objection before we weigh in on it. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think -- this page doesn't the intent of what we're trying-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any question from the Planning Commission on the first page? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Just a quick question. And Rich. why did you decide to carve out and create a new district versus amending either -- through the description of this location the old district? MR. YOV ANOVICH: So you meanjust expand the neighborhood center to be 40 acres on this comer? Because I think that the residents around us wanted the level of specificity that staff is recommending come out. And that just by simply going to a 4 I-acre neighborhood center we didn't think was going to provide the community with what they wanted. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. that's fine. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's basieally what it was. CHAfRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron~ COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah. Michele, why did you take out the word basic? MS. MOSCA: They're actually -- with thcir list of uses. they're going beyond your basic goods and services. They're going up to C-4. And that's another difTcrence between the neighborhood, which allows C-I through C-3, versus the proposal. Also within their listed uses, they also had some C-5 mixcd in there. MR, YOV ANOVICH: What was tha(' MS. MOSCA: The auto --the auto related. Some of those are C-5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Richard. you're shaking your head no, you disagree with the staft's interpretation of C- 5 use~ Page 38 16 I' tctOb~ ~009 i . MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, I'm not aware of any C-5 uses we've asked for, Commissioner Strain. I'm certainly willing to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we get it ironed out. Michele, which one is the C-5 use? Or which number, which group are C-5 use? MS. MOSCA: I don't have my print in front of me, but I believe under the -- I want to say under the auto repair and services. I would have to get my SIC codes out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, during lunch I can look it up on the Internet and take a look at it for you. Okay, so basically Page 28, ifthis were to go forward, we'd accept -- staffs recommendations would be accepted. Page 29. Questions on Page 29? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess there's a philosophical question overall here, and that is you are -- staff is recommending, as we're used to, taking the intense detail out and reserving that for the zoning application, which is the PUD, which I understand is going to be running almost concurrently with adoption. MS. MOSCA: Well, according to what I heard today, the PUD has already been submitted. I wasn't aware of that. But because it is running concurrently it makes sense to put of all the details into the PUD document rather than within the plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that has been our standard procedure. Now, the situation here would be that I'd be concerned for the public's understanding of what they can expect if it's taken out of the GMP. Because a lot of times I think everybody reads the GMP and thinks t1,at's got to be the document that either allows everything or does not. Well, when I read the First and Third agreement last night, it's clear in their agreement they're expecting all this to be in the PU 0, at least that's what they're saying. And I'm sure if someone's here we'll hear more on this matter. And if they understand that's in the PUD and we're trying to get that kind of detail out of the GMP, I'm not sure it's needed in both, as long as the major issues are. And I notice that we left in the size of the grocery store and some other issues like that involving the development aspects of the property that are on the next page. As the applicant's representative, Richard, where are you guys on this issue? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, you know, I felt that the community was very concerned that these types of uses be in the Comprehensive Plan, Now, again, that was before the legislation changed that would allow us to do a PUD concurrently. I don't know if they feel the same way. But just based on the NIMs that we had, both formal and infonnal, the community wanted a lot of specificity in the Compo Plan amendment. So I as the applicant's rep can go either way. But I don't want to do anything that in any way would take away a level of comfort for the community, and it might by taking it out of the Compo Plan amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I wouldn't want to either, but I'm trying to find out the cause behind all this and how we can be assured if it weren't here that it would still stay in place. As David said in his introduction earlier, that the Golden Gate Area Master Plan was a more intense look at a specified area ofthe county, just like the Immokalce Master Plan is. So I'm not seeing why this would hurt to leave it m. And Ijust -- I think I'll wait until I see what the citizens have got to say when we get to that point of the debate today. MS. MOSCA: What I'd like to also point out then, if we were to leave it in, if they're not going to have any other C-5 uses, those would come out, we would have to go item by item. But also on Page 29, Item 28, any other similar use as may be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Well, I mean, that kind of negates everything you've just put in the document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Kind of takes thc GMP and makes it subject to the Board of Zoning Appeals, which isn't in a GMP process. Good point, thank you. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? Page 39 c;.,'y ,', ,. B {:, . 'r' ". :'hi' I. '." ..'. ,.,." ',' \ ~'&io~r 1~ 200 :J ...,Q " COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm sorry. did you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think he just said but I understand. COMMISSIONER CARON: Also crossed out here at the bottom of Page 29, it says the following uses shall be prohibited. And then we go on to Page 30 and it's allowable uses, not prohibited uses. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But then it ends with, except that the following uses shall be prohibited. So the -- I thought the same thing when I first read it. It basically says. and I guess I should let Michele speak, is that we can have anything through the C-4 uses -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Except the following-- MR, YOV ANOVICH: -- except the following uses. They just rephrased the way -- refonnatted, if you will, because they took away our previous list of allowed uses. Fair? MS. MOSCA: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'd just like to see that paragraph rewritten. It's very-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, we felt the way we wrote it was a little bit clearer. It stuck out more that these are absolutely prohibited. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray~ COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Either Michele or Mr. Yovanovieh. in comparing the permitted uses in the One Three (sic), whatever that organization is, where you've indicated that they'd like to see these things, and what we have here originally, do we find any issues where something has snuck in, so to speak? How do I make myself clear? That we have a contradiction. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think there's a contradiction. I think it's just a philosophy of what should be in the Compo Plan and what shouldn't be in the Compo Plan. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. I understand that part of it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think she snuck anything in to benefit me, okay -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah. well, that's what I was wondering, yeah. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm pretty sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She seems very pro to that. yeah. MS. MOSCA: The original application came in as listing C -4 uses. And as I started to go through some of the listings -- and I'm sure they didn't sneak it in, I'm sure they wouldn't do that. I just wanted to make it more clear if that's what they were asking t()r. that we wouldjust limit tbe uses to permitted and conditional uses of the C-4 zoning district. COMMISSIONER MLJRRA Y: Well, that was what provoked my question, basically, is that because you can get into some wild stuff. All right, I won't belabor it. But in going through the SIC codes. when you go into the OSHA program you find out that there -- you know, within certain things there's a lot more that's possible. And I just -- I don't care to have it in the GMP, but specificity in this case may be useful, may be beneficial rather than the more open, because it's open beeause it's limited, oddly enough, And vou understand what I mean because of the code statements. So a thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if we're done with Page 29. let's move on to Page 30. Any questions on Page 30'1 Mr. SchiITer') COMMISS10NER SCHIFFER: Yes, Michele, and this is maybe a big question, but where we are today in how to develop properties and everything, there's nothing mixed use herc, this is just a good old 1960's shopping center, right? MS. MOSCA: I'm not sure exactly how it's going to be designed. It looks like it's going to be two or three different tracts. You're referring to the proposed site plan? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, just, you know, all that we've learned about growth, all we've learned about intermingling uses, all we've learned about how to develop these kind ofthings are thrown aside and we go back to the days of Elvis Presley on planning, right? MR. YOV ANOVICH: 111is is going to be -- this actually stal1ed out as -- in '06 as having a residential Page 40 ~ J611~' 85 October 19, 20 9 component. And that's when the conununity said whoa, whoa, whoa, that's not what we need out here. So this is really a retail, and it would be a mixture of retail and offices. But clearly no residential or any quasi-residential type use is going to go on this site. That was, we believe, clearly out of character. I would use the word that was used, but I think that will just take us sideways. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I don't want to hang there, I just want to note that. 1be second question I have is B, it references gross leasable floor area. Now, we get into this argument with Rich and he points to the GMP saying well, because it was in there we've got to stay with it. What does that mean? Is there a definition for it? MR. ARNOLD: l'II try to answer. Wayne Arnold, for the record. We put in gross leasable because that's the way most retailers designate space. I think we can live with a gross number, whatever the county commonly says. I think it's gross floor area, maybe, the -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: 1 don't think it's wrong. I mean, I think it's actually right. But the problem is we don't have a definition of it. And being a dull boy, I collect code definitions of area, and this one's not there. But there is like BOMA, there is things that really do make sense that we probably should have. So the question is should we provide a definition of gross area? Maybe reference some ofthe standards in the industry to determine that so we don't gct into arguments over -- people have talked about that a lot and have a lot of meetings so we may as well take advantage of that. MR. YOV ANOVICII: That's fine, we don't mind coming up with a definition of what gross leasable area-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So for now maybe just put a parenthesis. I think it should just say BOMA. And we should really write that out, we shouldn't usc the acronym. Okay, the other question is the next one, the intent of the grocery store is obviously to be a big one, but what if a second comes along, let's say a health food store or something. We don't want to limit him to that. So could we change the wording of that to the first grocery use? And then that way if a second one comes along -- some health food stores would -- MR. YOV ANOVICII: Oh, so a smaller one -- I understand what you're saying. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- could follow suit, and it would not be stuck with 27,000 feet. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, that makes sense. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The other question is on E. I, you have 180 days from a written request from the county. When can the county write that request? Since you're in for a PUD now, and -- you're not in for an SOP yet, are you? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, we're-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Supposed to be funny. But the -- and then if you had that first review, you could have a building permit and you could be looking for a CO tomorrow. But the point is, when does that 180 days start ticking? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It wasn't -- I thought that -- and maybe somebody did sneak one by me. But I thought that was -- I thought we had to least have our PUD before we had to give the donation. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe if this is favorable, you get a letter tomorrow. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, that was never the intent. I believe it was supposed to be within 180 days of the PUD approval. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And that's it. I'm done. Thank you, Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Still on Page 30. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Michele, if Mr. Yovanovich and company comes up with a gross leasable space or gross leasable area definition, will that then make it the definition in the GMP? MS. MOSCA: This is specific to the subdistrict, so most likely not. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. I mean, it's a good idea to try to get an answer. If there's an encumbrance to that, then maybe we ought to have an FAR and then put your gross leasable space in parentheses somehow, unless of course you can come up with that whieh equates. I mean, it has to equate, doesn't it? Page 41 ,~. _,._~,_.~__,,~.__"'__.~c~_.. _,_, - ,.-; B5 October 19. 2009 All right, a grocer is used to working with f,'fOSS leasable space. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We're used to working with floor area ratio, right? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. no. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Nory MR. YOV ANOVICH: You always use square footage. The only time you ever get into floor area ratio is on senior housing. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: That's the only time? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's the only time I'm aware of it. There was a brief period where you did it with hotels, but that went away. COMMISSIONER MIJRRA Y: All right, well -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I mean, that was -- that's my knowledge. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My confusion then, sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on Page 3D? Ms, Caron, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was just going to -- just to go back to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, Iinish thatthought. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rich, and Michele, would it be okay to maybe put right after that in parentheses, it's the building owners and managers association. If you put that in parentheses maybe that gives us a standard we can go to? Is that good or is that -- MR. YOV ANOVICll: Can we -- we're obviously going to have a break, so why don't we -- why don't we see if we can come up with something that makes more sense. We can call our shopping center clients and say how do you want to define gross leasable area and we'll figure what that is. If that's acceptable to you all. then that would be what we would propose. And BOMA may be it. Ijust can't tell you I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, come back with something. David? MR. WEEKS: Ijust wanted to ask if I'm missing something. But I've always understood gross leasable floor area as literally that, the space that you can lease. You would discount your storage area, for example, you would discount the square footage literally rrom the outside of the wall to the interior ofthe wall. I thought that was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's maybe what the objective is. We're trying to nail it down. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And where it gets tricky, David, is in common areas that get drawn into leases too. In other words, you don't want them to build a huge basketball court in the center and not have to consider that part of the square footage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, the anchor for this proposed shopping center is supposed to be the supermarket. And it's contained here as a minimum 01'27,000 square feet. However, everything else in that plan can eome in at a f,'feater size than the minimum of that, because the next line says that nothing else shall exceed 30,000 square feet. So what I'm asking is, in your conversations with the neighborhood do they realize that they could potentially be getting a series of anchor type stores? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I don't recall that coming up, to be honest with you. I mean, we -- the focus was on the grocery storc, what can we assure them. And we said look, we've got to go with a measurable standard, which is the prototype that we know of today. And I think it's built out in Ave Maria. J said I can't promise you a name brand. So that's where we came up with that number. We didn't really ever focus on -- and you know what may be a way to answer that is limit the number of things that can go above. Other than the grocery store, you can have "X" number of things greater than or up to that 30,000 feet. Page 4 0 ;,' " I I " .u.t) 1 85 , October 19, 2009 It never carne up because that really wasn't anything we ever envisioned. We always envisioned it was going to be your shopping center with your typical out-parcels, and figured we would probably have one 30,000 square foot user, maybe. That's the honest answer of what we were thinking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody else have any questions? We're going to -- after we finish with:Jl, we're going to take a break. Does anybody else have any questions on 30'1 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one. Richard, if this were to go through, under A, would you consider adding a number 14'1 It would simply say, anything not specified as included in the allowable uses. So that means everything's prohibited except what's in those allowable uses, in case we missed anything. It's a catchall. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay, which uses are we using, Commissioner Strain? Are we using-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If the language on Page-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- our laundry list? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- 29 was included in the GMP, then I would suggest putting a number 14-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: 14 that says-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that ba,ically says anything not specifically included within the allowable uses. MR. YOV ANOVICH: First blush that sounds okay, but let me think about that over break, if that's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And there were some other changes on page 30 recommended by staff. Are those contested or -- MR. YOV ANOVICII: Well, we really think it's important that the conceptual plan stay in; again, for the same assurances we had given to the community that they would have their conceptual plan to show the relationship of our developable areas to their residences. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And what's staffs -- is this a do or die issue for staff? MS. MOSCA: We don't typically -- as you know, we don't typically adopt conceptual plans. And I did have a conversation with environmental staff. and they haven't even had an opportunity to look at the preserve areas. They require additional detail in order to do so. And so that conceptual plan is pretty much laid out the way that they want to develop the property, except for the notation about the access points. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because the conceptual plan will be tracking through the PUD process by the time adoption comes back, if this gets that far, right? MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's take a break. We'll come back at -- why don't we just round it off till I :00 and then everybody knows we're going to be here at 1 :00. (Luncheon recess.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from the lunch break for the Collier COWlty Planning Commission hearing on right now. Today would be Golden Gate Area Master Plan changes. We're still on the vel)' first one, 2008-1. I would hope once we finish the first one, the others may go a little faster, but we're not done with the first one yet. And we left off on Page 30 in review of the actual GMP language. We have a couple of pages to go after that, and then we'll move into public speakers. Before we do, during the lunch break I compared the First-Third agreement and the uses listed there to the uses list in the GMP, and they do not match up. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Tadaa. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I want to make sure that somehow that's rectified. And one of the easiest ways to do that would certainly be to endorse staffs -- ifthis goes forward, to endorse staffs recommendation at Number 28 which says any other similar use may be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals, that that be removed lTom the listing. There's a few other issues in there that need to be cleaned up. And I'll just mention them briefly so staffs aware of them. Page 43 - ---- "'-""-.",""""",-^,~-_...._,,- -,,--"----_.~~- -- .....-- _~___"_...e_ 1 i' :1 "., , <f:... ' ,., " A, ~. I B5 " October 19,2009 There are two uses that have been added. Apparently this list that First-Third came in was found in the PUD application. I can't find in the GMP numbers 7352 or 7359, yet they are on First-Third's list. They also includcd a number nine. It's called construction specialty trade contractors, of lice use only. Starts and goes from 1711 all the way through 1799. And looks to be about 15 or so different uses, all in the 17 category. If I missed them, fine, I'm just trying to catch some at lunch. I may not have caught it. But I didn't see those in there. Under eating establishments, the GMP doesn't note that no outdoor amplified music or televisions, but yet that's what's found in the First-Third document. Under insurance carriers, there's number 6371 and 6399 added in the First-Third item, but it's not in the GMP. And under social serviccs, group 8322 is added, and I didn't Iind that in the GMP. And again, I looked at this quickly at lunch. If I missed it, then just correct me when you find out I did. But at some point I believe that this stuff has to be correlated so that it's the same and we're all talking from the same page, if we get into that level of discussion on this issue. So does that work for vou. Miehele') , . MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Are you, Mr. Yovanovich. and your client in agreement with everything that's . 10-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: In the letter~ COMMISSIONER CARON: -- in this letter? MR. YOV ANOVICII: Yes, ma'am. That letter is actually based upon the PUD document where we sat down and got into the breakdown of the actual uses that the community could support. So that is the list that is -- if we're going to have a list, I think that's the list that should be in both places. COMMISSIONER CARON: Beyond the list of uses, I think perhaps one of the most important things that it would be good to put in the GMP is that the first thing that they have to build is this grocery store that these people claim that they want -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's in there, COMMISSIONER CARON: -- that's not in there. Whcrc? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It is, It is actually-- MR. WEEKS: Page 30, MR. YOV ANOVICH: Page 30. No. there's a specific place where -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Page 30, number three, MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's E.3. COMMISSIONER CARON: No, that's not what that says. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And a grocery store must be the first C.O. obtained. End ofthree. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay, the end of three. All right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sorry about that. I knew it was in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think the reason -- you've got to understand what has occurred. The GMP does not provide for the uses I read ofT. So they would not get those uses unless we left in Number 28. But that also opens a can of worms as to what other uses could they possibly simply ask for because 28, the catchall, is thcre. All that does is further our argument that 28 shou Id not be there. And if they know what uses they want and the First-Third Group is comfortable with them, thcn they ought to be very distinct in the GMP if that's what the decision is made that they stay there. So one way or anotber, it needs to be cleaned up and it needs to be exact instead of this ambiguous part of it, so -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, let's move baek (0 our process. We were on Page 30. We'll move to Page 3 I. Mr. Schiller? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes, Rich, is there anything in this that limits the size of a build-out? Could you have a 150,000 square foot IKEA store. !(" example') Page 44 16/1_ October 1806 '. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, the only -- we're capped at nothing could be greater -- other than the grocery ..... store, nothing could be greater than 30,000 square feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Where is that? Because I was quick looking for that and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 30. MR. YOV ANOVICH: 30'1 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Which one? MR. YOV ANOVICH: D. COMMISSIONER CARON: D. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No individual user shall exceed 30,000 square feet. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And I guess on 31 then, staff wants to force this to be something called old Florida style. I mean, what is staffs intent there, to -- because, you know, the drawings they showed us, is that ole Florida style? I mean, it's a box with a canopy in rront of it. MR. WEEKS: Staffs intent was to take the language that's within the neighborhood center subdistrict and apply it to this petition. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And that's something that you can define and be objective about? MR. WEEKS: I'll say I assume so, because it's in the subdistrict and it's been implemented through several rezone petitions. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And then the other question is limiting it to one story in height. What's the concern there? Because like some of the office uses and stuff could-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We didn't agree with that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, the staff. MR. WEEKS: That's the same thing, it comes rrom the neighborhood center subdistrict. We're trying to take all of those regulations rrom the neighborhood center subdistrict and apply them to this project. That's all part of the development standards to help ensure the semi-rural character is maintained. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But what will happen then is the square footage will be spread over more of the site. I mean, there's an effect rrom that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Not to jump too far ahead, just, we -- when we met with the First and Third Group representatives, we have actually identified where on the master plan two-story buildings could go. So we're at to that level of detail. And they're comfortable with where we've put those two-story buildings will not affect the character ofthat shopping center. So we would like to continue to have the ability to do two stories, because we know we've work out on the master plan where the two-story can occur. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's something we're aware of, or-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, that's part of the PUD. I mean, I could show you that master plan, if you'd like to see it. But we thought that that's the level of detail that we all agreed should really be addressed at the PUD stage, not at the Comprehensive Plan stage. But again, if you want to see that, we can provide it to you. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm done, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on Page 31. Any other questions on Page 31'1 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michele and/or David, if something is not listed as changed in this language change, does it fall back then on the standard elements of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, or do we have to restate all the elements ofthe Golden Gate Area Master Plan that we think apply to this if this is a standalone? MR. WEEKS: It would fall back. As an example, Policy 5 -- I think it's 5.1.3 pertains to lighting requirements for all development in Golden Gate Estates. Unless this subdistrict specifically excludes itself rrom that requirement, it will be sui:>ject to it. So even if there's nothing said about that policy, either that we are subject to it or that we're not, it will be subject to that policy, as an example. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why do you have J and K? If your comment earlier was that they are to be -- make sure it stays consistent with the current Golden Gate , Page 45 .. U_.'''~^~__'_~~_"O'''_._,"''_ ""'~'." - --..--- 16 I orbe~ 19,~, " Area Master Plan, if those weren't there, wouldn't they automatically fall back to that language anyway? MR. WEEKS: No, because they're creating a separate subdistrict. They're not part of the neighborhood center subdistrict. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So then let's go back to my first question. They fall back on the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, but not the elements of design or criteria within the neighborhood district section of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan; is that what you're trying to say') MR. WEEKS: That's correct. Because they are creating their own new subdistrict. So what they will be subject to are any policies that generally apply throughout the Estates. And if there are any general provisions under the Estates designation or Estates commercial district, then those would still be applicable here. And I don't know that there are any. I don't think there are any general in the district designation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the key point here is anything that's in the neighborhood centers that we like as residents of the Estates, ifit's not in this document it isn't going to happen. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. And again. that's where staff has taken -- several of the additions that you see there on Page 31 and 32, staff has suggesting adding. And we've taken them verbatim from the neighborhood center subdistrict. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And not to muddy it a little bit, but the letter from First and Third on the architectural actually said Key West, old Florida or Bermuda architecture. So they even -- so we may want to lift from that document the architectural style within this subdistrict. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I would agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well-- MR. YOV ANOVICfI: It's on their Page I. item number three. I just-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, I can't remember, does thc Golden Gate Area Master Plan simply referto just the old Florida style, or does it have the others') MR. WEEKS: .lust old Florida style, as you see it here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I thought it was this. all buildings shall have tile roofs, old Florida-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought there was something about the roof styles and things like that. I haven't got it in front of me, I should have brought it -- MR. WEEKS: Maybe I misunderstood. On Page 3 I, paragraph J as in John, that staff recommended language, that whole entry, that whole paragraph J comes from the neighborhood center subdistrict. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, And the First-Third Group is recommending that there be other elements added like Key West and -- you know what, I think Brad hit it. I mean. Brad's the architect here. You're not going to be able as staffto say they submit a Key West or Bermuda style whether that's old Florida or not. What are you going to do, say, oh, no, I don't like your old Florida. that's not old Florida. that's Key West" So I'm not sure it matters, but I don't think that staft's going to be picking up those kind of elements in review. With that, also, Richard, I noticed, you're going to have car washes on this site? MR. YOV ANOVICH: As part of a convenience store/gas station, you know, the convenience gas, potentially. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the number five in the First-Third letter says no car washes will be pennitted, so, in talking about gas and convenience. I just want to make sure if we get into that letter at any point there's not a discrepancy there. Anybody else got any questions on Page 31 'I (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the last question is the objections from the applicant on Page 31 is in J, you want to add two other styles, Key West and Bermuda. and then K, you want the two stories; is that what I'm hearing? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: .lust a question CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Mr. Chainnan') CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After Mr. Schiller. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it goes back to you showed us pictures of designs. How relevant will Page 46 16 Jctlr 19,200985, they be? In other words, are we going to be in the future dealing with the fact that hey, these designs show signs up at the top of the parapet, therefore, during the hearing everybody was aware of signs on top of the parapet so we have to be able to have signs on top of the parapet or -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I thought that was -- those are more of the conceptual. We didn't get into the details of, you know, here's where the signage on the building will be and -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm just alTaid because we have had where some of this stuff is used against us in future -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That was not our intent. Our intent was just to show them that if we did an old Florida tin roof type look with the landscaping we're proposing, this would fit in nicely in the community. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So your testimony today is you will never go back, nor should the applicant ever go back and use those as proof of anything. MR. YOVANOVICH: If you need me to say that, Ijust said that. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. lbank you, I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I had a question regarding -- we're talking about old Florida style architecture or just the root'? Because all this is talking about is the metal roof. And I've just kind of -- this is the third or fourth time it's come up, and I guess I'm not clear now. Ijust read it as the roof style, not the whole building. I just wanted a clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, David. MR. WEEKS: That is correct, that sentence is only referring to the roof style, not the building style as a whole. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's why the Kcy West and all this. I didn't know if Key West had a different roof style than Collier. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that's a -- are they allowed flat roofs? MR. WEEKS: Ifthat's deemed old Florida style, they sure are. Admittedly it's a vague term and the question was asked earlier. I cannot answer it with specificity. It's -- I'm assuming that it is a recognized architectural style. And Brad, you tell me if I'm ofl'ba~e here. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Style is in the eye of the beholder and that can be warped to the beholders and-- MR. WEEKS: I repeat what I said earlier. We have had a handful ofPUD petitions come through in neighborhood centers and they've had to comply with this requirement. Very few have actually developed, though, so they have simply mirrored this language in their PUD. I think when we really find out what that means, and if there's an issue in interpreting this language, it's going to be when an SOP gets submitted, because that's when a certain level of detail is required where if there's a disagreement between staff and petitioner that's where it's going to happen, when we actually see what is being proposed. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But I guess the point, is it important to put in color schemes and roof materials and stuff like that in the GMP. That's, I guess, the question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think so. MR. WEEKS: Again, we're at a tremendous level of specificity, and arguably it doesn't belong here. But this is existing language in the neighborhood center subdistrict, and that's why staffhas grabbed several of these rather specific criterion or requirements and recommended they be added to this project. They're already in the Golden Gate Master Plan, they're applicable elsewhere, their purpose is to help maintain the semi-rural character, help ensure a certain type of development physically, So we thought it would be appropriate to apply here. MR. SCHMITT: The old Florida architecture theme is required in our activity center number nine as well. It's the same -- it's in the GMP. It's specified as old Florida. And activity center number nine is Collier -- the 951/75 interchange, in that area. So old Florida would be -- the Wal-Mart was classified as old Florida. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I know it's even in the architectural standard, but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? Page 47 ~ _ ._ ..~_._,..__~.______..,.._~"'.~M"'_",',~__" ,,=,.__., --.--- , ,. 1" Octo;er IL . B 5 . COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: On the next one, K, 35 feet -- this is to staff -- 35 feet is okay? I mean, that's what you want to limit the height to, is 35 feet; is that correct, David? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. Again-- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay. Now, certainly a b'focery store would be 35 feet. But you could also put two stories in 35 feet. Now, you did not want two stories, is that why you crossed this out? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. Again, going to what language is in the neighborhood center subdistrict today, and it is 35 feet. capped at one story. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I know, but this is a different one. This is a -- this is different. This is its own subdistrict. So I was just wondering if you're sticking on that. no two-story ifit's under 35 feet? MR. WEEKS: We are. Look, I have to acknowledge, I mean, what they're not asking -- they're not asking for a neighborhood center. They're asking for its own subdistrict, they're asking for something different. They're asking for F ARs -- greater square feet than are allowed in the neighborhood center subdistrict. They're allowing for an intensity of use range that's more. I mean, one way of looking at this is this is a different animal than a neighborhood center, don't add any of those neighborhood center criteria, they don't belong. That's one perspective. The staff perspective is that it's still within the Estates. It still should be fitting in with overall vision of the Estates for the type of development to oeeur thcrc. Okay. they're going to get their C-4 uses if this is approved as proposed. They're going to gct the square footage that's greater, okay. But let's try to take the design parameters and make them the samc as elsewhere allowed within the Estates. That's the stafT perspective. Evcn something as simple as two-story versus one-stOlY. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, there's two-story homes out in the Estates. Ijust don't understand why that got crossed off. But okay, I got you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions on Page 31? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now let's move to Page 32. There's only a few paragraphs up on top. Does anybody have any questions on Page 32'1 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: .lust wood fences-- CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad') COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- but I'm sure you carried that from across the street, right? MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray') COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Question on N. David, all buildings and projects shall utilize common architectural theme. Well. if you're allowing the three that you said before for the roofs, then it would follow then that the rest of the building should conform to that same architectural, agreed? MR. WEEKS: Correct. Once a design is set, that has to apply to all buildings, so you can't have this building with this style, that -- no. the entire project needs to have a uniform theme. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But that takes away that issue of it's only -- we're only talking about the roof. We really are talking about the entire structure. MR. WEEKS: Correct. That specific paragraph spoke to a roof style, but whatever architectural theme is ehosen for the building style and for sib'llage, that applies to all of them within the subdistrict. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Super. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Lct me just challenge. You know, one thing, Dave, they want a rural look. And a rural look isn't one big building that all looks like it's unified together. I mean, I could argue that this is not a good idea anyplace. But you tbink isn't this an example of where it's really not a good idea to make it appear that that whole group of buildings are going to be unified? As opposed to somebody who can make it look like multiple different looking buildings all designed well, let's hope, So thc point is why do wc want -- in other words. why do we want tbe banding. tbe coloring and the signage Page 48 l611 B 5 1 October 19, 2009 to totally look like a huge shopping -- again, back to the Sixties shopping center is what we're doing here. MR. WEEKS: Again, coming from the neighborhood center subdistrict, the neighborhood centers themselves, though much smaller in acreage and therefore allowable square footage, could still have multiple buildings. And if it does, they will all have to have that same theme. So we're carrying that through to this project as well. You're right, it's a whole lot more square footage, but if it's broken up into separate buildings or if it's all one, it would be subject to that same limitation. Sounds like you view that as a negative and -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I view it as a negative. It makes sense in the small little thing. But the point is then you're not saying that all four comers have to have the same look when we did it originally. So now what you're -- I mean, you should really be able to break this thing up into multiple -- maybe the scale of the neighborhood centers would make more sense to split the styles. But I think you're going to get that massive building look because of that clause. You're guaranteeing that. MR. WEEKS: So even if there's multiple buildings, you believe that with the architectural theme being uniform that that will give an appearance of one large center? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Wouldn't it? I mean, when you read what the intent of that is, when you see how that works, I mean, go to any shopping center, go to the southwest corner of Airport and Pine Ridge, that building is all one big architectural theme. One color, one -- the banding's all the same. In other words, it makes the scale of the building bigger. That clause does not reduce the scale of the building. MR. WEEKS: One approach would be to -- if I'm understanding you, one approach then would be to cap the maximum size ofan individual building to ensure that you end up with a series of buildings, not one massive building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, if we went to like a -- if we all pictured a charming little rural area, it's made up of multiple little buildings and made during multiple times. That should be kind of what we're trying to recreate, not the big 1960's shopping center. Anyway, enough said. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good point. And we'll have to -- as we move towards finality on this one, I've been making notes of any of the issues that have come up, and we'll certainly have to discuss it as we move further along. Okay, if that's all the questions of staff and the applicant, we can get to the public speakers. MR. ARNOLD: Could I interject one thing on Page 32, Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. ARNOLD: You didn't have a question about it, apparently, but we wanted to go on record on item 0, the drive-through establishment restriction to only banks. We would not like that restriction included. We believe that there are other uses that could also have functional or drive-through uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Like what? MR. ARNOLD: Dry cleaner, restaurant, bank. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So fast food restaurant is what you're thinking of, like a McDonald's? MR. ARNOLD: Doesn't have to be a fast food. It could be a Starbuck's coffee shop. I mean, there's a lot of formats these days that have drive-through facilities, Mr. Strain. It's a convenience; it's how we live. It doesn't have to be designed as a negative. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, it's -- why don't we hear from the public fIrst, and it's an issue we can take up if this gets that far. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. Sorry to interrupt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that, we'll move to public speakers. How many do we have registered? By the way, if you're not registered, it doesn't mcan you can't speak, I just said we're going to start with the registered and then we'll go into everybody else afterwards. MR. WEEKS: We have a total of six registered speakers and a seventh person was here this morning but had to leave and so they wrote out their letter and asked that it be read into the record. And I said that we would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And when you come up to speak, either one of the microphones is okay. You need to state your name and your address for thc record. You need to speak in a speed that she can type as fast as Page 49 " ,"...__".,~_...-._~<_....m .. .<---"'"~~.. ,--,- .-.,-,..,,--,,~..__.._....,- .,'.,--,_.- . "--.'- 'f1 r " ,1. 1.!,~ J Octoberl ~'2009 85 you speak so we have to be careful of that. And I would like to ask that you try to limit your discussion to five minutes, but we don't hold fast to that rule. We just ask as a courtesy because of the quantity of people we want to get through the meeting. So with that, David, if you'll call the first speaker. we'll get moving. MR. WEEKS: First speaker is Pat Humphries. to be followed by Jim Banks. MS. HUMPHRIES: My name is Pat Humphries. 441 20th Avenue Northwest. Zip 34120. I am a resident of Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can pull that microphone if you want. Pat, closer to you. There you go. MS. HUMPHRIES: My name is Pat Humphries. I am a resident of Collier County for 33 years. I am a past member and director ofthe Golden Gate Estates Civic Association and presently a member of the Golden Gate Estates Homeowners Association, as well as a past director. I also serve on the Golden Gate Land Trust Committee. I live three miles rrom the proposed project. Today I am speaking for myself. In my opinion, this large project will devastate Golden Gate Boulevard. It will ruin the ambience of the Estates, destroy the quality oflife for the nearby residents. and is most certainly not in compliance with the Golden Gate Master Plan. The for sale signs dubbed commercial are already going up on the vacant lots along Golden Gate Boulevard. If this project is approved. those property owners will be standing here petitioning for a Growth Management Plan change because you did it for them, now you have to do it for us. The owners of vacant property on Wilson Boulevard won't be filr behind. A 40-aere shopping center at this intersection will result in more traffic. It may cause the widening of Golden Gate Boulevard west to five lanes. ffthis happens we will lose the landscape median and homes and property will possibly be subject to eminent domain. On the northeast comer is E's General Store and gas station. On the southeast comer is Wilson Plaza. On the southwest corner is a new Walgreen's, all less than 10 acres and all in compliance with the Golden Gate Master Plan. The northwest comer should be no larger. There are two large approved commercial sites in the Estates that are more appropriate for such an enormous undertaking. The people in these neighborhoods were aware of the commercial zoning before tbey moved in. Altogether there are eight existing commercial sites in and near the Estates and eight approved sites not yet developcd. There are thrce grocery stores in close proximity of this proposed shopping center. The developers mailed a survey. set up a web page, manned a booth at Collier County Fair, recruited people to do door-to-door petitions, and held various meetings to promote their project. I am sure this all turned out favorably for them. But I fcel certain that if the opposition had the time and money to do all of the above it would have turned out unfavorably for the dcvelopers. I wonder iftheir survey included the four pages of allowed uses for the potential project that may not be so appealing to nearby homeowners, or did it just tout the so-called grocery store that no one can legally guarantee will come to fruition? Did it include the fact that the property could be sold once all the permits are granted or that for one to two years the nearby residents will be inundated with dump trucks, graders, bulldozers, dirt and noise as they watch trees. animals and houses uprooted right under their noses. Or did it happen to mention that it is twice the size of the new completed Publix shopping center on Collier Boulevard. The proposed project is a monstrosity and does not belong in an unsuspecting residential neighborhood in Golden Gate Estates. The argument that the shopping center will lessen trips into town is not true. We don't go into town to grocery shop. We have three grocery store shopping centers right in or very near the Estates. However, we are not going to stop going into town for the beach, the mall, the Phil, the hospital, Fifth Avenue, Third Street or any ofthc othcr attractions that bring people into town. Not to mention that is where most people in the Estates work, This shopping center is not compatible with the goals and objectives of a subdivision that is striving to become a world class rural community. It would only serve to put Golden Gate Estates on the path of urban nightmares such as Pembroke Pines, Davie, Sunrise. and worst of all. Miami. Page 50 16/1 Octobe"c,9, 2009 B 5 ""'f Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, please. I know that some of you are very tied up into these issues, as I am too for that matter, but if we can, plea~e don't clap or acknowledge, just everybody quietly come up and make their peace and we'll go on. , MR. BANKS: Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Jim Banks and I'm a registered professional engineer in the State of Florida and I am president of 1MB Transportation Engineering, Incorporated, which is an engineering consulting firm here in Collier County. I'm speaking on behalf of a group of residents that was organized in opposition to the proposed Estates shopping center Compo Plan amendment and the forthcoming PUD. The group of residents that I am representing refer themselves as the First and Third Group. The First and Third Group consists of residents that own homes or own property on First Street Northwest or Third Street Northwest within the Golden Gate Estates community. It's important, though, that you note that the First and Third Group does not represent every resident that may own property on First and Third Street or reside on First and Third Street. So Ijust want to make that point perfectly clear. And in fact it's not our intent to suppress or influence anyone else's opinion that may not agree with the position that First and Third Group has taken up on this particular application. As you are aware, First and Third Streets are contiguous to the subject property for which the Compo Plan amendment is being requested. In response to the proposed plan amendment and the forthcoming PUD, thc First and Third Group retained the services of my firm in order to work with the applicant in order to develop some development considerations and some design criteria that would minimize the impacts and possibly even mitigate some of the impacts onto the residents. Since my involvement numerous meetings, phone conferences and e-mail correspondences have been ,- have occurred with the applicant's representative, Mr. Y ovanovich, as well a, Mr. Wayne Arnold, which has resulted in significant changes, and I submit to you, improvements to the PUD as it relates to the protection ofthe residents. Let the record show that the First and Third Group does greatly appreciate the applicant's willingness to address all of their concerns. Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Arnold made themselves available at every opportunity when we requested them to do so. The applicant's representatives participated in our discussions in a spirit of cooperation and a willingness to make every reasonable effort to resolve any conflicts that the -- or concerns that the residents had brought forth to them. I have prepared a letter to the Planning Commission and also addressed to the Board of County Commissioners which is dated October 19th, 2009, which was belatedly submitted to the commission. And I apologize for that, I had some medical problems that kept me off my feet for about three weeks. So I apologize for the lateness in the submittal and I'm sorry you did not have a thorough time to review the document. I won't read the letter and/or the attached exhibit into the record, but I'm going to give you a brief overview of the content ofthat. And then if any questions come about regarding those documents, I'll be happy to answer them. The letter that was submitted to the commission summarizes the First and Third Group's position on the proposed plan amendment, as well as the forthcoming PUD. Also attached to that letter is a document identified as Exhibit A. And Exhibit A is an outline of an agreement that the First and Third Group has reached with the applicant. Mr. Yovanovich has a copy of this letter and the attached Exhibit A, and has confirmed to the commission that the applicant is in agreement with these documents. As an example of some of the development restrictions and impact mitigation provisions which the applicant has agreed to and has implemented into the pun at our requcst are: Increased landscape bufferings; a commitment to construct school bus stop shelters; to adopt an on-sitc lighting criteria which would protect from lighting overspill into the neighborhoods as well as maintain what we consider reasonable dark sky conditions. They've also imposed restricted hours of operations, depending on the various type of uses. We did work closely with the applicant in developing a site plan that identified where certain land uses would be located. And we appreciate that. There's also a limitation on the land uses that could actually be constructed on this particular site, which Page 51 w.,_,_._,,. .. -----.--. r - , l; 1 'I e 5 ., ; ,.' October 19, 2009 they've also agreed to. They've also implemented some features which would provide noise abatement. They also took into consideration some of the concerns regarding vehicular access and did make changes to their access management plan, or the site's access plan. As well as doing enhanced design and commitments on the sewage and water treatment system that the site will have, which includes the construction of a building to enclose those systems that will protect the residents against odor and noise when those systems are in operation, Now, that's just some of the conditions. All of the conditions are listed in Exhibit A, or discussed in Exhibit A. In response to the applicant's acceptance of these terms and conditions of Exhibit A. the First and Third Group acknowledges that the fortheoming pun will include the necessary elements in order to substantially minimize or mitigate potential impacts to the residents. As a result of the applicant's commitment to minimize these impacts to the adjacent neighborhood, members of the First and Third Group do not object to the approval of the Compo Plan amendment CP-2008-1, the Estates shopping center. If the Board of Commissioners and the Planning Commission detennine that the Compo Plan amendment is appropriate, and we believe that the terms and conditions as outlined in Exhibit A protect the neighbors, then the First and Third group will support your decision to approve the plan amendment. However, we are adamantly -- when we say we specifically request that Exhibit A, which was an ab'Teement with the applicant, is made part of any approval or recommendation of approval that can be applied to this Compo Plan amendment by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. There was a couple of other items that came up which I wasn't planning on -- well, I wasn't planning on discussing till they came up. So just a few more moments. if you please. There was talk about the zoning appeals process, item number 28. I talked with some of the folks that I was representing today, they had some concern with that. I spoke with the applicant. They eXplained to me that item 28 was for the purpose -- ifthey decided to use a less intense use that was listed on their land use. And the folks I represent, we believe that the list ofland uses that are permitted represents the most intense use. Now, if they want to come in for a zoning -. f(lr a zoning amendment through the appeals process. as long as it is clearly a less intense use than what is identified on this list of uses, then Group One and ll1ree would not object to that. If it is borderline intense or more intense than the uses that were on this list. then we firmly objeet to that as being a way to circumvent this agreement. Now, Mr. Y ovanovich, Mr. Arnold. his client. I have the utmost trust in them that they would not circumvent the tenns of our agreement. But ifthey sell the property to another person, they bring over an attorney from the east coast, they may not be willing to abide by the terms and conditions if there's a way to circumvent this agreement. So the residents need to know that they are protected, that there is not a way to circumvent this agreement and come up with a more intense land use. Lower intensity. fine. As far as the reference to a 1960's grocery store. what we were told by the applicant, and I'm not here as an advoeate for the applicant, but what was explained to us was a Jupiter Farms type development, Key West style, Bermuda style development. Now what we picture in our head or what we picture in our minds is something that would be integrated into the community. We realize it's going to look like a commercial center, but I think everyone in this room pretty much has a good grasp and an understanding of what a Key West or Bermuda style development looks likc. And they provided architectural renderings to us that was to our satisfaction. And as long as the intent of the project is to develop consistent with those architectural designs, then we do not have an objection to the language that's being proposed. And as far as the drive-through use, as I explained I had a I ittle bit of an issue that I was out of the loop for about three weeks, and there was certain discussions that went on with some ofthe members of the First-Third Group and the applicant that I was not in the room. The drive-through, as it was always eXplained to me, was for a bank use, I was not infonned that it may be for the possible use of a Starbuck's or dry cleaners. Page 52 16 LoJr 19, BS f!tIf l I cannot speak to the fact whether the First and Third Group would support a Starbuck's or a dry cleaners. I'm certain that they would not support a McDonald's drive-through or something to that nature. So as long as again the intent of this agreement is to keep the intensity level down, then there may be a little bit of some room for that type of use, a drive-through use with something that is not of a significant impact. And finally, Ijust have some clean-up work on my -- the Exhibit A to that attachment I provided to you. On the third page, which is actually the fIrst page of Exhibit A, we start out with number one, number two, then we go back to number one. I need the second number one to be 3.A. Then we go to number two. I need the -- that number two to be 3.B. And the one that is actually correctly numbered as three, I need it to become 3.e. And I apologize for that typo, but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: How many homes in that neighborhood are represented in this group? MR. BANKS: I wasn't given a specific number of the homes but what I was told is -- I basically met with the people that were assigned to be in charge. First of all, this group was organized, I don't know, a year-and-a-half ago, something to that effect. And the way I understand it is it was a group of about 50 folks strong. And during their first kind of meeting, they decided -- they put in charge a couple folks, Tim Wallen and some other folks that were to kind of act as the lead folks for this group. And they developed a website and those type of things. But at the time that it initiated, I understand there was about 50 folks. Probably two adults per residence probably is a good rule of thumb to use, so maybe 25 homes. And it was also -- what was eXplained to me is that \Vas represented -- the most vocal opposition of the folks on First and Third. Since then, when it was first organized, they were opposed to any type of development. Since that time they have been working with the applicant to develop a more -- a development scenario that would not have such a signifIcant impact. During that time there may be some folks that have decided that the First and Third Group no longer represent their position on this matter. And that's why I wanted to make it clear, I suspect there's probably some folks here in the audience today that -- and I encourage them to state their position to you because I don't want to misrepresent anybody that resides or owns property on First and Third Street. But the way it's been eXplained to me, that the group relatively stayed together other than a few folks that disagreed with any type of negotiations with the applicant. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, did you have something? Then Mr. Koltlat. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, can we have a list of -- I mean, this could be five people now, could be 50 people now. I mean, what is this? It's a secret group? MR. BANKS: Well, it's not a secret group, no, it's not. But I think that when you have a group of folks that organize with one objective, to stop a development, and then the core group starts to decide that maybe it's better to work with the applicant, you alienate some of the folks that originally -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I think the real question is I'm trying to see what you represent. I mean, a petition comes, it has a list of names. But you're representing a group of people that I'm not sure how strong -- I mean, are there members here that could stand up and say -- MR. BANKS: Well, is it more than one? Yes. Is it less than 50, yes. But I don't have a number to provide to you. All I can tell you is that I've met with the lead folks on the First and Third Group as well as some of the members of the civic association that also had input into this matter and developed a plan. I did not meet with the group as an entirety because I only met with three to four folks that was representing the First and Third Group. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It just seems weird to me. I mean, it could be vapor, it could be a real-- MR. BANKS: I'll say it this way: When I fIrst met with Mr. Y ovanovich, we started discussing the aspects of what we could do to satisfy this First and Third Group. Since our initial meeting -- and I went back and reported to my folks, and there was e-mails circulating between the neighbors, and I did not count heads -- the last time they had the NIM meeting, Mr. Y ovanovich came to me and said the opposition was significantly less than what it was in our first NIM, and there was a lot less residents from the First and Third Group opposing the application. Page 53 1: I;, [I '=-....v. l October 19, 2009 "" , I' " ~ B And what I was told is that they asked the folks, let's put it on the table. These folks are not advocates for the project, so we're not going to get them to file in here to bang their fist on the desk and say please approve this. What they're saying is, if you approve it these are the conditions we want. So they stand down -- they're standing down on this issue, because if you're going to approve it, they've worked out an agreement with the applicant and they don't want that to be compromised. And there's been too many times where the community has fought tooth and nail on these, the applicant has no obligation to negotiate or soften their development if they're going to be fought to the bitter end on it. And so these members of this group authorized me to meet with them to try and reach a compromise. And this is where we are. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Is there any ex-members in the room? Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, we can't do that. no way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ijust wanted to see a hand. Let me ask you this: How many unique faces have you seen from this group when you've met with them? MR. BANKS: Nine? Nine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Randy, you wanted to say something, then David. MR. COHEN: Yeah, I had a few questions for the gentleman. First, is the First and Third Group a legal entity'! MR. BANKS: I don't know. Did they lile with the Internal Revenue Service as a non-profit? I don't-- probably not. MR. COHEN: Is it a corporation. is-- MR. BANKS: No. MR. COHEN: -- it a limited liability company? MR. BANKS: No. MR. COHEN: Okay. When you say you have an agreement. okay. is that an understanding? Because when you're talking about an entity, you said the developer's representatives entered into an agreement. I'm just trying to understand the context of that. MR. BANKS: Well, I specifically said I'm representing a group of folks that refer to themselves as the First and Third Group. I never implied that they were a corporation, I never implied that they were a limited corporation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No one's -- we're just trying to get to the bottom of it. MR. COHEN: l'mjust trying to understand the context-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's not accusing you or anything, we're just trying-- MR. BANKS: No, I understand that. But the question was put forth. And the way I understand it, they are not a legal entity as required by the Internal Revenue Service, nor have they filed with the Florida Corporations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The form of agreement, is it signed by anybody" MR. BANKS: It was an e-mail correspondence between myself and Tim Wallen, who is acting as the lead for the group. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You sent the e-mail to Mr. Y ovanovich and they signed off on it; is that -- and I'm seeing a nod of the head yes from Richard. MR. BANKS: The letter agreement" CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. BANKS: Yes, we've had verbal. I think there might be a misunderstanding on one of the uses that me and Mr. Yovanovich may need to debate. I don't know. He seems to think there was one of the provisions that I have on this document that he did not sec. I'm willing to basically concede thc point, whatever our last two c-mail correspondences were. Whatever they read, if something was put in afterwards then it can be omitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Randy, did you have anything else you wanted to contribute? MR. COHEN: You know, the conccrn I have is obviously there's an agreement between parties. And the question I have is what is the party and what's the right to agrce and in what situation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, see, Randy, I think a lot of -- and I'vc read the agreement thoroughly. Most everything in it is something that pertains to another level of zoning than what we're here for today. There are a lot of what I would consider VCI)I amhiguous and loose statements here that rm sure are to the Page 54 12toLl,2009 8 5 ~1 benefit of anybody if somebody from the other side wanted to deviate. But that's an issue that I think we'd take up at a PUD wning if we get ~ far. qaunly it would waste a lot of time here today.'}' The group hired their representative. They feel comfortable at this point' And I think the next point that would come up is at the PUD, if we go to PUD. So with that in mind, let's move to Mr. Wolfley. David? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Mine is real quick. Page 3 of Exhibit -- is it Exhibit I, A, permitted uses, number three. Do you mean to say you were okay with automotive dealers there, or did you mean like an auto supply shop? You certainly did not mean like a used car dealer. MR. BANKS: No, not at all. What we meant was an auto parts store. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, okay. So you're talking about an auto supply. MR. BANKS: And there's actually a provision in this exhibit. One of the items was is that the PUD must restrict folks from actually just working their cars in the parking lot like you might occasionally see -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, I read that, yeah. MR. BANKS: Okay. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: And it just said automotive dealers and Ijust went, what? Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But on that category, the only two that they're listing are the two below, 5531, I think it is, and 5541. So 5531 is auto and home supply stores and 5541 is gasoline service stations without repair. It's in your -- look on -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I got it. MR. BANKS: And can I further one other point to that, please, if you may? The last item on that was 7542, which specifies car wash as an accessory to the convenience store -- I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I-- MR. BANKS: Okay, I'm sorry. And the First and Third Group informed me at the last discussion they had with the applicant, it was agreed that there would be no car washes. And I think that's the -- maybe the misunderstanding that myself and Mr. Y ovanovich may have at this -- and again, I will concede that whatever the last correspondences were between myself and Mr. Y ovanovich, that's what we will abide by. And until I can check my e-mails, I can't say whether we can oppose the car wash or we can include the car wash. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions ofMr. Banks? Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA 1': Yes, was this Exhibit A submitted to staff for their review? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. BANKS: I again belatedly provided it to Mr. Strain and he informed me that he forwarded it to staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was submitted to staff last night at 9:00, and I'm sure they weren't in their offices to receive it. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Have they had an opportunity to review it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, Michele earlier said she has not had the opportunity to review it yet. Okay, anything else ofMr. Banks? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, we'll go to the next public speaker, David. Thank you, sir. MR. WEEKS: Nonna Maroquin. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Maroquin camc up during lunch and said that she had to leave but she wanted me to note that she was not in favor ofthis request -- she was in favor ofthis request. She was in favor of this particular application. MR. WEEKS: Kim Ellis. MS. ELLIS: Hello, Kim Ellis. I've been a Golden Gate Estates resident since 1985, Collier County since 1973. 530 Third Street Southwest. Page 55 -" ..-.,.-" ._~,,--^.......,..._--~'" ,_._.-......~~.~--_._._.,.__. , _._~~_............".-.>-~_.,._" ._."'._,~'- ..,<...... "~" " "r ' '.~ ',,', ~ \.! -~ . October 19, 200 And I'll clarify somcthing regarding the gentleman that just spoke. I don't -- I never really heard -- I heard from the First-Third Group once or twice, maybe, quite some time ago. I don't think it was within the last year. And at that time I was going to send somebody an e-mail in support of not having a project at this location. It will not affect me personally as far as lighting or traffic. I'm on Third Street Southwest, the other side of the boulevard, three-quarters of the way down, so there won't be any lighting issues or anything like that that will affect me. However, I really don't see why or -- I'm in the real estate business, I've sold residential real estate in Golden Gate Estates since 1991. Most of the growth that everybody -- you know. everybody knows it's one of the fastest growing areas in Collier County. 'n,e b'fov.1h in Collier County has really slowed as everybody knows due to the economy, the national economy. But most of the growth in the Estates -- I think I sell a lot of houses out there too. At one point it was more than any other residential real estate agent in Collier County. I had the most transactions out there per year. So I do know what's going on out there. Most of the growth I will say is if you go down Golden Gate Boulevard and you take a left on Everglades Boulevard, it's in that section up there. And for those people to travel to this area will absolutely not happen. They're going to take the road of most convenience. as somcone else stated earlier in the day, which would be down Randall or down Oil Well Road to Immokalee. And also I did get a survey in the mail at one time. And I do want a grocery store. Ijust don't want it smack dab in the middle of my neighborhood. It is a neighborhood, okay. And this is right in the middle of it. And that's for everybody around that intersection. I'm talking about people from Everglades Boulevard. DeSoto Boulevard. I think if you go to 13th Street, those people are not going to come out into the Estates to shop, so that, maybe that area should have been eliminated rather than a lot -- some of the other areas that I can see have been eliminated. It doesn't make sense to me that with a 50 percent vacancy ratio at Wilson Plaza, which by the way doesn't look anything like Key West or old Florida style development. It's not even close. The Walb'feen'S looks really pretty, I can't wait for it to open. We want services. We don't want them in the middle of our neighborhood that's going to expand out. Oh, another thing. You know, I didn't write anything, and I'm sorry that I didn't write a letter-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to slow down just a little bit. She's trying to type-- MS. ELLIS: I'm sorry. You know, it's very important to me. But I didn't know anything about this until the signs went up. Which were, I'm sure 30 days ago. And I could have prepared something more professional to read to you, but I too have issues that have not allowed me to do so, a lot offamily members here, a couple of them very elderly that I also help take care of, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and everything else we have to deal with in our own lives. But Wilson Plaza has a 50 percent vacancy ratio. There was a restaurant in there. We all want a restaurant. The restaurant's already gone out of business. It was a small restaurant. We couldn't support them, okay. I've spoken to the people that have Walgreen's, because they're looking for somebody to lease the property immediately adjacent to them, and that is zoned already, I believe, they got something for a drive-through there, and it's going to be something with multiple lanes. I'm guessing that would be a great spot for a bank. Where G's is, or E's. It's now E's, it used to be G's. But there's a beauty salon, there's a pizza parlor and an excellent deli and a little shopping, you know, market. That comer at Wilson, the northwest comer. that's completely not developed. A nice five-acre parcel there is available for the type of development that we've always cxpected in our neighborhood. You know, my biggest point is I can't see people coming horn the west, like most definitely west of 13th Street, to come out to this store. I can't see people coming from the Everglades Boulevard north, like any Second Avenue Northwest, Fourth, Sixth, it's all even numbers up until after 40th something. They're going to hop on Randall, they're going to hop on Oil Well and they're going to go straight to Immokalee Road for convenience purposes. The people in the south, well. it uscd to bc the southern blocks when you go out Golden Gate Boulevard and make a right on Everglades, they'll come this way, but they have -- they might evcntually, I'm thinking -- I spoke with Nick at a few road meetings -- eventually have an interchange there for 1-75. They're going to go right to Collier Boulevard for their shopping. Page 56 . ~ . , .'":'>- . I , ,. I don't think it's -- oh, 41 acres. Coastland Mall's 38 acres. This is not going to fit in our conununity plan. Nowhere near it. 28 acres is the Carillon Plaza at the comer of Airport Road and Pine Ridge. That's on 28 acres. And they want to do 4 I acres. It's going to demolish our community. ~ I also had a lady call me that has property between 7th and 9th Avenue , t on the Boulevard. Ms. Cummings has had her property for sale for two years for over $2 million. She w ts it to be commercial because she's seeing what's going on with this development. It's the same real estate agent. I wish I could remember her name. She's got the red blazer. Weikert Realtors. I can't think of her name right now because I'm a little nervous, I'm not used to speaking in public. But I had to go and tell Ms. Cummings that her property was valued at about 100,000. That wasn't an easy task. But this is what's happening, you know, people are thinking if they live along the Boulevard, it doesn't matter how far west they are. Between Wilson and 951 it's going to be commercial. If this goes in at 41 acres, we're going to see a whole different community. I moved out to the Estates because it's what I could attord. We've come used to a certain type of lifestyle. And I think that this will devastate it. I don't be redundant in what I'm saying. I think I've made some valid points. We have a lot of vacant areas where we can get the services we want and need without turning this into a Miami or Pembroke Pines or anything else like that. It's just way out of control at 41 acres. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. MS. ELLIS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Appreciate your time and your patience today waiting for your time to speak. Thank you. Next speaker, please. MR. WEEKS: Bianca Long. MS. LONG: My name is Bianca Long. I am a resident of Golden Gate Estates, 160 First Street. It do live on First Street. I am not part of the First and Third Group. I'm a stay-at-home mom, so I'm speaking for myself and for the moms around the area. Today there's a lot of moms I'm sure that would have known about this would have been here. I'm really excited about the shopping center. I'm excited for myself, for the moms and the children in the area. And I'm just going to humble myself~ I'm not used to speaking in front of a group of people, that I would really ask for a Mickey D's even for my children and the children around the area. And Mickey D's does have a drive-through. And the restaurant on that comer is the Cuban restaurant. I'm not Cuban, I don't really like different -- but I love McDonald's. So I know that McDonald's is going to be a great hit. And the shopping -- today, yes, I wanted to go grocery shopping yesterday and I didn't do it because of going to town. But today I'm going on the way home grocery shopping. But it would so nice to have a plaza. Even for work. I'm laid off right now. I usually work six months out of the year and I'm home six months, and 1 travel a lot. So once I'm home, I do not want to fight traffic, I do not want to go to town. And yes, I understand most of the people do work in town. But when I moved to Naples five years ago, ] was so disappointed, I'm like, oh, my husband, we're way out in the boonies. And he was telling me well, we can't afford anything else. I'm like, what do you mean we can't afford anything else? So yes, I do have a wonderful house and I love the location. But I do have a child, I do take care of other children. Even at night the lights -- I used to live actually behind a shopping plaza, and the way the lights are, they shine within, not out. And for protection for the children, yes, there are animals, and we do love animals, I have dogs and eats and everything, but even late at night I have to be vcry careful becausc of cats or something. So I'm going to feel more protected for my children with the plaza there. This is aliI have to say. And Ijust hope in favor that we're going to bring in money also and work for the area, not just cven for myself, but even for the teenagers that are out here in Golden Gate. Not everyone can go to town and find work. So thank you so much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. Page 57 ~ t" n 1, JI '1 ~ ' , " _ ." t;'\ ~ _ < October 19, 2009 ! '85 Next speaker, David. MR. WEEKS: I'll try. Yonel Vixamar? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Vixamar? Not here. MR. WEEKS: 3031 Golden Gate Boulevard East? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just move on. We're still going to ask for speakers when you're done anyway. MR. WEEKS: That's the last registered speaker, Commissioners. I do have this one-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry, what was that gentleman -- Bob just reminded me of something. What was his last name? MR. WEEKS: Vixamar. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He wasn't the man that owns the store out there, is he? I don't know. That's the gentleman that asked to let Richard Yovanovich speak on his behalf which means he can only be in favor of this. You're not going to carry the water for the non-vote. But go ahead, Richard. MR. YOV ANOVICH: If someone asked me to speak for them, I would. It actually is -- we have been working with the owner of E's. And E's, they're not crazy about the fact that we may someday have a gas station, but we've worked out an appropriate period amongst ourselves as to when a gas station can occur. Other than that, E's is in favor of what we're doing. We think we'll bc a good ncighbor to them. And that's what Vlaus asked me to communicate to the Planning Commission, that as far as E's -- E's is not afraid of the competition and is okay with the proposed Comprehensive Plan amcndment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okav, thank vou. ~ , The next real public speaker, David. MR. WEEKS: That's the end of those signed up and that are present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this matter? Because if you do, just please raise your hand, you can come up and take your time. Sir, come on up to the podium. Just a minute, ma'am, we've got to get everybody else lirst. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: While he's coming up, was he going to read a letter? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have a letter you want to read') MR. WEEKS: Yes, you want to wait until-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, when this gentleman is done. Just identify yourself and address, sir, and we'll be ready to go. MR. HARRIS: My name is Stanley Harris, and my address is 161 First Street Northwest. And to me change is fine, but 40 acres is just too much. I think, you know, you're going to have four comers. If you just utilized the four comers with the five acres each, that will save the Estates. Forty more acres is just -- like she said, just imagine 40 acres and you're driving by, and it's -- if it's the way he says it is~ it's going to be more of a parking lot. Y nu're going to see more openness, you know. Y Qu're going to miss the trees. I believe, if I'm not mistaken, I've seen an eagle around there. So I mean, all these -- you know, a lot of these birds and stuff like that are -- and plus it's going to bring -- for me I think it will bring more different types of animals, like rats, more rats, more mice, you know. And that in tUI11 will bring more snakes, you know, and different stuff that will eat them. So I mean, to me it's just -- it's just for greed, I think it is, you know. We came -- I came out here in '97 and I love it. And that's -- I looked for a place to live and it wasn't because I couldn't afford it or it was too high. That's where I wanted to live. I looked and seen everything that was there, and it was just beautiful. Because I came from a concrete jungle, I call it, Chicago, and that's all you seen was buildings everywhere. And the lady is right, I'm worried about what's going to happen after that gets rezoned, you know. And then like she said, it changes hands. And then this one says well. we got to -- can't we get it rezoned over here for commercial and then so forth down the line. The street is wide enough for it. so it invites it in now. And we really don't need it. Page 58 .L6/1 B 5 , October 19,2009 Like you got the three comers with businesses on them. And some of them are not even filled, and like they say, out of work already, it closed down, So I mean, even -- didn't the Collier County office that's in there, or the state, they closed down, right? ' CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know, sir. MR, HARRIS: Well, didn't they close down so many of the offices around in the area? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's been a lot of offices eIosed, I don't know if that one was, though. MR. HARRIS: Okay. Because it looked close to me when I went by the other day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a ruse. The county does that a lot. MR. HARRIS: But yeah, I mean even that's going to throw that business out. You know, what's going to happen to those business people that moved in there? They're not going to -- they can't compete with a big store, you know. That's the whole idea. If it's supposed to be a community, keep it small. That way you are building, you are making jobs and livelihood for people, you know, The big guy's going to take it away from everybody. And that's aliI got to say, and I'm-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. MR. HARRIS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. David, you want to read that letter you have? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. This is from a Ms. Tony Kincaid at 881 Third Street Northwest, Naples, First I'd like to acknowledge that I have approached this neighborhood since their project with exhaustion from Vanderbilt Beach Road project. I'm sure I'm not alone in this feeling eXplaining why so few people are willing to put much energy into this fight. We feel defeated already. However, still having hope, I'm writing this. We moved to rural Golden Gate Estates in 1992. I believe we know and understand the essence of this area. Even after all this time we still do not support this neighborhood center and still would rather drive a few miles to a grocery store, I've heard ERA, CIGM, NIMs and others. I'll try to keep it basic. Conditional uses allowed, day care, churches, nursing homes, yet there are very few if any in the Estates. Five acres is the norm for commercial, yet this individual bought 4] acres, confident he would be successful in getting his way, To me this is presumptuous and excessive. $]2 million just to buy the land, then all the money for the lawyers and the studies. This is intimidating for most people. In fact, some people believe this is a sign that their money equals power and they will get their way, so they may as well accept this neighborhood center. We are hearing the need for a grocery store is huge in the Estates. I disagree. There is a new Publix at 95] and Pine Ridge and a new Publix in Ave Maria, SweetBay at 951 and Vanderbilt. Is there no end? Here are some contradictions I've heard, Our neighbors, from the lawyer's mouth, yet they are not our Golden Gate Estates neighbors. Some can't afford $3.00 per gallon for gas versus people will still drive to mall or other regional centers. Conceptual versus reality. Buffers on conceptual plan versus desire of residents for this project. If people really want store, do they all care about a buffer zone? Surveys, I received a phone call after signing a sheet at a NIM meeting. After speaking on phone I was told] wasn't needed to meet with them. Remember,] opposed the project. Rooftops does not mean there are actual people living under those roofs, foreelosureslfor sale properties, E's traffic versus in reality will bring more traffic. The truth is, if you recommend this project be allowed and it becomes a reality, there will be many unforeseen negative consequences in addition to the identified foreseen negative impacts. Please represent those of us who understand and appreciate the essence of our residential rural Golden Gate Estates, We desperately need you to help us maintain our existing lifestyle, Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, thank you for reading. I know it's hard to read someone's handwritten note, so ] appreciate that. Now, are there any other -- anybody else wish to speak on this matter before -- you've already spoken once, you'll be able to come back up, but let me get somebody else that hasn't already. Page 59 October 19, ~OO~ 1. 5 Ma'am, you raised your hand, please come up to the microphone. Were you sworn in in the mass swearing? Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The mass swearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We had a mass swcaring this morning. MS. BURNS: After listening to all this, that's kind of what I feel like doing, a mass swearing. My name is Lori Bums, and I have a home at 2] 0 Third Street Northwest. And while I respect all the opinions of those who desire a major grocery store, while I respect the efforts of the Third and First Strcet group to do the best they can to minimizc the intrusion ofa commercial center of that size on the neighborhood, on the strect and on our residents, and while I greatly respect the efforts by Mr. Y ovanovieh and Mr. Arnold trying to address my concerns, trying to meet with the residents, trying to minimize the impact of everything, I really just have a lot of questions about this. I'm a newcomer to all this. I kind of moved -- I bought the home about a year ago, heard about this in March, didn't realize the severity of it until I got to the neighborhood information meeting a month ago. So I've been in contact with a lot of people trying to gather my data, trying to figure what's coming, what am I up against. I have to say that I bought my home in Golden Gate Estates to retire in. I bought it because I wanted a quiet, rural, simpler lifestyle. Little did I realize how complicated this simpler lifestyle is seems to have become today. I know that there -- a lot of people bought out in the Golden Gate Estates, despite their reason. They bought the rural lifestyle, whether they wanted that or not. They bought that there was no grocery store out there, They bought that there were only neighborhood centers to accommodate the basic needs of the residents. With a commercial shopping center ofthis maf,'11itude, despite all the efforts to try to minimize the noise, the light, this is the first thing that's happened out there. There's no guarantcc. There's no way of knowing the extent of impact. My house is 150 feet from this, to the back side of it. So lmean, Ijust don't know what to expect. I like the dark, I like the quiet, I like no noise. That's why I moved out there. And Ijust don't know what the impacts of all this is going to be, despite the intense efforts to protect that. Despitc its aesthetically rural appearance, it is still 40 acres at 225,000 square feet. It is still a stark contrast to what is out there now. The lady mentioned earlier one of the things that -- right now there are only three out of 10 of the neighborhood centers planned for the area partially developed, with only two of them currently providing goods and servIces. What experience of evidence is there that we as a community can have the financial wherewithal to economically support and sustain the ncighborhood centers, given that one of them doesn't have a filII occupancy at this time? ]fwe're not sure we can economically financially sustain and support a neighborhood center, how arc we going to possibly sustain a commercial community center of that magnitude and that size? The 40 acres is eight times the size of a five-acre planncd neighborhood center. The square footage is about eight times the size of what would normally be expected in a neighborhood center. I also don't have a problem going to the grocery stores, because there is a major grocery store on every major artery leading to Golden Gate Estates: Pine Ridge, Vanderbilt Beach and Immokalee. I don't know, I'm just going by what the staff report said, that 75 percent of the people work in the urban area. That means 74 percent of the population pass by a major grocery store on their way to and from work. I've been reading a lot about greenhouse emissions and reducing vehicle miles and that kind ofthing, and what I've got to ask to that is as residents, what is our responsibility in efficiently planning and combining our trips to and from work with our errands and the purchasing of goods and services? This doesn't seem to me, based on what I've heard today, to be consistent with the vision of commcrcial development in Golden Gate Estates. It doesn't seem to be completely consistent with the preservation of a rural lifestyle. While I understand that yes, I will still continue to he able to plant crops on my land, yes, I will continue to be able to have livestock on my land, yes, I will continue to have a -- live in a low dcnse area of residential area, I know as I was reading multiplc things, including the Growth Management Plan, the Horizon Study, the staff report, I know Page 60 . 16 ~cferI9,21S ~ that there is an Objective 5.3 to provide for the protection of rural character of Golden Gate Estates, stating that the provisions shall provide for preservation of such rural amenities as, but not limited to, wooded lots, keeping of livestock, ability to grow crops, wildlife activity and low density residential development, the operative words there being but not limited to. For me rural character and rural lifestyle also is quiet. It's dark at night The stars are out. It's a community of where you go into town and you have your basic needs like convenience store to pick up last minute goods. You have gas, you have those kinds of things, So I really stand here with a dilemma of how do I best protect my home. I understand and greatly appreciate the detail that the Third and First Street neighbors went to to try to protect themselves. Because when I bought out there, I bought a rural lifestyle. There were nine houses at the end of the street. There were some vacant residential property and there was planning for a neighborhood center. And then I come to find out there's a possibility of a 225,000, 40-square foot (sic) commercial community center going in there. Not what I bought, not what I was expecting. So I completely understand the neeessariness and to protect yourself with the details. Because what keeps us -- what keeps this from getting approved and we end up not getting what we thought we were going to get? Which is already what I may be getting if this gets approved. So again, I really do appreciate again the concerted efforts of the applicant to try to meet the needs. I just -- however, it's not what I bought when I moved out there, So I thank you for your time. I thank you for your listening. And I respect that you've got a difficult and very complicated decision to make on whether to transmit or not. And so I do thank you for your time and thank you for your diligence in trying to sort through everything. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We appreciate it. Thank you very much. MR, WEEKS: Ms, Bums? Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. WEEKS: Just clarification. Your name again, please. MR. BURNS: Lori Bums. MR. WEEKS: How do you spell your first name, please? MR. BURNS: L-O-R-1. MR. WEEKS: Thank you, CHAIRMAN STRAIN : You know, there's been a lot of people come up here with very complicated names, but that's the simplest name that's come up and that's the one you asked for. I don't know, David. Are there any other speakers? Yes, sir, come on up, use the microphone. MR. WEST: Good afternoon -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you sworn in in the mass swearing in? MR. WEST: No, I did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, she's going to have to do that for you. (Speaker duly sworn.) MR. WEST: My name is Steven West, S-T-E-V-E-N W-E-S-T. I'm speaking on behalf oftwo people today, that's myself and my mom. We moved out here from Miami in, I want to say, 2002 or three. To get away from the construction, busy streets, noise, not really much peace and quiet Convenient parks were very nice. Change is good for the community, but I feel in Golden Gate Estates with too much I think would hurt it. And this particular project I think would, When you have too much construction and you have a lot of beautiful nature and very nice scenery and darkness, peace and quiet, hear nature around you, you ever get a chance and you go outside and you stand in the dark, you get a chance to really get a feel for nature and you learn to appreciate it. And I've kind of grown accustomed to that and so has mom. And we have a lot of livestock that, you know, we really appreciate and we have also exotic birds that we love hearing at night. I mean, I'm sorry to some of the neighbors around me if you hear them. But it's something that Page 61 16 /1 , . i October 19, 2009 1'-" :~~ 'I"i -<",-' you learn to love. It's nature. I mean, I love having absolutely no light, no sound, barely hearing traffic. You get something like this thrown in the middle of it and you hear all the beeping from the trucks, construction dump trucks, cranes, it kind of spoils the love of it. And I think I could speak for a lot of people out in Golden Gate Estates and a lot of my neighbors that would love to be here today and would give their thoughts and literally their feelings about it. And it's not that a shopping center like this would be well appreciated, but don't we already have enough? Walgreen's, G's. There's a gas station there already, why would we need another one? You can go into town and you can get gas there. It's cheaper than what you would have out in the Estates. You know, you already have a convenience store on the comer of Wilson Boulevard, and the majority of that is already out of business. You know, why do you want to put something up like this when you have the chance of more business and more work being no longer there, having it there lor a short month and then it's just gone? I mean, really, I mean, take the time and really sit back and think about that before you go ahead and just say oh, we're going to throw a huge shopping plaza in the middle of this and then all ofa sudden it winds up becoming an utter waste. You know, you throw $12 million right down the toilet and it's just no longer a smart investment. But those are my feelings and I thank you all for hearing it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank vou for vour time. , ~ MR. WEEKS: Mr. West? Mr. Chainnan? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, you need to spell West? W-E-S-T. MR. WEEKS: Could I get his address, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Sir, come on up and give us your address. I don't get a chance often to say something to David because he's always so serious, so that was good. MR. WEST: It's 825 fifth Street Northwest. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Now, young lady, I think everybody else has spoken. If you want to just take a minute or two, because this is your second time, so please keep it short. MS. ELLIS: One minute. It will just be one minute. I wanted to mention that -- Kim Ellis. If you put the shopping center at the comer of Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevards, there probably wouldn't be enough support for two shopping centers, and it just makes so much more sense to have it at Oil Well or Randall and Immokalee Road. We're going to have people from Orangetree, Orange Blossom, Waterways, Valencia Lakes, Valencia Country Club all coming from there down Wilson Boulevard where there's a school bus stop at every street, by the way, for the lady with kids. I have kids that go to Palmetto Ridge High School, and all of their friends are picked up at the end oftheir streets. They're all dead-end streets. So that's an issue for safety for the children with all of those people coming to and from our neighborhood to shop, when if the property is located onlmmokalee Road, that would not be an issue, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, with that J think we've heard all the public comments involving this issue. We've I think gone through public -- I mean staff presentation, the petitioner's presentation. And Richard, we're not going to vote on this today, we're going to vote on this after all the presentations are heard on all five matters. At the time prior to the vote on each one of them, I'll give each applicant 10 minutes to summation, and it'll have given you time to think about things that were said so that if you want to have changes or suggestions at that time you'll -- it will be an opportunity. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I wasn't sure of the process. That will-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That will be the process. So with that, we will end the discussion on this particular Golden Gate -- Growth Management Plan amendment and we'll begin the discussion when we come back from break on the second amendment, which will be CP-2008-2. I ,et's take a IS-minute break and come back at 2:40. (Recess.) Page 62 ~ 16 /1 ' October] 9, 2009 B5 Item#4B CP-2008-2, RANDALL BOULEVARD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from the break. We left fmishing up presentation and public input and discussion on the Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard commercial area. We're now going to open up this meeting for CP-2008-2, which another amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. And this is on Randall and Immokalee Road. All those wishing to participate in this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter, if you weren't here for the mass swearing in this morning. (Speakers duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. Let's start with Ms. Homiak. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes, I had a conversation with Mr. Anderson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yes, with Mr. Anderson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, Mr. Midney? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I rode up on the elevator with the applicant, and I can't remember-- CHAIRMAN STRAJN: Guilty. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I had a meeting with Mr. Anderson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I too had a meeting with ML Anderson and Tim Hancock and I had -- as I said earlier, I received piles of e-mails. Now it turns out quite a few of them were for this project. I forwarded them all down -- Ijust saw what their intentions are, whether it was for or against, and I forwarded them all to staff, staff has them all. So with that in mind, Bruce, it's all yours. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, my name is Bruce Anderson from the Roetzel and Andress law firm. And with me today is I11Y e1ient Jack Sullivan from the Emergent Development Group; and planner on the project, Tim Hancock rrom Davidson Engineering. Before I get into the substance of what I want to say, I do want to just clarify something that I want to make sure that is clearly understood. At the beginning of the proceeding there was a reference to the fact that all of these were neighborhood centers. And I want to be really e1ear that there are six different neighborhood subdistricts -- of six different commercial subdistricts. A neighborhood center is one of the six. Randall Boulevard is its own separate special subdistrict. So it's different and it's not subject to the same standards as a neighborhood center. You have more latitude on uses and sizes. And I would point out that Randall Boulevard commercial subdistrict is the only standalone subdistrict east of951. So its status is different and it ought not to be lumped in with a series of scattered neighborhood centers. This application is for the expansion of the Randall Boulevard commercial subdistrict. I'm going to simply say Randall district from now on, and it's located at Randall and Immokalee Road. Page 63 octltl9,fooJ - w~~- !'f~~., ,-" , ~ ....~ ~-. . ,", <. " . '-;1 . . ~ It's always been identified as separate in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. It is a preferred location for commercial development chosen several years ago. A convenience store and a small shopping center have been constructed there. So expansion of this separately previously identified commercial district is consistent with and doesn't conflict with locational considerations that the county has previously employed in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. And it will be consistent in establishing this standalone district. What distinguishes this application from all the others is both its special location and the fact that it involves a public-private partnership that provides lor donated right-of-way for the eventual six-Ianing of Randall Boulevard, and the construction ofa complete realignment of the intersection of Randall Boulevard and Immokalee Road, which will be occurring adjacent to this development. The properties that are being added are all those that would be the most severely impacted by the Randall widening and the realignment ofthe intersection. Among the owners that are -- of propertY that are ineluded in this application are Collier County itself and the Big Island Corkscrew Fire District. The county initially plans to four-lane Randall Boulevard and eventually six-lane it. At the time of Randall Boulevard we've been led to understand that in the course of that widening they're going to construct a new intersection of Randall Boulevard and Immokalee Road. A little later you might ask Nick about the possibility of a fly-over. The county transportation staff has indicated to my client that they're going to need some additional right-oj~way. Under a developer contribution agreement that my e1ient is donating, almost seven acres out of the 49 that are being added, it will go for county right-of-way. That means about 14 percent of this propertY will be conveyed to the county at no cost. At present this property is bracketed on the west side by the fire district and the eastel11 end by the county-owned propertY, which is leased to the State Forestry Service. A fire tower is located on that property, along with the building utilized by the Forestry Service. We believe that when Randall Boulevard is widened, the Forestry Service building will be nonconforming with respect to setbacks. Under the developer contribution agreement, both the fire district and the Forestry Service would be moved, and the two essential service agencies would be relocated at the eastern comer of Eighth Street and Randall Boulevard, where a traftie signal will be going. The relocation will be at the sole cost of my client and another property owner, and that includes the cost of either rezoning it or getting a conditional use approval to specifically permit the collocation of those two agencies. It also includes getting SOP approval and providing site improvements. My e1ient will also be acquiring Irom the fire district a five-acre parcel to the south that will be used primarily fix water management from the widened Randall Boulevard and the intersection improvements. That five acres is also being donated to the county. As a consequence of the Randall Boulevard widening and the intersection changes, the two existing businesses there are going to have their access impacted in one way or another, which may give rise to a condemnation e1aim for severance damages for the impacts it will have on their business. Now, this messy situation is avoided through the developer contribution agreement and approval of this application. Those existing businesses and my client would construct at their expense an access service road from Eighth Street heading west. When my client told me that he was going to try to get three governmental agencies and a handful of private propertY owners to work together to facilitate the widening of Randall Boulevard and the Immokalee Road changes, I thought to myself, mission improbable. However, he achieved those results, and the result is a win/win/win with the fire district, for the county, for the Forestry Service, and for all those private propertY owners who are going to be the most impacted by the Randall Boulevard changes. ~ That developer contribution agreement has to be tinally approved by the county commission before you would finally approve this amendment. That is why timing is so important as to whether this plan amendment is approved now. This coalition of cooperating propertY owners will not last forever. Page 64 -16111 October 19, 2009 85' Right now it's in everyone's interest that this Growth Management PI.endment and the developer contribution agreement be approved. If it falls apart, it's every man for himself~ it will be on the county's nickel, not my client's, Now, there's been some discussion about well, we ought to put these things off until the EAR process. Well, I've got to disagree with that strongly. The reason that these petitions have been delayed, we are told, is because of the prior EAR process. And now we're being told, oh, you shouldn't act on them now because we need to go through the EAR process again. We feel like we're being whipsawed and they're trying to stick it in our EAR. My client, Jack Sullivan, has reached out to abutting property owners and surrounding owners, the Golden Gate Civic Association and the homeowners association of Golden Gate. He took the initiative not just to address concerns and answer questions but to ask questions, ask the residences -- ask the residents what kind of businesses do vou want at this location, , And although the exact uses will be appropriately determined at the time of rezoning, my client has specifically excluded a laundry list of uses that he feels might be objectionable to the neighborhood. My client has committed to surrounding residents that he would work with them to establish a rural character committee that would help design his specific project during the rezoning process, Now, when you read the staff report, you may get the impression that there's already a glut of commercial uses within a few miles ofthis property. Staff acknowledges that the Collier interactive growth model is only one factor in your decision, and that they haven't considered how location is important in this process. What they haven't said is that some of these other sites have never had a needs or market analysis in the first place. So those other sites should not carry any presumption that they would actually be constructed. For example, the commercial use that was approved at the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD several miles away. Orange Blossom Ranch is not located at an intersection of major roadways like my client's property. We did some digging back through the county commission records, and they reflect that the property owner didn't originally ask for commercial zoning, but acquiesced to it when one of the commissioners asked him would he please put some in, because he knew that the residents out there needed some place to go shopping. So the property owner went along with that and he included commercial uses in the PUD instead of developing it as all residential. Now, that property has not been developed, and in fact that PUD was set to expire next month until the county commission tolled the sunset timelines on all PUDs. TIlis phantom commercial may look good in theory, but in reality it may never ever get built Again, there was no study about the viability of commercial in that PUD, and we don't feel it's a valid comparison to my client's project. There's also a pending commercial rezone at Orangetree that the staff report assumes will be approved at the full intensity that's requested. Again, there has been no market or needs analysis requested or received or reviewed for that application. Now, comprehensive planning has been routinely requiring that for all commercial applications. I have never seen the comprehensive planning staff so easily concede a zoning approval. Neither of these two projects ever had a market analysis and neither of them are a valid basis to deny my client's application on the basis of a market analysis. I'm going to eonelude that when it comes time to vote separately on each of these projects individually, please remember that this is the one that provides a real and substantial public benefit through a public-private partnership. And it is the one that will be located at the intersection of two six-lane roads. It's a preferred commercial crossroads location on the periphery of Golden Gate Estates with its own existing special subdistrict We believe that it's truly the logical location, I'll ask Mr. Hancock to come up now, MR. HANCOCK: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. Tim Hancock, with Davidson Engineering. First of all, thank you, Bruce, I'd like to recognize and thank throughout this process the county staff, in particular Michele Mosca, Mike Bosi, Dave Weeks, Nick Casalanguida and John Podezerwinsky. They've all made themselves available to us to address questions and issues, for which we are grateful. And just as it was this body's first run with the CIGM, so was it ours. And there were a lot of questions. And Page 65 ...,,- -_'_, ~_..~.."~~~<".'_._,,,,,_,_.,"-~, ... ~~,",,_. ,~__""'"'~'__",__'~'.."" ,. -. r .-.-" _.__,_~~___..";",._~","'~"""_'_ ,.... 9 " ~ L ,I :~ ", .', .,. "./ 1'85 , October] 9, 2009 Mike in particular and Michele have been very helpful in helping us understand what is and is not an appropriate application of the County Interactive Growth model. While the question of demand and locational appropriateness is I believe central to this body's review and may be the primary point of discussion when all is said and done, please allow me to briefly discuss the proposed site, its physical characteristics. While most development standards are more appropriately addressed at the rezone stage, some have been included in the GMP A to ensure that they are more specifically addressed at the rezone for the benefit of adjacent residents. Emergent Development Group has assembled parcels for the purpose of this application extending from Eighth Street Northeast, which is on the right of the exhibit that you see before you, and runs along the east side of the project all the way to the Corkscrew canal on the west. The total project size, including the existing Randall Boulevard subdistrict, is 56.5 acres, plus or minus. 5.46 acres that Bruce mentioned earlier are owned by the county and are actually sitting here on the northeast comer at the corner of Eighth and Randall. This is the one that is occupied by the State Forestry Division at this time, has a fire tower and a fire station. 7.32 acres arc owned by the Big Corkscrew Island Fire District, which is on the far west side of the project here as I'm indicating. On this parcel is located a fire station very e10se to Immokalee Road whose access is truly going to be impacted hy the widening and the intersection improvements. Behind that is an administrative center. And actually in between it is a I OO-foot -- I believe it's a cell tower or communication tower. The rear parcel, which makes up the balance of the 7.53, is the five acres that has been earmarked and allocated for water management purposes for the proposed project. The physical characteristics ofthe project when viewed in relation to our neighbors is really fairly straightforward. This master plan exhibit shows conceptual access locations that quite honestly are still being developed and refined in coordination with the transportation department, as they work through the potential designs for Randall Boulevard. However, what we do know is that Randall Boulevard is coming. Whether our project moves forward or not, it is going to be widened, the intersection is going to he improved and the improvements are necessary. Again, with or without our project. One of the nice things about this scenario is that even with the donation of right-of-way along Randall, there is enough depth on this property to not just provide for the necessary commercial services but also to provide adequate buflering to the residents to the rear. What you see here behind the development envelopes is a 75-foot native vegetation buffer where all existing native vegetation will remain. Within that 75-foot buffer, the applicant has agreed to install the equivalent of a Type D buffer utilizing additional native vegetation to provide the necessary visual screening. As you may recall, a Type D buller reaches a high degree of opacity within one year of planting. And there are some areas in this buffer that are on the thin side. We recognize that, and it's going to need to be addressed moving forward. One request that was conveyed to us was that they have a wall along the rear of the property. And the reason for the request was not really what I expected. Apparently the current use of the property as it sits today is somewhat ofa local dirt track for ATVs. Even pickup trucks have been seen making a few turns out there in the sand. And from what I understand, even golf carts have been driving onto and in some cases through the properties that front on 24th. So we were asked if we would consider putting a wall along the rear property line, maybe to preclude that from happening in the future. I think a shopping center might go a long way towards precluding that, but nonetheless, we think the wall serves two purposes: One is to address the request of the adjacent neighbors; and the second is by constructing the wall along the rear access road, it will act as a better sound deterrent than even the native vegetation buffer would by itself. So again, that's something we're happy to comply with. One other concern expressed by the residents that will experience the eventual six-Ianing of Randall is what would happen without the project. When you compare a retail project with building heights 01'35 feet versus 15 or so single-family homes along this same stretch, the buildings will in fact act as some bit of a noise mitigation wall, if you Page 66 1 6 I letJiJ r? 2009 r4 will. I understand there are noises associated with eOll1ll1ercial properties that we will have to mitigate for and address at the time of zoning. But one of the things brought to our attention was the presence of a retail center will do a lot more to knock the noise down from Randall Boulevard than just about any buffer or any wall could~. So ironically buildings themselves become part of our noise mitigation. The site circulation as proposed will use Eighth Avenue Northeast prominently since a traffic signal is anticipated in this location, and will also provide enough distance between the signal at Eighth, agam, the comer intersection right here, and Randall to ensure the smooth flow of traffic for Estate~sidents, Again, this has been a key condition of where and how access points are directed with transportation staff. The roadway design -- and we show a design here, and please understand, the design is in a state of flux. But primarily the focus of the design as it currently is is to take eastbound traffic on Immokalee and have two continuous through lanes continuing straight on to Randall. Again, preliminary designs, but this is a tenant that seems to hold up as we go through design to design. The traffic that is then westbound will have additional turn lanes meeting at Immokalee Road to allow them to get through quicker and faster in the morning. And anyone who's sat at that traffic light in the morning, as many of the residents have expressed to us, would welcome additional tUI11 lanes, The accesses for the project will be designed in such a way to ensure the smooth flow, while providing the minimal access necessary for the shopping center parcel to be viable. As was provided in the testimony ofthe prior application, she left, I didn't get a chance to thank her, but there's at least one person thinks everybody's using Randall and Oil Well anyway. So we want to thank her for that testimony and I'd like to repeat it here if we may. In addition to the right-of-way donation discussed earlier, this is Tract 55 back here. This is the one that we talk about that is really -- has been picked up and going to be secured for the purpose of primarily providing the water management for the widening of Randall Boulevard. And when we ran the numbers we were a little surprised in just how much pavement actually is getting added out there. The majority of that lake is going to be required to provide the water quality treatment necessary. What's interesting, though, is that we've been asked and done our very best to do it to make that lake of a certain size to accommodate future improvements, such as potentially a fly-over that hasn't even been designed yet. So to say your transportation staff was looking to the future for this intersection would, in my opinion, be a gross understatement. We're trying to plan not just for the immediate needs of this roadway but the future needs as well. Most importantly, what we've shared with the residents is what's envisioned for tllis property. As you can see here, the project is set up basically to be carved, if you will, into about three distinctive elements, And let me walk you through those elements, At the comer of Eighth and Randall here, this will be a little more of an office type complex, medical and general office. Our application allows up to 75,000 square feet of the two; 25,000 square feet of medical but a total of 75,000 square feet. We see this area as being most appropriate for again retaining a 35-foot building height but possibly two-story office buildings that would not be open during the evenings or on the weekends, unless potentially maybe on the comer something like a walk-in medical clinic, which we have heard some requests for. As you move to tile center section here, this would be more of a traditional shopping center. Obviously designed with the rural character in mind, and we'll discuss that a little bit later. But the center section is of a size and breadth that would allow for some type of an anchor retailer there, preferably a grocer retailer, and a traditional shopping environment. As you move to the west, you get to the part of the project that quite frankly excites the developer and maybe a little bit more. And this is what we're really calling an old town section of the project. This is where we'd like to see a little more of a walking district, an area that has maybe two-story buildings with retail and restaurants on the bottom, office on the top floor in a Main Street type setting, My wife worked at Palmetto Ridge as a dean out there, and we'd go out to the football games, and after the game everybody would just disappear. There's really not too many places to go, and they were looking for places. And we thought what a great opportunity here at the gateway to the Estates at Randall and Immokalee to create some Page 67 ._ _....__.""..~_~ .. ___~...__._.",",,,__,,~_.._~,.~~__.,,, "_.~""'q_"_''''~_~_' '_'__,__v_~_",__,'_"~_'''_''''''''''__ 16 loc~ber ]9, 200~~ ~ type of a destination center. And we really like the idea of parsing the project into these three distinct pods, and that one pod being a little bit of what we're calling old town or a town center destination within the Estates, There's a -- there are a lot of numbers that fly around, particularly with square footage, and we found out as recently as last week that we may have led to some confusion on the part of stafT And so what I'd like to do is I'd like to walk you through real quickly how the square footage breakdown of 390,950 square feet that is contained in your application, where that comes horn. That is what we call all new commercial. But that's a little bit decciving, and let me explain how. Right now there's 20,000 square feet here that is currently developed as a small shopping center. There's a gas station and convenience store here, and I apologize, the square footages slip my mind. It's something in the area of about 5,000 square feet, four to 5,000 square feet. And those two are currently developed. And looking at the balance of the project, we basically assigned a roughly 7,500 square feet per acre to come up with the parcel over here, which is fire district parcel would be approximately 20,000 square feet. The area behind the gas station, which is currently within the Randalll30ulevard commercial subdistrict, we allocated 30,000 square feet. Even though the PUD currently lists a maximum of21,000, if this project moves forward, water and sewer will become a component at some point, and there may be the opportunity to develop a little more than 21,000 square feet on that piece. So we wanted to make sure we didn't hem that property owner in with our petition. So we've allocated approximately 30,000 square feet. And that number is somewhat duplicated, because it's within the Randall Boulevard subdistrict, but we're calling it new square footage. So I wanted to clear that up. There's a little bit of a 30,000 foot duplication there. What that leaves on the balance of the pn~ject -- and we talk about the retail component or the shopping center or the Emergent Development Group piece -- is the balance of the acreage here allows for up to 265,950 square feet of retail; 75,000 square tect of office, 25,000 of which can be medical. That is a maximum. And quite honestly, with most maximums at the planning stagc you put it up there where you may attain it, but a lot of things have to go right to get there. So hopefully that will help any potential clarification on square footage. And I'd like to kind of go into the issues that are related to the staff report. And quite honestly, the staff report, as we review it, is thorough and with relatively few exceptions reflective of what this petition is seeking to do. The primary focus of the staff report is a discussion of supply and demand for commercial development in the Estates. While we don't sharc in the opinions nccessarily of long-range planning staff and the majority of their conelusions, I believe you'll find the thrust of our disaf,'feement not so much in the data provided itself but in the manner the data is applied. In short, the staff presents an argument that if you take the built commercial in the Estates, you combine it with the zoned commercial in the Estates, and then you add the designated but un zoned and unbui\t commercial in the Estates, you got a lot of commercial out there. In fact, you have, based solely on a square footage basis, more commercial potential than the demand for neighborhood commercial through the year 2030. Based on that analysis, it may appear that we should all just pack up and go home. If you read further in the staff analysis, though, you will find a recognition that the type and location of the commercial square footage they identify will not fit the future needs of the community. This is a point on which we ardently agree. The primary issue we take exception with really in the aggregate approach appears to say that a square foot is a square foot is a square foot. In other words, if there's a square f()ot of commercial in a five-acre neighborhood center, it's going to be counted the same as ifthere's a square foot in a 150,000-square foot shopping center that's in a neighborhood center. And I think we can all agree that's not the case. The reality is what do folks have out there? What are their choices, what are their options? And what will their options be under the current scenario versus under what we're proposing'? This is a map basically that shows the existing shopping centers that are primarily the usc of the folks in the Estates located Immokalee, Vanderbilt Beach Road and Pine Ridge Road all along the 951 corridor. Our site is in Page 68 16 I 1'1 85 ~ C er19,2009 .. ., green. What is currently built in the Estates is what you see here. We've talked about them earlier, the three comers down at Wilson and Golden Gate. The next thing staff wants to add or does add in their analysis is that which is zoned but yet not built. Again, the only thing existing is what is built. The further addition is that which is designated, not zoned and not built But the reality if you live in the Estates is this is what you have. You've got Wilson and Golden Gate, three small neighborhood centers, and you have three shopping centers in the urban core. When we review the County Interactive Growth Model, what it really does is it shows that -- where the demand is generally going to be. And I think Mike did a nice job of describing that a little bit earlier. But the type of aggregation that I think is represented in a lot of the CIGM maps that shows the supply being way up here can be misleading. And what we'd like to show you is when you take the County Interactive Growth Model and you walk it through from 2007 and so forth, you see a little different picture. For example, again, the starting point, tllis is 2007. The yellow dots represent the T AZs where proposed neighborhood centers are warranted. Please understand, these dots are representative of somewhere within that T AZ, but they're not geographic specific. It could be one one way or one the other or two one way. They really don't have locational criteria attached to them, they're just population based. As we proceed to 20] 0 what pops up in the orange is a community center. Please remember that neighborhood centers, according to the CIGM, are an average of I ] acres and ] 10,000 square feet That's not a five-acre comer. The community centers average 28 acres and 257,000 square feet. Again, that's not achievable in the current neighborhood center designations within the Estates. So as we look at these progression maps, we move on to 2015. Now, I'll point out something I think draws out a bit of a weakness or an understanding in the model. If you'll notice on the right-hand side, you see a community center and a neighborhood center out literally in the middle of just about nowhere. Based on the model what happens is, whenever you have a high population base or a denser base somewhere in the model, it acts kind oflike a magnet. And so when you see the two community -- you see the community center and the neighborhood center right here, they happen to be equidistant between the higher density urban area and the higher density Orangetree settlement district. Those increased densities overtime tend to act like magnets and pull or push. And that is part of the explanation on why we see things landing out here. Obviously if you're going to put a community center, this may not be the TAZ you want to put it in because its immediate density or surrounding conditions are not appropriate. So you need to have the flexibility to say okay, that's demand based, now where is the best location. When we go out to 2020, the map changes just a little bit further. What this shows, and I think one of the things that is clear here to us as we ran this, is while there is a dispersal of need in the geographic area for both neighborhood and community centers, the concentration ofthose within T AZs along Immokalee and Randall Road is noticeable. It's not an accident. The density is there, existing and future. The northern part of the Estates, as you'll hear a little bit later, it's got a little more density, got a little more population than the southern part of the Estates, So this is not an accident. One of the reasons why we believe this site is appropriately located. As stated in the stat!' report, there are two areas in the vicinity of Randall Boulevard that may serve the commercial needs of the residents, Bruce highlighted both of them. One is the 44-aere tract in the Orange Blossom Ranch project and the other is the proposed rezone for Orangetree. I happen to know a little bit about the Orangetree rezone, being the agent on the current application. But let me show you on an aerial. This is right here is Orange Blossom Ranch. And the current Orangetree commercial parcels are here and down here directly across the street from the proposed project. Currently Orangetree in their PUD is permitted 60,000 square feet to be developed on two parcels totaling 22 Page 69 , ....N_._.<__.~." - .~~~-~-~-"~.'+'-' --,~~~,,--,"_.- .,._, _'__+___'_A_,"~._~.__W.,.~,_,. ,_,'" 16 ~cJe', 2009 S. .~. !~ 1-to "':. ..f' , , . , acres. You don't have to be a math wiz to figure out that 22 acres is a lot more land than you nced for 60,000 square feet. That decision was made back in 1986 in a vested rights determination. The application that is on file with Collier County and hopefully moving forward again soon will seek to actually increase that commercial square footage to allow for this] 2-aere parcel to develop or allow this 10-aere parcel to develop with retail commercial and maybc some small-scale otliee here on this middle parcel. As you can see, none of those are community centers. And that's what we're talking about when we talk about the Randall Boulevard district. We're talking about a community center, not a neighborhood center. As we then look out to the Orange Blossom Ranch parcel, one of the obvious dcficiencies for this site is what we call mid-block. It's sitting on a two-lane roadway. A two-lane roadway whose traffic counts are less than 10,000 cars a day. When you begin looking at the national retailers' matrix, how they make their decisions, 10,000 cars a day is not a plus. The Randall Boulevard site sitting here at the intersection, currently you have an arterial and a minor collector, ultimately arterial and arterial, currently has in excess of 43,000 cars a day at that intersection. It's a world of difference. And I think when the Orange Blossom Ranch project was coming through, the idea of having some level of service out here was so enthralling that the locational constraints were really not a focus of the board at that time. We now realize of course Oil Well Road is going to be limited to four lanes instead of six that was thought many years ago. The six-lane roadway is going to be Randall. So with that elevated importance, I think the disparity between the two sites and the strength of each site specially rises somewhat. The last thing I'd like to share with you basically is when we're looking at -- and again, because the staff report draws not just Orange Blossom Ranch into the analysis but also draws the petition bef()re us into the analysis, we think it's important that we have to look at all three of them. And quickly what this says is traffic counts f()f Orange Blossom Ranch are lower, Wilson and Golden Gate a little bit higher, and the Randall Boulevard traffic counts are highest of the three. We're the only one at an intersection of two arterials. Even in the long-range transportation plan Wilson and Golden Gate are planned to be collectors. Again, following, collectors, collectors, collectors, and we're arterial collector. Ultimately we will be arterial, arterial when the six-Ianing of Randall is complete, We are one of the two sites that should havc water and sewer available to them. The population density is basically about the same as Orange Blossom Ranch, in that same zone, and the population growth is the same as Orange Blossom Ranch. But when you look at this matrix and you're a national retailer, you start to understand why Orange Blossom Ranch, even though it was rezoned in 2004 at the height of commercial mania in Collier County, did not get more attention. It was the right idea in the wrong location. We believe that the project we're proposing is the right idea in the right location and at the right time. I'd like to turn the balance of the presentation over to Mr. Sullivan. MR. SULLIVAN: Good afternoon. My name is Jack Sullivan, for the record. I'm the president of Emergent Development Group. I am part owner and project manager for the proposed development that would extend the Randall Boulevard commercial subdistrict. I'm a residcnt of Naples and I'm homesteaded here. In April of last year I got married to a girl from Texas, which has me traveling back and forth between Dallas and Naples. So I now have two homes. I'm pleased to bc here to speak with you today, and thank you for the opportunity. I want to focus my comments on just a few items. First, how did I gct here today, what brought me to this point. Second, why should you commissioners decide to amend the County's Growth Management Plan for my project. I was approached back in 2007 by a previous business partner of mine. He and his brother had owned roughly] 4 acres along Randall Boulevard and they were unsure of what to do with it. They owned some of it for over a decade thinking that in the future as the Estates grew it might be a good spot for commercial, I agreed to investigate because it seemed like an ideal location for commercial but had been overlooked in the past when allocations werc givcn to potential neighborhood center sitcs within the Estates GGAMP. Paoe 70 C> 1 t:. II '1 85 ~.. O~b r 1 , OO~ .. In I didn't want to push them in a direction that didn't makes sense, so I spent a lot of time at the Horizon Study meetings, which were ongoing at the time, seeing what the community thought, talking to residents, as many as I could get ahold of, and over time came to the general eonelusion that there was a tremendous need for services closer to Estates residents and that this site held promise, This led me to follow up further with the county, and it became clear that the transportation department was in the process of considering different design options for the intersection of Randall and Immokalee in conjunction with the potential widening of Randall Boulevard, This further confirmed for me that the site made a great deal of sense as a commercial tract. It aJso became clear during early conversations with transportation that by providing some local access options for the existing businesses within the Randall Boulevard commercial subdistrict my project could possibly playa helpful role in solving some of those difficult design decisions at that intersection without damaging some of the existing businesses that are already serving the Estates at that location. It also became clear as discussions continued with transportation that the ideal alignment of Randall might impact the Forestry Service facility. As a result, we started to discuss options of how as a developer I could potentially facilitate a solution to that potential problem as well. So I pulled together the adjacent property owners at that time because it looked like it was a viable project. Some of these adjacent property owners have been Estates landowners for decades. And we petitioned the County to amend the GGAMP to allow commercial services at what I consider to be an ideal site for community serving commercial within the Estates. THE COURT REPORTER: Mr. Sullivan? MR. SULLIVAN: Too fast? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. MR. SULLIVAN: I'm sorry. Should I repeat that last sentence? THE COURT REPORTER: No, thank you. MR. SULLIVAN: So that's how I got here. So why should you support my amendment petition? The fIrst part of that answer is because I feel it makes sense, The Estates community is currently underserved for community-scale commercial services. I think everybody in this room knows that. The Estates have been underserved for many years. That's why a comparison between a planning analysis like the one presented to you by staff and a market analysis, I ike the one that we've shown you and I'm about to add some additional data to, is significantly different. To be clear, there is no market viability consideration given in the staff report's supply analysis. And I think Tim went through that effectively, We were informed directly by staff last week that we were welcome to add color to this issue. So I think that's what we're trying to do. So one of the ways we could do that was I approached last week CB Richard Ellis, a large commercial broker in town, to run a standard commercial market analysis for my development site this past Friday. It shows only 20.1 percent of the current demand for services within the primary trade area or a three-mile radius around my development site being served within it. That means 124 million of economic activity is going elsewhere, along with the jobs to support that economic activity. If you increase the market area to five miles the deficit actually grows to 385 million in economic activity from Estates' residents being spent elsewhere, either within the county or in subsequent counties, And that's an annual number, This commercial services gap was already the case back in 2004 when this body approved 200,000 square feet of commercial on a 44-aere tract within the rural settlement areas, Orange Blossom Ranch PUD, I went back and read the transcripts ofthat PUD hearing on October 7th, 2004 in front of this body, as well as the BCC hearing. What was a little surprising was the lack of conversation in that hearing about the commercial component of the petition. The reason being, I presumed, because it was something that was clearly needed, being the commercial component, and there was very little discussion or debate about that. Also surprising was that there was also no discussion about the market viability of that particular site to support a 200,000 square foot commercial center so far off of a major intersection, Page 71 160Lll9 20~ 5 ~ , . I think the presumption was that as long as the county approved it, the services would come. And back at that time in 2004, that's arguably understandable. But the climate has changed and that's why we're here. The point I'm trying to make here is that there is a huge amount of underserved demand for commercial services within the Estates currently. And going back five, six, seven, eight years, But there's also a unique problem in attracting quality commercial tenants and service providers to the Estates due to its unique nature as a pre-platted community. The population is geographically dispersed. It's not at all dense, which poses problems for retailers. They have certain metTies they run their businesses by, certain densities they need to see, certain traffic counts they need to see, certain locational criteria that they need to see. And without all of these things being ideally lined up, higher quality retailers just aren't going take the chance until population density is improved significantly. But that means the community and the residents who do want services closer to home, which was one of the conclusions found by the Horizon Study committee, it's difficult in order to move forward with those type of recommendations. That's largcly why despite the good intentions of this body and the good intentions ofthe Board of County Commissioners back in 2004 the Orange Blossom Ranch site is still undeveloped to this day five years later. There's a question of market viability. It's not on an arterial, traffic counts are insufficient, it's not at a primary intersection of two major roadways: all critical issues for quality retailers but an insignificant part of the discussion that took place back in 2004. So in consideration of our petition. I wanted to stress both the real world and planning metries which we think make our case compelling as to why this site is an ideal site for community-scale commercial services that can service the Estates as well as the rural settlement area. Tim Hancock already covered some of them, but I wanted to drive home a few final points. First, roadways are critical. Arterial versus collector makes a huge difference. Just as an example, look at Collier Boulevard, it is an arterial. And the closest grocery stores that service the Estates right now are all located on that arterial roadway. They're also all located at major intersections with at least four-lane roads. Both in traffic counts and therefore market viahility, but also in appropriateness and neighborhood support, my site is at the intersection of an arterial and a planned arterial roadway. And it's on the periphery of the Estates and already has existing commercial and institutional uses on three out of four sides. This section of roadway in front of our project is being designed as a six-Iane/six-Iane intersection within a five to seven-year time frame. Randall Boulevard is also now being designed as the primary route into both Big Cypress and Ave Maria. And in the future Oil Well Road will effectively be book-ended by Randall Boulevard on the eastern edge of Big Cypress. Let me show that map. Oil Well Road will effectively become a six-mile stretch of road and will never become more than a collector road. As you can see from this map, it's kind of hard to make out. And you've all seen this before. But again, if you're considering Orange Blossom Ranch as a viable commercial location, it starts -- Oil Well Road starts at Immokalee. And once the realignments occur and Randall becomes the primary route in and out of Ave Maria and Big Cypress, the realignment considerations have Oil Well Road dead-ending into Randall Boulevard on the eastern edge of Big Cypress. So that segment of roadway will effectively be a six-mile segment. Can you all see that okay" COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Not reallv. , MR. SULLlV AN: Sorry. Randall Boulevard will in the future become the arterial extension of Immokalee Road heading east, effectively, where Immokalee Road turns north towards the town of Immokalee. Given this alignment, it's actually hard to argue, as far as I'm concerned, the community-scale commercial should go anywhere else in the Estates, at least in the near to immediate term. The second point I'd like to make is major roadways also help determine true market areas and people's daily travel rituals. Proximity to major roads detennine where you shop, not necessarily market circles. Nick Casalanguida actually made the same reference a little bit earlier in his testimony. There are currently only two major ways in and out ofthe Estates cast-west. You guys know this. Everybody who lives in the Estates knows that if you hve south of Golden Gate Boulevard, that's your route to connect to the city. If you live north of Immokalee Road. that's your route to connect to the city. Page 72 , ,. J &;.~ f l.,l h October 19, 2009 ' ",. 84 - ;.~' :, If you live north of Immokalee Road -- I'm sorry, I already read that. If you live in the middle, whichever is closer, with a few more leaning towards Immokalee Road, since it's a little larger, a little faster and connects all the way directly into the city. My point in the analysis is this: If you divide the Estates north-south along the only access routes, the only significant access routes, you get basically the following color grid. The people who reside in the blue areas primarily travellmmokalee Road to connect east-west. The people who reside in the red areas primarily travel Golden Gate Boulevard to connect at least to Collier Boulevard and then disperse from there on either east-west routes -- on one of other east-west routes, primarily Vanderbilt Beach and Pine Ridge Road, An analysis of the Estates population in these two different areas should help you in your analysis today, Can you all see that okay? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I can't tell the roads. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The roads are where the words are. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, I'm sorry, I couldn't see the black. It's my eyes. MR. SULLIVAN: Yeah, the black, sorry. The blue came out a little darker than I had hoped. We can provide copies of these to all of you. Taking the same CIGM data that staff used in their staff reports, based on the T AZ zones you see on this map, which are exactly the same ones that everybody else has been using in their analyses, population and growth projections tell a subtle but very interesting story. That's good. Population density is higher in the northern Estates than the southern Estates per the CIGM 2007 base data, which is currently the best and most accurate data I believe that we have about population in the eastern edges of the county. As you run the -- the difference is subtle. But as you run the population progression in the model you see that the faster growth projected in the northern Estates outstrips the slower h'fowth in the southel11 Estates, so that by 2020 the population split north-south along those two major traffic routes is 56 in the north and 44 percent in the south. In 2025 the gap increases further to 57 percent, 43 percent north-south. That's a difference of roughly 8,000 people north to south with the denser components to the north, primarily traveling the Immokalee-Randall corridor. And remember, this isn't an arbitrary line. This blue-red analysis is based on how people actually travel in the Estates, how they live their daily lives. Most clearly stated, the population growth rate per the CIGM in the northern Estates between 2007 and 2025 is projected to grow III percent and is probably conservative given the planned growth within the RLSA to the eastern edges of the Estates in the northern sections of the county. In the southel11 Estates during the same time period, you have a 75 percent growth. TIle path of progress and the greater increase in population growth during the next] 5 to 25 years will be serviced primarily by the Immokalee-Randall corridor. Next. Again, just going back to some of the data. And by the way, I'm a fan of tile CIGM. I attended all the Horizon Study meetings, and I think Mike Bosi and staff did a great job. I think it's a great tool. I think going through the process, we're allleaming about how to best utilize it. And Ijust wanted to utilize it here to my advantage. I want to reiterate that per the staffs report, its own CIGM analysis, which is this page, there is sufficient demand within my project's primary and secondary trade area in 2015 to support a community scale commercial center. And if you take the Estates as a whole, there's sufficient demand today. I also suggest that because of the timing of the road widening and the effective timing of when our site would likely be coming on line, that coincides with that 2015 number. Finally, in getting away from the metries a bit, a quick comment about rural character. And I think it's already been mentioned but I wanted to repeat it again today, especially after the dialogue you had earlier about the different rural character components of the other project and how do you define it and is the developer going to decide what rural character is or is the community going to decide what rural character is. I've thought about it and I've reached out to some of the local residents, and the idea of establishing a developer resident rural character committee seems to make sense to me. It doesn't need to be a formal body that engages the county in any way, but I want to commit to it here as far as working with the residents, whether it be a Page 73 ...;" " 1~ fp'" ., ,. B5 .'" "l i.... . October] , 2009 , . . couple of different representatives from the adjacent HOA's or those that have a vested interest or just individual residents who wanted to come out and participate in the process. Defining what that rural character is for a community center, Estates town center, whatever you want to call it, something of this scale I think makes a lot of sense. So I'm committing to that here publicly and I'll do that at the board meeting as well. Finally a quick comment about outreach and community feedback, and then I'll conclude my comments. Very early on in the cycle, and I think I referenced this, I reached out to just a random assortment of residential leaders or who I thought were residential leaders to collect their feedback, to collect their comments, to get reassurances or, you know, comments of discouragement. I've enjoyed the process. We've gotten a lot of very favorable feedback throughout it I want to continue to pledge my willingness and actual excitement to engage the community, because I do think that given the location and given the potential for the location, this may be a really good site for what I think a lot of the Estates residents have wanted for a long time. And working together, I think it can be a better project for both the developer and all the constituents involved, including the residents. And that's about alii have to say. Thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, we normally go through questions of the applicant first. Does anybody have any questions at this time ofthe applicant'1 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think my questions are mixed up between the applicant and staff, so why don't we have the staff presentation now and then we'll go into questions of both at the same time and we'll see who can best answer them when we get to that point. MR. COHEN: Commissioner Strain, just for the record, the gentleman put quite a Jew exhibits up there. I didn't know if you wanted to introduce those into the record. And also he put up there a slide which was from CB Richard Ellis, which was more or less data and it was entitled Market Study. I didn't know ifthere was analysis to go with that study, because we normally rely upon that as well, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For any ofthe documentation you showed on the screen, we will need copies for the court reporter before this meeting's over. COMMISSIONER CARON: And back-up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, the back-up to go with it too. So please make sure you provide it before the day's over. Michele, it's all yours. MS. MOSCA: Good aftemoon, Commissioners. For the record, Michele Mosca with the Comprehensive Planning staff Commissioners, similar to the last request, staff again reviewed the proposed amendment to, one, determine the commercial acreage within the defined area and whether or not there's an additional need; also to determine whether the proposed project furthers the goals of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan; and if the requested change is appropriate. Staff determined that the existing and the zoned and designated community commercial supply of 200,000 square feet in the market area, which is the Orange Blossom PUD, is sufficient to meet demand until sometime between the years 2025 and 2030. The proposed addition of the 390,950 square feet most likely could not be supported until well beyond year 2030, based on the CIGM population of30,989 and a demand of approximately 231,798 square feet in the year 2030, a deficit of about 3 I ,798 square feet. The applicant did mention the site's viability. Whether or not the Orange Blossom site is a viable site is still unknown at this point. It still is part ofthe supply until an amendment comes in to remove the commercial square feet. In regard to the furtherance of the goals of the master plan and the appropriateness of the request, staffhas determined that the request is not consistent with certain goals and the vision of the master plan. Again, specitically Goal 3, balancing the needs of commercial and five, the preservation goal. The development intensity and scale of the project is consistent with urban commercial centers, such as that Page 74 . developed for example in the Granada Shoppes. Now, remember that the applicant has not included in their subdistrict text any provisions for any type of commercial. So what you could see on that development, this is an examp. The Granada Shoppes is located at the southeast comer of Immok~ Road and U.S. 41. The center is approximately 39-plus acres and is developed with 306,637 square feet. Again, as with the last petition, the proposed development far exceeds the intended vision for commercial development, as designed by the area residents for the master plan. And the increased noise, traffic, lighting, et cetera, expected at the site and the surrounding area will likely alter the rural character of the area. Staff believes that a change to the plan of this magnitude should be looked at comprehensively, looking at all of the available commercial, all of the proposed commercial Growth Management Plan amendments, not just as an individual site request. Based on these findings and the findings and conclusions in the staff report beginning on Page 24, staff is recommending that this hearing body forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to not transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. And Mr. Chairman, similar to the last one, I also received correspondence from the public. Those were sent to me by you. I had nine letters in support and I got clarification on this, one letter of concern. CHA1RMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just before we ask you questions, what was the purpose of you showing us this photograph? MS. MOSCA: This is just simply to demonstrate the square footage and the similar acreage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Were you trying to say it's something bad in regards to-- MS, MOSCA: No, no, I-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- how this one's laid out? I'm just trying to understand it. Was this cited as a bad example -- MS, MOSCA: Not at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and what we're trying to avoid? MS. MOSCA: What I was simply trying to do is show the magnitude of the project-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. MOSCA: -- without commitments presently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. Okay, so now we've had the applicant's presentation and staff's -- oh, David, you have a question of staff? MR. WEEKS: I have a few comments I'd like to make, mostly in response to what Bruce and some of the other petitioner team have made. I'll call it part of the staff presentation, if you'll let me. First of all, it was touching on this visual that Michele put up. Certainly there's one clear distinction between this development and what this subject project would be limited to as far as site design goes, and that is this being in the urban area, subject to urban development standards. And the Randall Boulevard center does have a 75-foot setback requirement along the roadway, which definitely is not shown here on the aerial because it's not subject to that requirement. And that 75-foot buffer includes the retention of native vegetation. So that even if we take this square footage and this intensity of development, you would have to push it away from the roadways and put in a native vegetative buffer of 75 feet. Mr. Anderson had mentioned that the Randall Boulevard commercial subdistrict is not part of the neighborhood centers, that it's its own subdistrict, it's not subject to those neighborhood center development standards as we talked about quite a bit this morning on the other petition. And I certainly don't disagree. But I would actually point out that the existing Randall Boulevard commercial subdistrict is even more restrictive than a neighborhood center from a perspective of allowable uses. The neighborhood centers allow all C-I, C-2 and C-3 uses. The existing Randall Boulevard subdistrict is limited to 12 uses. It's almost like a PUD document, you look at -- the uses are spelled out explicitly, one, two, three, four in bullet format and there's only 12 of those, and they're generally C-I, 2 and 3 uses. There may be a C-4 use in there because I know automobile service station is allowed, and I think that's a C-4 use. And it also does have, as I was mentioning a moment ago, a 75-foot front setback requirement in which the buffer must be retained. 85 I Page 75 , .~ ;J "il- ~ .1 _.~, :-.~~ , '~~-J j October 19, 2009 e 5 But in all other respects, as Bruce has said, those other neighborhood center subdistrict development standards, such as the old style Florida roof and many, many others, the building height and 35 feet and one story and on and on and on are not applicable to this subdistrict. And it's fix that reason that staff did not recommend them be applicable to this subdistrict, because it is different from the neighborhood center and we recognize that. Secondly, Mr. Anderson had made mention something to the effect that he had never seen staff concede so quickly to an approval in reference to the pending Orangetree pun without a market study. And I would simply point out no market study is required at the rezone stage for that petition. And it's typically not required as part of the rezone process, with the exception of a parcel within a mixed use activity center, because that specifically has a requirement for a commercial demand study. I simply note, I guess you heard it too, but one of the selling points of this project is what it will offer. And I would just respectfully submit to you that the carrots that are offered as part of a petition are not appropriate considerations for a land use request. You're being asked to approve an expansion of a subdistrict and to allow a tremendous amount of commercial development on this piece of property. And I don't think it's appropriate to consider what you're going to get out of it. It should be is it the appropriate location, is it compatible, does it fit with the character ofthe community that it's within, in this case the Golden Gate Estates area and the Golden Gate Master Plan, et cetera. A few different representations have been madc about the type of development, and Michele touched on this. One had to do with the three different clements that were depicted on the site plan that was placed on the visualizer. Reference was made to certain specific square feet for office development. retail development, et cetera, and also to a total square leet within the suhdistrict. none ofwhieh are part of the subdistrict text before you today. That is, that's not part of the proposed amendment. And of course that's one of the things that as staff if you do recommend approval of this petition, we would, as you can see in the subdistrict language, our version, we certainly do recommend be made part of the subdistrict. The last thing has to do with the mid-block location of the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD commercial tract. I certainly have no expertise in commercial development. I simply offer a couple of observations. There are at least two, and I can only think oftwo or three, staff in discussion, but two community shopping centers that are in existence today both in the urbanized area, neither of which is at the intersection of two major streets. One is King's Lake Square shopping center, which is about 10 acres and about 100,000 square feet and the other is the Neapolitan Shopping center in the City of Naples at the intersection of U.S. 41 and Neapolitan Way, a local street. King's Lake Square being on the south side of Davis Boulevard. Both Davis Boulevard and U.S. 41 at those respective locations are six-lane highways. But in all fairness to the applicant too, I would point out that both of those are developments that have been in existence for many years. So certainly the market viability standards today may necessitate the intersection of two streets. I don't know. But I just wanted to point out there are at least two in existence that have been around for many years and functioning, and from my observations and personal use seem to be successful. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we go on to everybody else, I have a question of David, unless somebody else wants to go first. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: A question for David') CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: David, doesn't Neapolitan have a road running through the middle of it? J mean, it is on a corneL kind of~ isn't it? MR. WEEKS: Well, it's at the intersection of U.S. 41 and Neapolitan Way. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, which a lot of people drive through, so -- not a mid-block. MR. WEEKS: Well, thank you for that correction. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Let's not play that, we can -- MR. WEEKS: That's true. You're right, it's not mid-block, my mistake. It's not at the intersection of two major roadways, as has been suggested as necessary'. And again, maybe today it is necessary. But that one is at the intersection of a local street and an arterial, and then King's Lake Square being mid-hlocK. Page 76 l6/J B October ~1 9,2009 You're correct, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response,) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, you had said that we should not be basing our approval on things that have been offered in relationship to the approval of the land use. Is that a fair summation? MR. WEEKS: That sure is, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why would transportation then say the following: Transportation staff has reviewed the petitioner's TIS and has determined that this project can be found consistent with Policy 5.] if the applicant provides adequate mitigation. Is that then appropriate to consider the mitigation to offset any traffic impacts in regards to the statement for approval that transportation staff offered? MR. WEEKS: Right. Specifically in Policy 5.] of the Transportation Element and also it's in the Capital Improvement Element, I think Policy 2.1, specifically provides that the county shall not approve a rezoning, a future land use element amendment and lists other types of petitions. That is not -- that creates that significant impact, that lowers that adopted level of service standard, et cetera, that creates an unacceptable impact on infrastructure unless mitigation is provided to address that. And I want to distinguish how -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But isn't what they're offering like mitigation for them disrupting this commercial-- to try to come in with this commercial use? You're going exactly where my question was. I'm trying to explain more my question. It sounds like they're trying to mitigate what they're proposing in the same way that transportation suggests they can mitigate to be found consistent I'm wondering how that fits. MR. WEEKS: My perception is that they're going -- you know, on the one hand you could say to their credit, but that they are going beyond what is required to mitigate for their impacts. And perhaps Nick needs to respond to that from the specific question of what mitigation is necessary for their impacts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was going to be one of my questions when we got to Nick. Before we get to Nick, though, I want to make sure we've exhausted any -- well, we can start with -- I guess Nick can be part of the staff presentation, if that's the consensus of the board. I think the traffic issues are important. So Nick, I'd sure like to explain (sic) while you're making your presentation, why we're building Oil Well Road only to have it ripped out when it changes. MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're not right now. As of right now there is no approved DRI over there, so we're moving forward with the county plans. So until something changes-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the county plans show Oil Well Road in its current location; is that correct? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The current plan -- the plan we saw, that I've seen -- and it's been around for -- and it's in the DR! package for Big Cypress shows Oil Well realigned. So that means if you build it like it is today, we're going to rip all those lanes back out and it's going to be rebuilt Is that correct? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, right now the county's put out to bid the westel11 section up to Everglades Boulevard. Then the eastern section east of where that Randall realib'llment would be put out. So that middle section is not in the currently advertised road plans. And that's one of the reasons we've been holding off, other than financial reasons. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the current widening of Oil Well won't go all the way to Ave Maria? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It will not. The middle section is left out of that current phase right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, MR. CASALANGUIDA: And to address one of David's comments, he's right in a sense. I'm doing a transportation review, in 5.1. I'm recommending approval consistent with Policy 5.1. David does a comprehensive review, So I don't want to mix the two up. Although I may be offering a recommendation of approval based on transportation impacts, he's looking at things that I don't look at. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just wanted to get clarification on what sounded like in one case we should Page 77 ~. 1. 'etoB 5 2009 ~ be considering the mitigation and the other case where it shouldn't be. And I think David clarified that. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From a traffic viewpoint, while you're up here, does this board have any traffic questions they want to ask? Go ahead, Brad. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Nick, same question as the last one, will this cause a more efficient use of transportation? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure it would. And let me expand on that a little bit. And if you could put on the viewer that access management plan that you had earlier. It's interesting to note. I have to give Jack a lot of credit. As Bruce had noted, I didn't give him much credence to be able to combine coordination, negotiation with adjacent propertY owners, the adjacent landowners, fire station, gas station, shopping center. One of the issues we've worked on for almost a year-and-a-halfis one of the tasks I have as part of transportation is I have to analyze three critical intersections a year for long-range planning purposes. And this is one of them. Probably spent almost $80,000 in design fees having engineers look at ways to fix this intersection, looking at its present condition and then planning tor what's going to happen in the future. He's correct, Randall Boulevard and Immokalee will emerge one day to be one of the top traffic intersections in the county. And we've got two existing businesses there as well as a fire station, and they prove to be problematic how vou address access for both of those facilities, all three of them. , So Jack was tasked with, you know, taking this on. I would not recommend this project to move forward unless he was able to come forward successfully and negotiate and coordinate access, water management and right-of:way with everybody concerned. As a matter of fact, as we move f(lfward, I'd say to Jack and to this Planning Commission, unless we come back -- if this is voted to go for transmittal for adoption without a signed DCA that documents all this, I would recommend not adopting it. But I think we've got a good plan and I think we'll work together on that. Right now you have that tIre station that we don't know how to deal with in tenns of access when this road's widened. You're looking at maybe possibly complete takes or at least business damages to those existing businesses that arc at the eOl11er. By what we're doing right now in the preliminary plan that we have, we're looking at a reverse frontage road that would tie in Jack's development with the existing businesses there and then relocating the fire station as well as the forestry building that's at the northeast comer of that site. You're looking at two water management ponds and a significant amount of right-of-way that would have to be otherwise acquired and damages to the area without working with this gentleman here. So I give him a lot of credit for doing that. With that said, I'll entertain some of the questions you have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Nick, setting the prizes aside, locating commercial development here to provide commercial development for the people who live in the Estates, is that a more efficient location for transportation? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Now, I'll tell you this: The answer is yes, but I want to quantify that. The way to do that is to run that interactive model similar to the County Interactive Growth Model using a transportation model. It will serve those people there, because right now there is a shortage out there. We have had many comments about trip lengths. I'd say the one that's at Golden Gate and Wilson also does the same thing. Both ofthese provide an opportunity for shorter trip distances. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I didn't say compare them, it's just -- in other words, this one standalone would provide efficiency. It would seem that it would because people coming into the Estates would stop in without making any additional travel and then do their purchase and continue on. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The short answer is yes. As I noted, two roadways in and out ofthe Estates right now that work sufficiently well, Golden Gale Boulevard and Immokalee Road. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this will he the third? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Well. Randall and Immokalce I consider one route. Page 78 c 16 /.1 oJtSr;,2009. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of Nick? Ms, Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, let's just go over the whole issue here between Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road, You're going to four-lane and then six-lane Randall but-- MR CASALANGUIDA: No, ma'am. We'll probably six-lane it at the outset, at least to the outside footprint. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So the intent is right from the beginning to six-lane Randall, but that's not in the five-year plan. MR, CASALANGUIDA: Not in the five-year plan. COMMISSIONER CARON: Was it in the] O-year'? MR, CASALANGUIDA: We don't do anything else other than a five-year plan. Nice try. COMMISSIONER CARON: Not this week. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Not any week if I want my job. COMMISSIONER CARON: And Oil Well. Now, Oil Well you're going to four-lane in a six-lane footprint, correct, until Everglades? MR. CASALANGUfDA: No, ma'am, We're going to four-lane to Everglades in a four-lane footprint We're constrained at that location. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So Oil Well will be always four-lane. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Approximately to Everglades, that's correct. And then we have the ability to jump COMMISSIONER CARON: Then you're going to-- MR. CASALANGUIDA: I'll put it all together for you, Right now you have a four-lane Oil Well that's constrained from Immokalee Road to about Everglades, Then it's planned to go to six lanes all the way out to Camp Keais Road. Now in the meantime, if Big Cypress gets approved and we hold off on where we are right now, we'll continue that four-lane from Everglades all the way over to where the Randall relocation would take place. And that would stay a four-lane facility. If it does not -- right now we are committed by contract to widen that section of road. And all the parties are aware of the timing of these issues. Ideally what you would have is if Big Cypress is approved the county would review those plans. If they're adopted you would look at realigning Randall and making Randall the critical facility east-west. And the number one reason is simple. Oil Well ties into Immokalee Road at a T intersection. It's constrained by two schools, a residence to the north and south, It cannot handle east-west capacity I ike Randall can. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we need to give the court reporter a short break. During the break will the Planning Commission please think of how long we'd like to proceed today. And with your perrnission, I'd like to suggest that anybody that's here beyond this one we won't be getting to today. If we can we'll be lucky to finish this one up today. So for all those of you waiting for other matters that go beyond 2008-2, we'll be starting back up in the morning on those. So with that, we'll take a break until five after 4:00. (Recess.) Item #4C CP-2008-3, GOLDEN GATE P ARKW A Y MIXED-USE SUBDISTRICT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody, welcome back from the short break. We're going to, as I notified Page 79 - - ._-_.._...~..-,._-~." _...~_._,...~."._-~,~..~~,_._,..._._,,~~--<..,,-_.'"-_.._~~-~... -_. ______.,.~_'" "'H'~. _"_ 16; " 85 .. October 19, 2009 everybody earlier, if we get through this one today, that's as far as we'll get. Couple homework or housecleaning items. CP-2008-3, which is the Golden Gate Area Master Plan on Santa Barbara and Golden Gate Parkway, that's not going to occur until November 19th because of some advertising issues. CP-2007-5, which is on Logan and Immokalee, that one was going to come up tomorrow, In talking with the applicant, they would like until the 29th, which is the other make-up day that we have. They want to have a chance to meet with the neighborhood again because of some extensive changes to that project. That's item G on our agenda and it's on Logan and Immokalee. So we'll be putting that off until the 29th of October. And the other one will be November 19th. With that, Nick, if you have a few moments, I'll try to finish up with you quickly. Before we do, Planning Commissioners, what do you feel about time frame? Does 5:00 work for everybody, is that-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: We can finish this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, finish this and getting done at 5:00. I don't care -- I mean myself, I don't mind if we go till 9:00 or 10:00, but I'm sure thc rest of you might not want that. So I'm trying to get a consensus, Do you want to finish this or do you want to stop at 5:00'1 There could be a big diflerenee. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Finish it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Finish if! Okay, then we'll finish it. With that in mind, Nick, I had just a couple of short questions. On Page 23 of the staff report there's a paragraph, and I'll read it bccause I know you don't have it in front of you. Staff has reviewed this petition lor adequacy of data analysis to demonstrate how it could reduce grcenhouse gas emission. Based on the petitioner's information, the project would likely reduce vehiele trips. Howcver, the analysis provided was not quantifIed in terms of trips captured by internal and external users. Do you know what that's getting to? Because I looked at the TIS and it does have the capture rates in there. So where is it insufficient? I'm just -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Onc ofthe issucs was when I talked to my reviewers was quantifying what it does with the other neighborhood developments that are in the area to the west, to quantify some of that internal capture that would take place with that developl11ent as well too. Because they would be interconnected. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's thc only thing that was missing from that. And it would only improve it, not worsen it: is that the conclusion? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Would only improve it. There would be a more internal capture with that one from transportation's perspective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the proposed DCA it says, the county shall reserve capacity within its transportation system for 390,000 square feet of retail -- broken down into retail and office. That then doesn't include the capacity taken up by the fire station and the convenience store that's there, because that's already on road capacity that exists today. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they're not getting any more for that, they're just eliminating that from their total; is that right? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. And fire is not counted, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And it also says the cost of all traffic signalization will be borne solely by the county. Why is that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's not true. We've had a little disagreement about that. But we're going to work that out. It has to be borne by the developer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we'rc going to get a new draft Should this go through, there will be a new draft by the time of adoption? MR. CASALANGUIDA: By the time the adoption goes through -- if this goes through transmittal before we get to adoption, there needs to be a signed DCA. And we've inlonl1cd Mr. Sullivan of that and he's optimistic, as we are, that we can do that. Not a proposed one, a signed one. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we'll have it worked out by then. MR. CASALANGlJIDA: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Randall is currently level of service F. Will be achieved with or without the project, Page 80 16 I 1 oLBrS, 2009-' from what -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Randall is not at LOS F right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: lt is or is not? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Is not. With the project it would go to LOS F, without an expansion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I have an application from Davidson Engineering, Page 9, it says RandaJI Boulevard will achieve level of service F with or without this project. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's a matter of timing when you propose that. Currently in your AUIR it's not at LOS F. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is this project going to be waiting until Randall is improved in order to go forward? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That will be written into the DCA, that's correct. At least the intersection, not the entire length of Randall, but at least the intersection, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have fun at your coaching. I know you're waiting to go. Does anybody else have anything else of Nick? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you for your time today, Nick, appreciate it. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're back to questions of staff and/or the applicant from the Planning Commission before we go to public speakers. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And actually this is for the fire district. Rita, can you come up a see? And what it is, actually this is the best slide. Is the access and everything from where your station's going to be on here, are you comfortable with that right now or-- CHIEF GREENBERG: With the existing? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, the way they have it laid out on the plan. CHIEF GREENBERG: For the record, Rita Greenberg, Fire Chief, Big Corkscrew Fire District. The plan that we have and the relocation of the fire station, that's one of the reasons we worked with the developer and Bruce Anderson to come up with that language in the DCA is because of the redrafting and rerouting of Randall Boulevard is going to make it very difficult -- a ditlicult situation even more difficult to enter into and out of the property. We've had several accidents with our apparatus and personal vehicles entering and exiting the fire station. We have the emergency light now which has made significant improvements to that. But as that -- if we take frontage away from the parking lot which was lost when we widened Immokalee Road, there's really no room left to take away additional frontage in our parking turnaround driveway area. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The intent here, is it to go behind the shopping center to get into the Estates area? CHlEF GREENBERG: No, actually the intent is the fire station would be relocated to tlle comer of Randall Boulevard and Eighth Street Northeast. So to the right-hand side ofthe screen. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, that's where the tower's going as well. Why don't you put a point on it if you don't mind, so that everybody knows where everything's being relocated to. Right there in that comer. CHIEF GREENBERG: And so that access would be again via Randall Boulevard to Immokalee Road or-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I thought they were fitting you in on the far west side, but-- CHIEF GREENBERG: That's where we currently exist today. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. All right, then. TIlank you, much better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant or staff? General questions before we go to public speakers? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think I have a couple. Well, actually, before we go to public speakers we're going to walk through the language of the GMP amendment, and that begins -- I kind of want to ask Davidson Engineering before we go too far, on this plan you've got in front of us, Tim, you have a green wide swath south of the buildings. And you have a small green narrow swath. The wide swath is representative of how many foot in Page 8] ..- '-'._"-"._.~_._~'-~~-""',"-'"~-,"'--,_."."-- _._"--~----_..."...~,-_..~.__._.,_..,..- "6. r:E h ' . " '11" "'~', I~' ," . .{> =-1 , t:; -._, ,,*.' October 19, 2009 IlIllI widthry MR. HANCOCK: 75 feet in width of native vegetation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the little green one, the narrow one? MR. HANCOCK: That's actually a water management area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Water looks good in blue, you know. If you follow that down to the west behind the existing convenience gas store, the white blob you've got there, behind that the green stops, Why? What does that mean, that no man's land behind that white -- south of that white spot is? MR. HANCOCK: No, that property will be required to also provide in accordance with the Randall Boulevard subdistrict a 75-foot native vegetative buffer also. The only property that would not be required to do that may be the current fire station parcel because it would not be backing up to a residentially zoned parcel anymore. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right, and I see the road where it goes around, around the south end of that fire station parcel. So the green was just omitted Irom taking it all the way to the west-- MR. HANCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- is that a fair statement? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So your intention is 75 feet. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: While we've got you up there, Tim, David Weeks had indicated that there's only 12 uses that are permittable or permissible. Are you folks comfortable with that? MR. HANCOCK: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Ilow do you propose to resolve your desires against what the constraints are? MR.lIANCOCK: Well, I think 12 uses may be a little bit misleading based on recent board action and the interpretation of the phrase shopping center with respect to this subdistrict. The board has interpreted one of those 17, the words shopping center, to be far more liberal, and as a result has already expanded the uses within the Randall Boulevard subdistrict. So what we're proposing we believe to be consistent with and complementary to the uses the board has deemed to be appropriate. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay, thank you. MR. WEEKS: If I might weigh in further, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Tim, for that correction. And if I wasn't e1ear, I was referring to the existing Randall Boulevard commercial subdistrict. They're proposing this expansion of both physical area but also an expansion of uses. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I didn't misunderstand you then, I thought you put emphasis on the idea that they were constrained as well. I was tJying to figure out how that was going to work. MR. WEEKS: And while I jumped in, Mr. Chairman, I need to make one correction in something I stated earlier. Tim's response to your question, Mr. Chainnan, prompted it. I erroneously had stated, when that aerial view was up of Granada Shoppes shopping center, about a 75-foot setback requirement, there is one, but I think I said front setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You did. MR. WEEKS: And it's not, it's a setback abutting residential. C! IAIRMAN STRAIN: That's when he e1arified that back butfer, that's what I realized. Why don't we go to Page 25 of the staff report. That's where we begin with the staff recommended language for this amendment. And Bruce or Tim, I don't know which of you wants to pair up with Michele in discussing this, but we're going to proceed like we did with the last one, page at a time. It's only two and a half-- a couple full pages, really, so we should move pretty fast along. First page is 25, And before we ask our questions, Bruce, do you have any objections to the staff suggested changes on Page 25 to the language of the GMPA? MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Chainnan? Page 82 , 16 I 1 J betob~]~009 4 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Tim. MR. HANCOCK: We tossed a coin and he lost, but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a first time, MR, HANCOCK: We discussed this. And I'm not entirely sure of the staffs intent on this. But under paragraph B at the bottom of Page 25 they strike the language that indicates tract 55 shall provide at a minimum a 50-foot buffer retained native vegetation in which no water management uses are perrnitted. The reason we state that specifically in the proposed language is because the current Compo Plan requires 75 feet between development and Estates zoned or residentially zoned parcels. What we're trying to clarify here is that 50 feet would be between a lake and a residentially zoned parcel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you show us the parcel in question? I think I know which one it is, but I want to make sure. Right. And the strip in question is that green strip along the eastern side. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. And we felt a 50-foot native buffer between a lake and residential was more than sufficient and we'd like to see that language stay in there so that that is clear. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michele, you want to weigh in? MS, MOSCA: Actually, Mr. Chairman, if you look on Page 26, it's Item D. It was just struck through for clarity. MR. WEEKS: We relocated it MS. MOSCA: So it's still in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So now can I take it, then, Tim, as long as that goes back in, whether or not it's a different location, on Page 25 you have no further objections? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, And on that note, I'm going to givc it back to Bruce. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, he probably gave it to you for that reason, knowing Bruce. From a Planning Commission perspective, do we have any questions on Page 25 before we move to Page 26'1 David? MR. WEEKS: I'd actually like to ask a question of the petitioners, because there's been some discussion -- as Tim mentioned during his presentation, staff was reading the application to be an increase of 390,950 square feet to the existing subdistrict. And those two PUD's that are within the existing subdistrict are approved for 41 ,000 square feet. That's where we derived this total figure on Page 25 of 43] ,950 square feet of floor area, But I think from Tim's presentation that maybe that figure is not accurate now. I'd just like clarification. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought it was 4] I, but-- MR, HANCOCK: The actual increase, if you only count those areas outside of the existing commercial subdistrict, is a total of 360,950 square feet, because that is the Emergent Development Group set of parcels and the fire station parcel. So that's the total true new development. COMMISSIONER CARON: Three-- MR, HANCOCK: 360,950 square feet. VICE-CHAIRMAN KELLY: So what's the grand total? MR. HANCOCK: That's the total new. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. What's the old and new combined? MR. WEEKS: 411,950. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, 411, that's the number I had. So that 43],950 should change to 411,950. MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay, are there any other questions on Page 25'1 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's move to Page 26. This is where staff struck the reference to uses. I heard part of the BCC meeting on that shopping center and it was difficult for them or anybody to know what the word shopping center means, since SIC codes weren't referred. Now staff has come in and replaced that language with allowable uses up to CA. And David, the reason you word it like that, is it because C-4 includes all the C's prior to it and then you exempted out the objectionable ones that you felt or somebody else felt was in C-4; is that how this was to be reviewed? MR, WEEKS: I think the answer is yes. This is again our intent of trying to make it simple and have less Page 83 . t' .' "," '.-, '._~' \., 'i " " , 6ct~er 19,2009 -"'-, "',- " " t~; , ;") F~ '-e'.(' specificity in the GMP. So just say you get all C-4 uses and then provide your exelusions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If I'm not mistaken, C-4 does reference back and say it includes all the uses of the prior C-], 2 and 3 districts and then is up to and including C-4, and C-4 adds some new ones; is that correct? MR. WEEKS: I'm not sure. And that's a good question. Because our intent was not to prevent them from developing C-l, 2 and 3 uses. So I'll make a note to verify that. Because I actually think that it's only C-3 and C-2 that capture the lower districts. So I'll put it this way: If C-4 does not capture the prior zoning districts, then we would suggest the language ofC-l, C-2, C-3 and C-4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Because also in the wording, with it -- the way it's stated now, it seems like all we want is C-4 there. And that's not the intent either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, then your numbers up on E, I'm assuming if you've -- with this information of the 360,000 versus the 411, that 390 probably is going to change; is that correct? MR. WEEKS: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the 390 would be replaced with what? MR. WEEKS: 360,950. And again, so that's for all ofthis new land area they're proposing 360,950 square feet, and that leaves untouched the 41 ,000 square feet fiJr the existing portion of the project that's within the existing subdistrict. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're going to have time before we vote on any of this. So in case this one were to be approved we want to make sure the numbers are right. I'm assuming you guys will tighten this up when you get a chance. And since Michele's probably going to be sitting here for a day or two longer, so give her a chance to take a look at it. Anybody have any questions on Page 26'1 Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Did you resolve what Ms. Caron said? Because I think it would be wise to put C-] through -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's going to research the language in C-4 to see if it in fact should be done that way'. Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was just going to say that I think C-2 inherits C-I, C-3 inherits C-2, thus three one, and C-4 inherits -- you know, the backward -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think so, but 1'111 not sure. And David said the same thing, he wasn't sure if they actually said that, so he's going to double-check that. MR. ANDERSON: lt is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is, okay. So then that would read right in that regard. Does anybody have any other questions on Page 26'1 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, docs the applicant have any objections to Page 26'1 MR. ANDERSON: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Didn't throw a coin that time. Page 27, does anybody have any objections on Page 27, applicant or otherwise? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, we discussed the paragraph G. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. ANDERSON: And that needs to be struck. 'That's going to be something that needs to be addressed in the rezoning process, because there are timing issues about needing to construct a service access road early on because some ofthe access for the other folks is going to be cut olf. We don't have the timing nailed down yet, but we would ask that that be struck. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Michele, where do you stand with that? MS. MOSCA: Actually, David and I were just discussing this. Actual infrastructure development for the infrastructure, we'd be fine with the infrastructure development versus the actual. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bet,)re we vote on this, you'll come back with some suggested changes so that if this Page 84 16/1 Oct~~,2009". does go forward it has the right language in it? MS. MOSCA: Yes, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Anybody else? Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question for David. David, on this one you state -- and again, I'm sorry, it's back on 25, but you state that all the development is encouraged to be in the form of a PUD. The prior one you state all rewnes are encouraged to be in the form of a PUD. Does that mean the same thing? I mean -- MR, WEEKS: That was on Page 25'1 COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, it's 25,a, small "a" down at the bottom. But the question is, in some case you actually reference rezone it. And going throughout these it seems to go back and forth. Is there a difference or is that saying the same thing? MR. WEEKS: And your reference is to "a", where it says -- is that correct, paragraph "a"? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. It says all development is encouraged to be in the form. And the prior said all rezones are encouraged to be in the form, Essentially a PUD is a rezone. Is that saying the same thing or is there a reason you're doing it different on some applications? MR. WEEKS: I'd say it's the same. The specific reason for deleting the word commercial here is because the zoning districts they're eligible for ineludes arguably noncommercial uses. We didn't want any issue to arise where, hey we're developing an ALF or some other similar type of arguably noncommercial use that the subdistrict would allow. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. But whether you reference the word rezone or not is irrelevant. MR, WEEKS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And David, if this were to go forward and anything was omitted in some of this language, it falls back on the general standards ofthe Golden Gate Area Master Plan but not the neighborhood center standards; is that correct? MR. WEEKS: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does it fall back on the remaining standards within the Randall center, since this is more of a standalone center? MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, okay, Does any of this written matter on these pages that we discussed for the GMP language contradict any or you have any problems with that Randall center discussion? The criteria. MS, MOSCA: Repeat that again, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is any of the Randall center criteria in conflict with anything that's in here in regards to, say, design standards and things like that? MS. MOSCA: Actually, there's no design standards already established within the Randall Boulevard, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with that, are there any more questions of staff? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, could] just go back to thc total square footage here. You said the new is 360,950, and there's 41 left out? MR. WEEKS: 4] ,000 square feet are approved in the existing subdistrict. Not in the subdistrict text but the two PUDs within. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. So that would give you 40],950, not 411. MR, WEEKS: You got me. COMMISSIONER CARON: Just want to make sure we get them right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I had 411, and I got it from somewhere in these documents, so -- MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman, if I may, on that point, the reason that I -- the 4]] was the correct number Page 85 _ .. ',..w""_'m.._..,,,...__.._..~_,.~.=-..,_,,,^"""_'_~'~'""_'_"~_"'.,~~,~,,,,, ....'... ., '_"_~'~__';'_""~_ . . _~_"'_'"'' .~.,"'" .,_ , " .. q ll'5 "' " .'0 October 19, 2009' for us is because while currently the PUD where the gas station sits is limited to 21,000 square feet, one of the criteria for that was that it was being served by septic and well and there were areas that were undevelopable. If it goes forward as a part of this project, we wanted to have the ability to increase that square footage should it wish to come before this board and do so. That's why we were allocating 30,000 square feet instead of the 21,000. COMMISSIONER CARON: You said that earlier. MR. HANCOCK: So the 411 ,950 accomplishes that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So David, you can take back your gotcha. MR. WEEKS: Okay. But that means that we will need to change on Page 26 paragraph E, which we had changed from 390,950 to 360,950. That would need to be 370,950, and we would need to make sure that that tract that Tim was just discussing is included in that description. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What tract number is that: do we know') MR. HANCOCK: The sad part is we all kind of understand this. MR. WEEKS: For now could we just say (hat the tract that contains the existing Randall Boulevard center PUD? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, you're the language guy for the GMP that has been following this for decades in Collier County. So why don't you, when you come back with this prior to our deciding on it, then hopefully you've got language that reflects what you're trying to say. Anybody else have any questions before we go to public speakers? David" MR. WEEKS: I actually did have something I wanted to I guess request that you ask of the applicant. During the discussion of the prior petition you had asked the agent about the competition with this site, and the response was basically we think it will be complementary. And I was just curious if you might want to ask that question of this applicant to sce if they have a similar opinion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Their expert that the other applicant hired made that statement. I didn't put much value in statements made by experts hired by applicants because they're made to ask (sic) what they want to hear. So I don't need an explanation, unless somebody else would. So with that, we'll call public speakers. Do you have a list of any? If not-- MR. WEEKS: We have three, Ms. Chairman. First is Karen Acquard, followed by Rita Greenberg. CHA1RMAN STRAIN: You all know the rules, you've been sitting here waiting for them all day, so -- thank you. MS. ACQUARD: Good afternoon. For the record, it's Karen Acquard. My address is 441 24th A venue Northeast. Nice to see you, Commissioners. Your faces I don't recognize. I do now. But just in the way of who I am, I moved to Collier County the first time in '63 and have been in and out of it ever since. My husband and I finally were able to move here permanently when he retired in '91. We built our house in the Estates. I am a past president ofthe Golden Gate Area Civic Association, a founding member of the Homeowners Association of Golden Gate Estates, and I am active on their advisory board. I was a member of the last Golden Gate Master Plan restudy committee, and I served on various other committees, and right now I'm a vice chair of the land trust committee. Over the years that we have lived on 24th we have successfully fought and -- the change ofthe rezoning and having it become commercial. And ifthings wcre different, I would be standing here fighting against this today. I gave you -- when I got here today, you all have a piece of paper with some signatures on it. Those are my neighbors. 1 am representing my husband and I and the people who asked me to. We are the people who are on the south side of this shopping center. And staff, one of your reasons that you commented on was on Page 25 you described Randall Boulevard as a feeder road that was some day going to become four lanes. Well, I have a communique from Mr. Feder. Because after Mr. Sullivan came to see me, I immediately got ahold of Nonn and said what's going on, what happened to the lour-lane road? I'm hearing six. I have an e-mail that I got Irom Mr. Feder, and I have the copy to the court reporter, your recorder. Anyway, his answer was the plans are for Randall Boulevard to expand it to a six-lane divided artcrial from Immokalee Road to Page 86 16/1 ,85 1 October 19, 2009 east of DeSoto Boulevard, where it will join with the new road that connects with the widening of Oil Well Road to provide east-west movements for the area. Then he goes into a couple of other things. But his last words to me were, any ability to buffer for the future development in this area would be recommended. And that's why I'm here and that's why my neighbors and I are in favor ofthis. We have in writing from this group what kind of buffers we're going to get. I'm not worried about the lighting and the noise from a shopping center. But a six-lane freeway, and that's exactly what it's going to be, with no buffers would be disaster. And you put 35-foot buildings and almost 100 feet of buffer by the time you have the 75-foot, then you have the wall, and then you have the road, and then you're going to have another IO-foot of Type D buffer, you're talking close to I OO-foot of buffer plus the buildings. We are going to be buffered from that six-lane road, and that is what we're looking for. And I do trust Mr. Feder, and that's what he told me to do was to take what actions I needed to be buffered. You have had questions regarding Big Cypress, The only thing I will say about Big Cypress is it's owned by the Collier Company and the Colliers want it to happen. Now, I've lived in Collier County long enough to know, I'm not going to delude myself, if the Colliers want Big Cypress, Big Cypress is going to be there. Maybe not as fast as what they want, but it will be there. And they're going to funnel Big Cypress and Ave Maria right down behind my house, and I need this man's protection. I'll be honest, I moved to the Estates to live in the country. I was the third house on the street. If you heard two cars go past the house during the night, it was a lot. And it's all changed, And that's fine, that's growth. I have to live with it But I don't want a six-lane road behind me, and I can't fight the county, so I want what this gentleman is offering in the way of protection. He has promised us many tlJings, and he's put it in writing about working with the community and the residents to bring us the products, the stores and services that we want He's promised us quality. And as far as the style, being on the master plan committee, come on, guys, old Florida is old Florida, If you will take a drive down Airport Road towards where it connects with Immokalee there at Greentree, look to the west side ofthe road, you see those white buildings, office buildings? That's ole Florida. And that's the type of thing we were looking for in the Estates. The other thing that we wanted was earth tones. We don't want bright blues, bright reds, and definitely no Pepto Bismol pinks. We want something that blends with the area and the community. And this Mr. Sullivan is more than willing to work with the people in the area to come up with a design that is going to be pleasing. And that's all I really have to say about it. I thank you for your time. It's been a long day but I thank you for taking it through to the end of this so I didn't have to come back tomorrow morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: lbank you for your patience with us today. It has been a long day. Next speaker, please. MR, WEEKS: Rita Greenberg, who is actually be (sic) considered part of the petitioner's team. And then finally would be Andrew MeElwaine. CHIEF GREENBERG: Actually, good afternoon, Rita Greenberg, Fire Chief, Big Corkscrew Fire Department for the record. I am actually here on behalf of the Board of Fire Commissioners to, as I was directed, to set the record straight. There was some confusion and some concern that our involvement with this project was like a strongann or muscled in or something ofthat nature at one ofthe -- after one of the association meetings that was held. We had several members of the community ask us about that. And we want to go publicly stating that that was not the case, We were approached by Emergent Development, Jack Sullivan. And based on what we knew of the road development and the changes that were going to take place on the Randall Boulevard intersection, we were quite supportive of his plan and how we would be involved in that plan and the process that it would take to -- that they were willing to work with the fire department to make sure that we were able to retain our operations in that area of the community in the manner in which they have. Page 87 - ......_._,...'-_.~_ <<.__,~~.__,_",_"., ... ...._...~~_.,~_ "4". '_'''~..'_'_''__~'_'~"".~"__.,,__,,,,_.-,,_c_,_._~v__...,.._. or, <;/ " '" 'I "'>. ,,",-', " t." -, """-, ' --- 't.,~ ~ f',' ~i -, : " " ., ," ':-1 Oet..IBer 19, 2009 ''''''''1l.r~ '. ~ Iii "",!" ~~ LJ J I So we just wanted to make sure that that was set straight for the members of the community and the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. And again, thanks for waiting all day. Andrew, you didn't get to wait all day, so -- MR. MeELWAINE: Just all afternoon, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's close. MR. MeELWAINE: My staff thanks you. I was out of their hair all day. for the record, Andrew MeElwaine, Conservancy. I'm not here to speak for or against the Compo Plan amendments, I want to make that clear. Ms. Mosca was very kind to say that I was simply here with concern for the process; commend the applicant for their effort to engage the Golden Gate Estates residents. I think it's very important. But I do want to point out on the master concept plan the portions of the Orangetree settlement district that abut the proposed commercial area and will be more directly, even more directly impacted by this activity than the GGE residents would be in terrns of noise and so on. As you can see there, the very close in subdivision, that's called Valencia Lakes. lt has somewhere north of about 50 people that are directly either looking at or looking out at from their backyard 50 families, Randall Boulevard. And then over 100 units within a third of a mile. Now, it's important to note there are two Valeneias. This is Valencia Lakes. It's Beazer. And then there's another one oh, a mile-and-a-half down Randall called Valencia Golf Course. That's DR Horton. Both the HOAs, to my understanding, are still under the developer in question. I contacted the applicant about 10 days ago to express concerns that our members had raised in that area regarding what the heck was happening. And I gather that the applicant has been in contact now with Valencia Golf Course and their folks, and I believe a meeting is now scheduled at their HOA for December. They don't have direct rrontage on Randall but they do have dozens of homes that the back yards look out on Randall. But they're further down. They're not directly impacted there, they're another mile down. These folks are not a mile down, they're right there. Now, I contacted the homeowners association for Valencia Lakes on Wednesday, and they did not know this hearing was happening. They did not know this Compo Plan amendment had been proposed. And they were largely in ignorance of it. And again, if you look at simply rooftops that are directly impacted by the proposal from the applicant.. you've got over 90 percent of them right there in Valencia Lakes. So that's my concern. I do not want my organization or myself to be on record opposing the Compo Plan amendment. I haven't really had enough time to -- I think most of our concerns as an organization would probably be addressed in the next phase of this if it goes to that. which would be the zoning PUD phase. But I do want to raise concerns about the public participation to date, particularly in terms of some of our members in that area, and would hope that whatever action you take when this goes to the BCC, this would come with a strong caveat that the views and concerns of that 90 percent of the affected residents would be taken into account and that they would not simply be listened to patiently but actually get a fair hearing and the chance to recommend some changes if indeed those would be to the benefit of all those homeowners. So thank you very much for hearing me out ,md appreciate all the time and effort you've all made today, and also your staff, who I always enjoy working with. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, Andrew. Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Andrew? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a second. MR. MeEL W AINE: Oh, yes, sir. My apologies, sir. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Maybe I missed it. Do you live there in Valencia? MR. McELWAINE: No. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Were you representing The Conservancy? MR. McEL W AINE: I'm here, yes, we have members there. I do live in the Orangetree settlement district but not in this subdivision. Page 88 16/1"1 g>'er ]9~09 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, okay' Members of the Conservancy that live right-- MR. McEL W AINE: And supporters, yes. i CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you, sir. Appreciate it. David, there is supposed to be mailing addresses provided and everybody within a certain radii, distance is supposed to be mailed. I know that has come up in another item and we've had to continue that item to the 19th of November. What is the situation here? Were not those people on a mailing list, or is there some way to prove that by the time this comes back when the applicant may have its 10 minutes rebuttal for -- prior to vote? MR. WEEKS: I can tell let the agent respond, if you'd like. I can just tell you what the code requires for the neighborhood information meeting, the notice. Because this property is designated within the Estates designation, non-urban, it requires notice of property owners within] ,000 feet of the subject site and also any associations, condominium, homeowner, civic associations that are on a list with the county that have requested to be noticed as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The fact that this other one got continued or is going to have to be heard on the 19th because one page out of its list of homeowners was missing so they've got to redo their NIM, I want to make sure we've covered the bases on this. And if we haven't done something we need to find out about it right away. Tim, can you shed some light? MR HANCOCK: Yes, sir. The standards that Mr. Weeks has referred to were fully met by the applicant. We mailed out to all property owners within 1,000 feet and all associations as the labels were provided, As a matter of fact, associations further away than this one attended our NIM because ofthe notice they received. So we did meet those standards. I'm not sure -- as a matter of fact, I got phone calls from people who lived right across the street, the front of their house in essence faces our project, because ofthe letters we sent out. So I'm not aware of any noticing deficiencies. We provided copies of all of the labels to staff as required, and all ofthe sheets were present. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can't remember, the packet that you provided to us is this big. Do we have copies of all that in here, David, all that -- where the notices were mailed to? Would you make sure for the record that you bring those tomorrow? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, because I would want to make sure that if there's an error we caught it. If there isn't, we want to make sure it's -- and Andrew come back up if you want to add something to this. MR. McEL W AINE: I spoke to the property manager of Valencia. I had to make a few phone calls to Beazer to track him down, But I did speak to the property manager and the property management company at some length on Wednesday. They'd never heard of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, We'll follow up and at least have some kind of response tomorrow, I would assume. Is that -- ML Sullivan? MR. SULLIVAN: Jack Sullivan for the record. Just a point of note. In addition to the standard notifications, as I mentioned before during my comments, we've reached out extensively to the broader community and in an unofficial capacity reached out to the homeowners associations within Orangetree, the ones that we were able to easily access phone numbers and contact information. We've had direct conversations with Jake Sullivan at Waterways HOA. He can speak for himself, but we've had no resistance from any of his folks with regard to our project. We've met with Richard Burke and a handful of the leadership within Citrus Greens, which is also part of Orangetree. They've all been very supportive of what we're trying to do. We reached out and met with Franco Olmeda (phonetic), who attended one of our neighborhood information meetings. He's the resident adviser for Valencia Golf and Country Club. Again, it's still -- the HOA is still owned by the developer, so contact with them was difficult, because we wanted to get to the resident leaders and were able to get through to Franco because he attended one of the meetings. We were having difficulty reaching out in that unofficial capacity with Valencia Lakes. We hadn't bumped into any of the resident leaders. And based on Mr. MeElwaine's introduction, I reached out directly, based on his correspondence with me, to the adviser for the developer who's acting in the HOA capacity to make sure that we went above and beyond to get in touch with all those residents. Page 89 '" __u,_...,__..,,'~"_ ,~"'''~_ ",.~ ....-.. ..". ..._""__..___,___~"_ i ~... " .'.'._....__._.__ , . ~_._,.,~...,.. .. 16/1 1O~;' 'J...' ., . .. .-, ~..- October 19, )009 f · So on Monday he'll be getting -- and this all happened over the last day or two. On Monday I'll be gctting a list of all of the residents and we'll send a letter out to every one of them directly. And I'm also trying to work with the developer, which is Beazer Homes, to speak at their annual board meeting coming up in the next month. So hopefully that will transpire and this will all take place before the board transmittal hearing in January. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I would appreciate it if we could get copies of confirmation of the mailings that did occur in the first round of notification that was required before we even got here today, And at least that when it's on thc record will certainly help if DCA rcviews the testimony and determines that, you know, there's not a problem or there is in regards to notification. So with that in mind, that's the last public speaker. Does anybody else in the public wish to speak at this point? (No response,) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there any other questions on this matter from stall'? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, I will entertain a motion to continue to tomorrow morning at 8:30 in these chambers. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: So moved. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Vigliotti, seconded by Mr. Wolfley. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ayc. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ayc. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER MIDNEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Avc. Anybody opposed') (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. See you tomorrow morning. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order ofthe Chair at 4:48 p.m. ~OLIIER <;OU:JY L \- !c\-""L L1.r MARK P. STRAIN, Chairman lCT\<--- ,l', ) These minutes a~ved by the Board on_~~. ~~viJL, as presented _ or as corrected ,. .. ' ._ " TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY Page 90 Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta "'" ~',~ , , .",. - I \ ~ , >, I 1" O~b~O, 20' J J0/Q> - TRANSCRIPT OF THE GMP MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida October 20, 2009 RECEIVED DEe 0 2 2009 p,oarl1 of County commissioners LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m, in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: Mark Strain Donna Reed-Caron Karen Homiak Tor Kolflat Paul Midney (Absent) Bob Murray Brad Schiffer Robert Vigliotti David J. Woltley ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Assistant County Attorney David Weeks, Planning Manager, Comprehensive Planning Randy Cohen, Director, Comprehensive Planning Dept Misc. Correa: Date: ltem#: Page I '~-~. . '_ -'c..~ t,..,." " .v """..--. .~,._,-----'.~" - ,. _....,."'-_._..,,~_.,~.~._"'--_. - . """-.-,,,- ~ ,,>-,~~--,--'----'~----"- '" ~ C'l ~ '11 ':~;;'-I ""z.,j I'; -; ," \.; '"c~;;" j October 20, 2009 ~ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the October 20th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. lnis is a continuation of a meeting that started yesterday, and we will be in a moment taking up where we left off yesterday. Would everybody please rise for pledge of allegiance. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, will the secretary please do roll call. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'm here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Midney is absent. Commissioner Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Vigliotti is here. Commissioner Murray') COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Commissioner Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Here. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: And Commissioner Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOM1AK: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, the next meeting we have ofthis commission will be October 29th, and it will be a continuation of today IS meeting. So 11m assuming we're going to need more time, so I guess we can count on that day. And at the end of this meeting we'll fonnally announce it will be at 8:30 in the morning in this room again. For some housekeeping matters, there are 10 petitions in this cycle; five of them in east of951 are the Golden Gate Estntes petitions of that area. They're all being heard together, but voted on separately. Yesterday we finished with the two of the larger ones, CP-2008-1 and CP-2008-2. We did not vote on those. We're going to vote on all of them individually after we hear all the presentations, so we understand the comprehensive nature of everything that's happening in Golden Gate Estntes. Today we will start out with CP-2007-1, then we'll go to 2007-2 and 2007-3. For those of you that don't know what all these numbers mean, 2007-1 is Wilson and Immokalee, 2007-2 is Immokalee Road and Oil Well Road, and 2007-3 is the Mission Subdistrict off of Oil Well Road. We have two other items that I want to make sure everybody is aware of. CP-2008-3 is another one in Golden Gate Estates, but it's on Santa Barbara and Golden Gate Parkway. And that one has been -- because of an advertising issue it has to have some new neighborhood informational meetings with the local residents, so that one will not be heard by the Planning Commission until November 19th. And that's the one on Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara. Then the other one that's going to have a schedule change is for the same -- not for an advertising reason but for substantial changes to the project, is the amendment on Logan and Immokalee Road. That-- it's a commercial application, it's CP-2007-5. That will not he heard till the 29th. Again, it was to give the applicant time to brief the neighborhood on the changes that they're proposing. So if we get through the first three items today, we'll move into the remaining three items that we can hear today and the two other will be put off till later in the month. " " . Item #40 CP-2007-1, WILSON BOULEV ARD COMMERCIAL SUBP.lSIRICL_ Page 2 .Lo,ll . BSober20.i009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So with that in mind, the first item up is CP-2007-1, It's the Golden Gate Area Master Plan change. It's on the corner of Wilson and Immokalee Road. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there diselosures on the part of the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I had a meeting with Mr. AndersO'f1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke with Mr. Anderson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I believe same thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's been busy, I spoke with him too. And I discussed the same items we discussed then as we will today. Okay, Bruce, it's all yours. MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Bruce Anderson from the Roetzel and Andress law firm. With me today is Ron Nino, planner on the project, and the owner of the property, Mr. Ismael Gonzalez, Mr. Gonzalez is a man of advancing years who acquired the property in 1987. Over here on the graphic, this is the property here. I want to show you another graphic of it, an aerial photograph. And lastly, a closeup. This parcel is at the southeast comer of the intersection of six-Ianed Immokalee Road and the planned four-Ianed Wilson Boulevard, That's going to be a total of I 0 lanes of traffic and tUl11lanes by the time all that work is through. The traffic signal -- there's a traffic signal at this busy intersection already. And I had hoped Mr, Casalanguida would be here to share with you the anticipated horrendous traffic counts that are expected at this location once the four-Ianing of that is finished and the six-Ianing of Randall Boulevard. I'll ask to reserve for rebuttal using Mr. Casalanguida, if he's here by then. Commissioners, this is a compatibility issue, just plain and simple, This is not a desirable or realistic location any longer for the construction of a single-family home, which is why my client requested that this property be designated for commercial uses. Wernet with the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association board, and no one has objected to this application but the county staff. We firmly believe that this does warrant commercial; however, if you can't see your way clear to approve commercial at this site at this time, I would respectfully request that you allow my e1ient an economically viable use at this busy comer and designate this property to be eligible to apply for transitional conditional uses that are allowed in the Estates, such as churches, child care, adult day care, social and fraternal organizations, private school and group care facilities. These transitional uses would be very appropriate at this location to provide a visual and sound barrier from a busy six-lane highway, signalized intersection. Again, this is a compatibility question, and there needs to be a transition from what's already constructed, what's planned to be constructed as far as roadways, and there's really no discussion of that. This is really a reasonable minimum request for a parcel that's going to have maximum exposure to multiple lanes of north-south traffic and east-west traffic, noise and fumes from those who are stopped at the intersection. I'll be glad to answer questions that you have and just ask that you give this thoughtful consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions of the applicant? Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bruce, you wanted -- your first choice is commercial. The applicant's owned this property since '87, Do you not believe that the planning for Immokalee Road and Wilson was understood in '87 when that property was purchased? I mean, was it purchased for commercial? MR. ANDERSON: I don't know what the purpose that it was acquired for. Perhaps just investment, Page 3 - """""-".,.-.-,..,.-,'- - ,"'". --". _..._"...,.,..,.".,->-~,. ..,...".=....- " ".. .,.'Po . ".~~,~..... _ ___'_.". _'M,u,,',,_"" ._,_ - _ """"_"'_"_~".""._'_"__'_ ~_"____ 'f,t ri a-. iF' oi>.n f & fH, '-~ (leto5er 20, ~9'~ , whether that be residential or commercial. I'm not sure whether the six-Ianing of Immokalee Road was known or planned at that time. I know that it really didn't take off until Commissioner Coletta came into office and really pushed it. As far as the four-Ianing of Wilson, I don't know when that came into being to be planned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because your argument for commercial here is one that could apply to similar locations all over Golden Gate Estates. And that issue came up very distinctly in the Golden Gate visioning committee meetings. I was chairman of that group for two years, and I've heard a lot of discussion about what everybody thinks that group did. Well, I was chairman of the group for two years, I know what we did, and I know why we did the things we did. This property was specifically talked at a time or another, and as you know, some other properties that you came forward with. And at that time we decided that the neighborhood centers interior to the Estates were as much as was needed. And I acknowledge things will change over time. And also at that time we were supposed to go through additional revisioning of the Golden Gate Master Plan every 10 years or so, and that tenth year is coming up next year. When we had our meetings on commercial -- and this was one of them that wasn't singled out, but it was in the grouping -- we never had such well attended meetings. Every meeting, by the way, was well attended by the public. The visioning committee was not in the dark at all. We had plenty in attendance. On this one -- on the commercial issues the rooms were full. It was standing room only. They were emphatic. It was hard even to keep order. People did not want all the small spot zoning throughout the Estates. But I do understand your request for transitional. And that might be something to consider. I certainly want to hear staffs input on that matter. Commercial may be the right thing for here, but I don't think this is the process to try to get that. I think that if you've gone this far, you can wait for the visioning committee to meet again, or whoever -- no, it will be a whole new appointed -- and I think it was nine or 10 members, and work through the committee on that process. On an item as small as this, I think that might be something to consider. But anyway, that's my thoughts on it and I -- MR. ANDERSON: I certainly understand what you're saying. I would just ask that you not wait-- not make this property owner wait two or three or five years to get some kind of relief. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there a staff report" MR. SCHMIDT: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner with the Comprehensive Planning Department. Because of the presentation from the applicant's agent, I'll make this a little bit shorter and just simply point out some of those inconsistencies and highlight those for you. First we tried to show that the property was -- or is surrounded by and in itself is planned for residential uses. The entire area is zoned and planned for Estates type residential. There is no trend evident in the area towards commercial development. But in the greater area, in that support area defined by the applicant in their application, we did see some. And you saw some of those illustrated yesterday, because this support area defined by the applicant is much the same, shares many of the same boundaries in the same area as one of your applications from yesterday. The support area for this property extends about three miles out into the east and the west and up to seven miles away, up toward Immokalee Road near Everglades Boulevard. That support area is -- I'll skip ahead here. That support area has a projected population of about 46,260 people in the year 2030 and would need only 390,000 square feet of commercial space. Accounting for the commercial space that's available now, both existing and potential, it still has a 70 percent oversupply of commercial space availability. In population projections there was a comparison in the application in the market study that showed us projections in the recent past have been lowered so that the numbers in the out years for growth in the area actually decreased. And in -- one way you can look at it is that there'll be in the year 2030 30 percent fewer Page 4 1, . 16 J 1 l:rJ:tober~009 people there. But you can also look at it in the way that it may take another 30 percent as long to reach that build-out or that year 2030 population. So some of the estimates you see in the staff report and in the market study can be modified a bit. Instead of2030, the demand being exhibited then may not even be seen until about 2036, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, Bruce, your star witness woke up and has showed up this mommg. MR. SCHMIDT: Because of the amount of commercial space available existing and the slow and decreased growth in the area, you saw a long list of findings from staff in drawing our conclusions. I'll touch on a couple of those, First, the property already allows for viable uses. Approval of this petition would in essence enable spot zoning, There is no additional need for commercial uses in that study area. And I mean the larger of the two study areas; both the primary and secondary study areas exhibit no need. The magnitude, the scale of the project is less than half of a typical neighborhood center and it can be considered to be scattered site commercial development This would position some of the most intense commercial uses immediately adjacent to some of the least dense residential uses in the Estates. We've seen from other portions of the staff report that there's no si~,'T1ificant impacts to public facilities; however, without mitigation there would be unacceptable level of service impacts to the roadways. There's no access available from Immokalee Road. There's commercial uses existing as near as a quarter mile away and developing more, with a larger parcel offering additional community style commercial uses about a mile to the northeast. And we've already touched on it, but the restudy committee did not recommend commercial development at this location. The commercial improvement of this property would require intersection improvements at Immokalee Road at Wilson. And the right turn lane necessary to enter this property can't be accommodated because of the configuration ofthe entrance driveway. And generally inconsistency with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. Staff did not recommend that you transmit to the DCA for adoption, and that recommendation still stands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there questions of staff at this point? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I do, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Good morning, Corby. MR, SCHMIDT: Good morning. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: You use the interactive growth -- what's that TIMG or whatever? MR. SCHMIDT: Interactive growth model, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Model. I was thinking module and I knew that wasn't right. You use that in that when you talk about the numbers you were using that for that area? MR SCHMIDT: For portions of it, yes, COMMISSIONER MURRAY: For portions of it, okay, that's just one part of it. You were talking about -- the last part you were talking about a transportation issue about turn-ins where they could actually access it. Help me understand that a bit more. If a person who owned that property right now wanted to go in there, they would have access with a right turn-in. They could also make a left, assumedly, if the entrance were deep enough on Wilson, I'm trying to understand what you said, MR SCHMIDT: Configuration with a single-family residence, transportation may e1arify or change my statement, but I do not think there are prohibitions or restrictions for one single-family residence making COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sure. MR SCHMIDT: -- maneuvers in and out But the restriction or the limitation that would be imposed because of the residential development is for a commercial entrance. The placement has a specific point picked out, and the turn lane that's necessary Page 5 "..._-,,-- -,-,....,.,~~,.."_...._,,-- ,",.~.,.._"" -.... -'~'..~~ . .--,">."._.,...__." __~..' ._. __ _._ '0 _,...__.._., ...._,__.._.. ~_..,_...., . 16 ! ." .. BS .. c106er 20,2009 for the additional traffic that's a right turn lane from Wilson onto Immokalee could not be long enough, that load space, that length of it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Right now it's a very short decel. lane. We'd have to extend that deeel. lane and that would basically -- MR. SCHMIDT: And it can't be extended far enough satisfactorily because of the location of the commercial entrance. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I goteha. Now I understand. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: There is no entrance /Yom Immokalee; is that correct'? MR. SCHMIDT: There would be none, that's correct. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, okay. Can vou tell me what's on the east side of Collier Boulevard at Golden Gate Boulevard? Is that ~ residential estates? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it is. She's talking about where Golden Gate Boulevard dead ends into 951, there's a huge drainage pond there now, nicely dug by Nick. And it's lined with grass and they maintain and cut it and no road will be going through there for a while, so -- MR. SCHMIDT: I'm not familiar with that location, but -- CHAIRMAN SrRAIN: Oh, I am. I came right by it this morning. COMMISSIONER CARON: So that whole area in there is residential" CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER CARON: So against a four-lane, against a six-lane. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. What happened in that area, belore Nick bought it and turned it into a hole, it was well made. They had a lot of natural vegetation. There are lots north and south ofthat. And those people, one of them in particular, has put a very good vegetative buffer up with a berm. So it can be done. COMMISSIONER CARON: Can be done. Thank you, that was what I wanted to know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions') Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Ask another question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Of course. That's what we're here for. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Maybe you're not the right person to ask, maybe J have to ask the other gentleman, but in terms of what Bruce Anderson suggested was the possibility of allowing the use for churches, schools, whatever the community type things they were talking about. Based on what you told me about the entrance, wouldn't that have the same problem? MR. SCHMIDT: It may. Additional transportation or tratTie information would have to be submitted and reviewed so we would know that. The intensity of some of those transitional conditional uses might compare to the intensity of some commercial uses. Some may not. But that would have to be looked at, have to be taken into consideration. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And you don't have any -- that was not submitted as an alternative. No. Okay, I just wanted to have that clarity, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions') COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And this is the question I'll ask Nick and everything. And Corby, maybe you can give me the answer. Do you think this will have a more efficient effective use of transportation? MR. SCHMIDT: Oh, I will let Nick answer that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hey, Nick, now that you've been briefed on what to say by the applicant, can you come up and discuss things with us? MR. ANDERSON: I just told him what his questions were. Page 6 16 I I )3 SOber 2'2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First time you get in deposition, who have you talked to before your deposition today. Well, we know. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I haven't been sworn in. (Speaker was duly sworn.) MR. CASALANGUIDA: And I promise not to jump over this thing on top of-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you catch that, that you give slowly today. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner Strain, I've got to give you a lot of credit, you know, you give me more credit than due and hold me back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hope county's watching today. MR. CASALANGUIDA: With respect to Mr. Anderson, I said to him I can't jump up and down about this one. I said, you know, mitigation that you've offered up with that intersection being at a high volume, high congested intersection is noteworthy. Obviously the question that Commissioner Schiffer asked me before, does this reduce trip lengths and is it a benefit. Yes, but not -- I'm not jumping up and down about this one like I have been about the other project saying it's, you know, really a good location, a great location. It's a high volume location, I think Mr, Anderson has expressed to me that, you know, it's not suitable for a residential home. I understand that You know, all critical intersections in the county that have residential zoning right now aren't the best locations to have a single-family home on, Am I excited about this one as a compo plan amendment for commercial? Not like I am about the other two projects we spoke about yesterday. With that, I'll answer any questions you have. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Do you have any more? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I mean, Nick, so in other words, I mean, I think the virtue of this would be is that as people were coming into the Estates or maybe going out, they would stop in here and pick up something. So is this really going to be a destination site or just interrupt traffic that we have already? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's not big enough to be a destination site. It doesn't have the best access to be a destination site. You know, the best he's going to get for access is a right in/right out on Wilson Boulevard when it's four-Ianed. So it's a challenge site. It's a challenge for residential and it's a challenge for commercial. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. I'm done. MR. COHEN: For the record, Randy Cohen. Nick, could you talk about how that access would affect the right turn lane coming off of Wilson, going towards Immokalee? Because it's just such a tight site. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's narrow. It's fairly long. You could probably provide him a right turn lane or access point at the extreme southwest comer of the site. It may not interfere with that right turn lane. It may. I mean, we didn't get into that design parameter of that Again, I think where Randy is leading, it's a challenged site for access, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, did you have another question? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That was -- basically I was looking for additional clarity, and there you go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nick, just down the street there's a potential for a large shopping center that was previously presented to us. Ifthat one would go in and this one were to go in, it would seem to me that traffic driving down Immokalee Road that might potentially pull into that site that's larger on Randall with much more efficient accesses would be able to get to that one, but they may not gct there and stop at this one. This one both in and out would seem to be more of a congestion problem than the way the orientation ofthe one on Randall is. MR, CASALANGUIDA: That's a truc statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would be more of a congestion problem. It would have poor access on a four-lane condition. Page 7 'We. y, ",I r rll , ... . ~ ,;J l<:I!1\ .' t{. "~ " : ,.'~\ \, " " .#, Oc 0 er 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifthis were to go with a transitional conditional use, which is churches and many of the things that are off hours, it would seem to blend a little bit better. MR. CASALANGUIDA: It would. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let me see if I have any other bothersome transportation questions for vou, Nick. ~ MR. CASALANGUIDA: We're proposing an expansion on either First or Third I think we'd want to talk about sometime soon. Isn't that where you live? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: First and Third? No, I don't live there. I live actually over by Weber and Golden Gate Boulevard, so I'm -- MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's the location. I think we're putting an overpass there next week. COMMISSIONER CARON: Overpass. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. CASALANGUIDA: I applied for a grant and I was successful and-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know what? If you do that, I'll sell you my house and you can pay me twice what it's worth, because that's what you guys did everywhere else. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Never argue with the man who's got the golden mie I guess. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I don't have any other transportation questions, other than the fact that House Bill 697, staff has made a notation, and I'm not sure it's a transportation issue more than just a general, that the petitioner has not submitted a response, data or analysis regarding this legislation. Is that something that is a transportation related response or is that a general response by staff? MR. CASALANGUIDA: It's more transportation related. I mean, you'd have to quantify it by doing a model run. The way to do that is to show that by putting a location on this that you're actually going to reduce vehicle miles traveled. And like I said yesterday with one of the applications that came forward, if] was working for them I would have shown that. So it's typically something we review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Nick. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby, I have -- any other questions of the Planning Commission of Corby? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ijust have a few. The potential of the other comers to go -- if this were to go commercial you made a note in your staff report that there's a potential then the other quadrants would want to benefit from the same type of zoning. Is that realistic? I mean, is that what people -- is that a premise for the others to go with that kind of zoning? If you give one comer, do the others have then the ability to have a stronger argument to make theirs? MR. SCHMIDT: The staff believes so. In past years, in past cycles of amendments we've made that statement just as a matter of practice as a forewarning that opening up the gate for one does it for the others. And in this situation at this intersection you do have available space in all the quadrants. And it's more than possible where it would do just that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And in Golden Gate Estates where we have commercial, we also automatically allow transitional conditional use between the commercial and the next slot over, or whatever distance that is. MR. SCHMIDT: They do. And we've also mentioned that in our staff report, that opens up those adjacent properties to those additional uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, if this were to go transitional conditional use, has your department thought of an analysis for that application? MR. SCHMIDT: We have not. We've just heard about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, did you -- you kind of half had your hand up, I didn't know if you wanted to say something or not. MR. WEEKS: Yes. David Weeks, Planning Manager in the Comprehensive Planning Department. On the speeitic question of the quadrants, Corby's already given a response. I just want to add to it Page 8 16/1 B5 ~ October 20, 2009 that specifically at this intersection staffhas had inquiries about commercial development here, most particularly the southwest quadrant of this intersection. And the way we left it with the inquirer was maybe you should watch this petition and see how it goes, because that may give you a reasonable indication of what you might expect for yours. But I absolutely agree with Corby, I think as goes this comer, so goes requests for the other three comers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. From staffs perspective, I think I saw in your report where you were suggesting that it would be a good time in 20 I 0 to revisit the overall Golden Gate Area Master Plan. Well, I know that's a funding issue, but let's put the money or the funding issue aside. At the time the last Golden Gate Area Master Plan met, we were under the impression we would be reconvening with obviously new appointees every 10 years to look at the changes in Golden Gate, because everybody knew the area was going to be changing, Is there any hope to see that happening in 201O? Let's take the political process out of it. But from staffs perspective, do you see that reality of being able to put together? You're looking at Joe. He's going to say he's got no money, so I already knew that answer. MR. SCHMITT: I'll answer that. The EAR process will-- if we do it, it would be part of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report, but probably most likely would only be identified as a requirement to pursue possibly in 201 1. It's not planned, nor have we set any resources to devote to are-study. And if] recall, I mean, I was here when Glen was on -- finishing that. So that -- I think he finished that about 2002, 2003 time frame when he actually finally finished the thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree with you. But our committee though finished before that. It just takes a long time to go through the county process. Once they -- whether it's a county or a community sponsored overlay or a private application, just as we're seeing here today, we're dealing with 2007, our committee met a year or two earlier before it finally got through the process. So I agree with you on that comment, Joe, but I'm just still thinking that we need to start. We were expecting -- if we started in 20 I 0, it would be 2012 or '13 before anything got finalized. That's kind of what I was getting at. MR. SCHMITT: Well, you're right, it would take -- it -- normally something like that will take at least 12 to 18 months, given the meetings maybe eight, six -- four, six, eight weeks apart. But I think -- well, it appears right now we'll look at it during the seoping process for the Evaluation and Appraisal Report, which is really the priority. That is due to DCA the first of January next year. Randy, what are your thoughts on Golden Gate? MR, COHEN: Well, the EAR has to be completed by January of2011. And what would flow from that would be the GMP amendments, which would be potentially the establishment of the Golden Gate area restudy. So it would even push it even further back The problem that we have is we've got so much in the queue and we only have II staff members, The board would have to identify it as a priority, establish where in the queue that it would want it to fall, and fund it as well, too. So that's kind of where we're at. And right now we have no funding for this fiscal year in terms of what items we've got We're barely keeping up right now if that And that's being frank, And next year with the census stuff coming on-line and with the redistricting, we're just overwhelmed, to be very honest with you. But that's kind of where we're at as a staff. MR, SCHMITT: Well, understand also, in the queue right now we have the Immokalee Area Master Plan which -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. SCHMITT: And then behind that are the RLSA amendments that you all worked on that we're still looking at trying to determine when we can bring those forward. So they're -- and then what Randy also said primarily, one of the major time-consuming activities in 2011 will be redistricting. I think David knows last time I think we -- they brought five different proposals to the board. So that's going to certainly take a lot of time and effort as we go through that process in 20 II . Page 9 - -,~.~.."..~------,._~-~...............~-_..,_...",,~;~=.__.~... "'--"'~'~-"'~"-"-""""~-",-,....,,.-,-,.-,~-,-,-,,~~.,..-,_. ~l I? !:t d ."- ~:~ , . .."'\ P 'f/ .. ..J , Oqr,ober 20, 2009 lit CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understood, Mr. Schmitt. I appreciate it. Since every GMP amendment cycle we have Golden Gate Estates being -- it's kind of like we're being pecked to death by ducks. We just -- everything's being nibbled on and nibbled on. And we -- another revisit to the master plan as originally envisioned certainly would solve a lot of problems. But I know we can't do that today. I just want to understand it better. I don't have any other questions of staff or the applicant. Does anybody else at this timery (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? MR. WEEKS: I'd just make one other comment from a staff perspective. It's already been touched on a little bit from some of the questions and discussion at the dais. I'lljust point out the obvious. This is a property in Golden Gate Estates. It's not in the urban area. The property dimensions are significantly larger than you would find in the urbanized area. I'm not going to suggest that this is an ideal location for a single-family house, but on the flip side it is a roughly five-acre parcel ofland and it has dimensions typically of330 by 660. There is the ability to locate a house on the property much farther away from the two abutting roadways than you would find in the urbanized area. And Ms. Caron had asked a question about a specific location, but just in general this is not isolated, there arc numerous Estates properties that are at major intersections. And one perspective will be if we're going to tTeat one that way, if that argument holds true. that this is no longer compatible for a single-family home, it must be some other higher intensity use, I think we're going to see that argument lor all of those other properties. And it once again I think sets what l'II call a practical precedent, maybe it's not a legal one but a practical precedent for other landowners similarly situated to make a similar request. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chainnan, and if-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. MR. COHEN: -- I could add on, one of the reasons when we sat down as a staff and we looked at the number of petitions in the last cycle that were in Golden Gate Estates and then the number in this one, the more we felt that it was more important to take a holistic approach in Golden Gate Estates because of what David was just alluding to with respect to the number of properties that seemed to meet those exact same criteria; some ofthe ones that were in for GMP amendments and the fact that we were recommending a more global approach and a more holistic vision for all of the Estates. Because it seemed to be quite overwhelming in terms of the number of the petitions that were out there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's why we're reviewing it in the manner we are, by hearing them all first. Any other questions of staff or the applicant? David') COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I just want to make a statement here, is that when this gentleman bought the property this was not a major intersection. It is the growth around it that has caused it to be a six-lane and then a four-lane as -- you probably don't live in the Estates so you don't get the whole flavor, but that is not a residential piece of property. And to compare it to an urban lot is inappropriate I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, living out there for 30 years plus, David, I heartily disagree with you. Go ahead, Mr. Weeks. MR. WEEKS: I was just going to say that unless I misunderstood you, Mr. Wolfley, that's exactly my point. It's different from an urban lot. It's totally different. It's much larger. And I fonnerly did live in the Estates for, [ don't know, five years or so. I have some sense of what it's like. I certainly enjoyed the piece and tranquility that I know many of the members ofthe public speak about when they have lived in the Estates. And I enjoyed that, the wildlife, the quiet, the nature, the vegetation, solitude, et cetera, et cetera. Where I lived was, just for the record, was off of 10th Avenue Northwest backing up to Vanderbilt Beach Road. And I certainly experienced -- as that road was widened, experienced increased noise. But at the same time I was in a house that was built much e10ser to the local street to the north, so there were probably 400 feet or so or maybe 500 feet from the back of the house to Vanderbilt Beach Road. And that does provide both a distance and to some degree a sound buffer hy having that vegetation as well in there. Page 10 16 1 1 B S>ctOb~, 2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, possibly if, you know, the applicant could or would acquire some more property around it, that would alleviate -- if it's possible, I don't know if it is, that may alleviate some of the issues with the traffic, the entrance, the exit and so on, to pull it back down Wilson, MR. WEEKS: The other comment is just Corby's already touched on, we're reacting on the fly. This is the first we've heard of a conditional use proposal for this site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Understand. Thank you. Bruce, we're going to have publ ie speakers first. I was going to ask you to hold your rebuttals until we actually come to vote. If you want a few more minutes to finish your presentation, you're more than welcome to right now, we'll have public speakers, if there arc any. Go ahead. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to give a response while it was still in everybody's mind. If you'll turn to Page 4 of the staff report under subject site, It states in there, the present Estates mixed use district residential Estates subdistrict designation allows single-family residences. The density of one dwelling per 225 gross acres or legal noneonfonning lot of record. Nonresidential uses: Parks, open space, recreational uses, essential services, group housing, schools and school facilities. And certain conditional uses. So to say that they hadn't thought about conditional uses is simply not the case. They used that fact that some could go here as a rationale for recommending denial of the commercial. I just thought I'd call them on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if you want to call them I think I'll ask them, did you guys do a data and analysis review as (sic) this as a transitional conditional use? MR. WEEKS: We did not. Nor was one requested. And I would also point out that the very next sentence after what Bruce read from states, some of these uses are subject to locational eriterias found in the conditional uses subdistrict of the Estates mixed use district. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, David. Okay, are there any public speakers registered, David? Or Joe, MR. WEEKS: There are none. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody in the public wish to speak on this matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then at this point, Bruce, what we'll do is we'll continue on with the others and you'll have a -- up to a -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- I O-minute rebuttal at the time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Are we going to walk through Exhibit A? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, good point Thank you. Exhibit A of the staff report and the staff language would start on Page 21, Thank you for reminding me of that, Brad. Starts on Page 21. And we'll proceed just like we did with the last couple, First, Bruce, is there any objections to the strikeouts and changes made by staff on Page 21 for the language for the proposed amendment? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir, we had a number of objections, And I'll just keep it short and simple, No, we don't agree to them, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we're on Page 21. Which ones do you -- you don't agree to any of them? It's your way or the highway kind of thing? MR ANDERSON: Well-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, Bruce, statl'tries to clean this language up to be more consistent with the way the Growth Management Plan's written. Some of these are just grammatical changes. You're against everything? I'm just puzzled as to -- MR. ANDERSON: No. Well, because we have modified our request, we had concerns about building heights. Estates homes can go to two stories, 35 feet. We want to be able to do that. I mean, we were willing to agree to limiting it to just 35 without reference to the number of stories, or to limit it to just Page 11 .-,..- '-~"'---'.-_.'-~~"_. --.-..-.-..-.......-..... --"._,~,..~- ,.....,,-....-,...-__., ^""~-"'_._~'---'-' - "i 'ttbe~,~09 .. one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you don't have any -- youjust generally don't like the concept of the way it's been presented by stall; is that what I'm hearing you say') On Pages 21, 22 and 23. Because what staff did was try to -- if this were to be approved -- and he's not listening, If this were to be approved, staff was trying to get it at least into the realm of the neighborhood center criteria, which is what they've duplicated here. And you don't believe that's applicable. MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Nino informs me that all ofthese changes are in fact acceptable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. that's a 360. That's a ISO-degree turnaround. ~ Okay. Well, that solves our interaction with you on these matters and we'll go back to the Planning Commission. On Page 21, are there any items on Page 21 that would be a problem for anybody, or discussion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No problem, really. I mean, if they agree to the one story, I'm not going to discuss it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 22 is a rewrite of most of the GMP stuff, and 23. Does anybody have any issues on any of the other language changes in this amendment proposed language by staff? Mr. Schiller? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: This is not an issue but this -- you know, in here they also have the common architectural theme. 111is is exactly the kind of site I think that applies. We discussed that yesterday. I just want to point that out for further conversation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would hope if the committee ever gets to meet again we can drag you into a meeting or two and get some input on this. COMMISSIONER SCHIrFER: I'd gladly be there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because at the time we had stalfinput on how the design -- with the community as well, but I don't think we had an architect on board, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You can count me in. But again, there is a time and place for everything. This is definitely the time for that, a scale of this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmidt? MR. SCHMIDT: Yes, thank you, Commissioners. As we indicated yesterday, there were some late forthcoming statements from the County Attorney's Office. And this is one ofthose petitions where some changes were made to the staff language after the documents were provided to you. I want to mention a couple of those. I believe it's the bottom of Page 21, small letter "k". Driveways and curb cuts shall be consolidated with or available lor use by adjoining developmcnts whenever possible. And on the last page, which would be Page 23, in small letter "v", as in Victor, for the list of prohibited principal uses, the list is not changed or len!,>ihened, but the SIC listings simply use the complete language, such as instead of number four wherc it simply said mail order houses, the SIC listing is appropriately catalog and mail order houses. And there's probably another eight or nine of those in that listing, but it makes no substantive change. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman') CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Woltley') Then we'll get you, Randy. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: You know, I have been reading these unacceptable uses. And maybe I don't get it, but, you know, you mentioned one, mail order houses. I don't -- I don't know why that's not acceptable. But the other one I got was radio aud TV representatives, which is generally a sales otliee. I mean, I don't remember. I mean, I simply don't remember why we've had that. It's been there for some time. Direct mail advertising services and so on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, in 2000 when the committee met, we had rooms full of people talking about commercial uses in Golden Gate Estates. We brought in the list of uses from C-I through C-5. Those lists were discussed item by item, SIC Code by SIC Code at every one of the meetings. These arc the results of what the people wanted at the time. These conclusions wcre not done by Page 11 , 161 II , B 5>ctober 2~, 2009 staff, they were provided by the committee. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's fine, Ijust couldn't remember where they came from and why there were objections. And maybe there's something -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There were objections to these uses. I can't remember the reasons for each one. But various committee members reviewed all the uses, and in their reading of the backup to how the uses could be applied, that's how this list came about. So, I mean, Ijust can't remember it all here, it's been 10 years or eight years, so it's been a while, COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It may be about time to, you know, re -- to look at it again. Because I don't know how many direct mail advertising services with the advent of the huge Internet increase, I think it's time to revisit some of these. CHAIRMAN STRA IN: And if there isn't that much of a need for a direct mail advertising service anymore, then it being on the list doesn't hurt anything. So what are we worried about? You know, COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: All right, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Randy? MR. COHEN: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to clarify one thing for the record, Mr. Schmitt had indicated that the response from the County Attorney's Office was late. It wasn't late as a result of any fault on the part of the County Attorney's Office. It was -- in fact, the response from the County Attorney was very timely, They were responding more or less to our staff reports, which were being provided a little later than expected, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, there's no public speakers, so we will now move on to the next -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I never got to 23 and I had-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry, I thought I said 22 and 23. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFfER: Corby, 23-W, there's a requirement for a reserve in a right-of-way. Is that from the center line or is that from the property line that -- do you see W on 23'1 MR. SCHMIDT: I'm going to let Nick answer that. But I believe that's land area, not from the center line, It is from the right-of-way line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So that would be from their existing property line now? MR. SCHMIDT: It would be. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, is there anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move on to the next item for today's agenda. MR. SCHMIDT: I thank you, Commissioners. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Corby. Item #4 E CP-2007-2, IMMOKALEE/OIL WELL ROAD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's CP-2007-2, Again, the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, It's for a commercial proposed site on the comer oflmmokalee Road and Oil Well Road. All those wishing to participate, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly SWOI11.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of Planning Commission? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: I had a conversation with Mr. Arnold and Mr. Yovanovich. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I had a phone conversation with Mr. Y ovanovieh and Mr. Arnold. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak? Page] 3 -~.__.....~,,-,,~,.._..,,~..__. .. 16' --.~ COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I also spoke to Mr. Y ovanovieh and Mr. Arnold. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I too had same conversations with the same two people -- I don't know if they're the same conversations, I had conversation with Wayne and Rich. Okay, with that, let's just move right into the presentation. MR. ARNOLD: Good moming. Wayne Arnold, for the record, with Grady Minor Engineering. With me today is Rich Yovanovieh, who is our land use attomey; Jim Banks, who's our traffic engineer on the matter; and local representative for the property owner, Ken Lynch. This project -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could we just get this a little brighter? We really can't make out -- I can't make it out. And I look up there and you can't make it out either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you just zoom in on iI" That's probably what we need. That's better. MR. ARNOLD: Just go with that one. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: We might need a new bulb. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's not in the budget. Okay, Wayne, sorry. MR. ARNOLD: No problem. This project, as you indicated in your reading ofthe title, is located at the intersection oflmmokalee Road and Oil Well Road. It's opposite the Orangetree PUD and it's at the comer of33rd Street and Immokalee Road. lt consists ofthree parcels that make up the total 10-aere site. And I'm sure most of you have driven Immokalee Road, but I think as you heard on the last item, you now have a six-lane Immokalee Road whose property was purchased by the property owner I think in 1960 largely, at least I know the front two parcels were, So certainly far predating the significant impact of the six-lane road and the future rebuilding of Oil Well Road and what that's going to become to serve our growing rural population. But as you can see, this particular propel1y you have two parcels that front Immokalee Road. It's zoned Estates. They both permit a single-family home. It doesn't qualify presently for any level of commercial activity, It doesn't qualify f(lr transitional conditional uses. Our application is for 70,000 square feet of mixed commercial development. We had a neighborhood information meeting twice. Essentially we had one that was inadvertently not advertised by Naples Daily News so we had to conduct a second neighborhood information meeting. I can't remember, I think there were seven, eight, nine people that appeared at those neighborhood meetings. We had a couple of I would say more vocal opponents to the project. And in discussing this after the staff report, we made a decision to substantially modify our request. And that request would be to go from 70,000 square feet down to 35,000 square feet and limit ourselves to professional and medical office and uses such as that, veterinarian office and things. Because obviously with staffs report, looking at all of these, they're indicating that there's not a demand that can be supported for more neighborhood commercial. So we do think, if you look around and you're familiar with the area, I don't think you can find another medical or general office anywhere in this part ofthe county. And we believe that bringing forward a project that can support a doctor office, your insurance agent, a veterinarian office and things that the community does need makes a lot of sense. You have a property that's truly not suitable for residential. I know that staff disputes that, as they did on the last case. But I don't know anybody who's going to build a single-family home across from two major intersections. You can see those front two lots, they're shorter than many of the other lots that front Immokalee Road. And we think that we can deliver a low-scale office project that will fit in the community. In fact, what I did last week, I took the NIM list that we had and I e-mailed each of the attendees of the NIM an e-mail that said our desire would be to change the direction of this project and make it office. And I also sent with them a conceptual plan that we laid out. It shows access on 33rd. But what you Page 14 !6Jl'~" - , e ~etobe"", 2009 see is a project that has 75-foot wide buffers against 33rd Street and also to the rear of the project. We also kept the 35-foot buffer to our east, and we have a 50-foot wide buffer to Immokalee Road and believe that we can bring to you a small-scale office complex that fits in with the community and probably meets a lot of that need, too. I did get one response from one gentleman who lives on 33rd, probably about 1,000 feet away who said essentially thanks but no thanks, we don't need any commercial out here, I have plenty. I didn't get responses from the others that I e-mailedto.soldon.t know what their opinion is, other than they didn't send an e-mail back with any objection. Staff in this, we looked at a couple of different things, and one of the issues that we had with your transportation staffwas it pushed for a prohibition to access to Immokalee Road, And after talking to them, I think we understand where they're coming from. Mr. Banks has looked at some intersection analyses, and I think Nick was concerned about signal timing at Oil Well Road and disrupting the potential flow of traffic through that intersection. We look at it as sort of the unknown, To put a prohibition to access in the eomp. plan may be premature and something that you don't want to prohibit outright, because there may be one of those uses that fits in with general office. Or even if this site were to get an essential service, I don't know ifthey would hold the same position. But if you ended up with a fire station or an EMS facility at that location at some point, I don't think you would somehow want to prohibit access to Immokalee Road through your eomp. plan. It may not make sense for an office project in this case, but I don't know that you would want to preelude that from happening and have to go back to the eomp. plan amendment in the event that even the county might want that to happen at some future date. But we had a lot of the same conversations we had on the last petition. And I listened to that petition, and I think -- you know, I'm not sure where that one's going, but it sounds as though they've modified their proposal to ask for these transitional conditional uses. Certainly I think those types of uses are better suited for many of these pieces of property. But I think what we've delivered on the request to only seek professional medical type offices would be something that really is a transitional use for the community that serves the community. Early on there was a lot of interest on this site by a local hardware store, because they believe they needed a good location to service this part of the county. You know, with the economy as it is and with staffs position on the rctail in this area, we felt that we could distinguish ourselves by asking for the office. It's low intensity for the site, 10 acres with 35,000 square feet is very low intensity, and we think it can work. We can deliver buffers that are good for our neighbors. And I think that some of the concerns we heard at the neighborhood information meeting regarding residential appeal for their street and not disrupting that as well. Rich, do you want to jump in and do anything? I think it might be prudent for Jim Banks to come up and at least talk to you about some of the traffic characteristics on lmmokalee Road and Oil Well and just sort of help frame why this really is appropriate for residential uses. And also to maybe talk about why we don't want to prohibit access to Immokalee Road at this time. MR. BANKS: Thank you, Wayne. Good morning. For the record, my name is Jim Banks, I'm a registered professional engineering in the State of Florida, I'm also presidcnt of J&B Transportation Engineering, Incorporated, an engineering consulting firm located here in Collier County. I have over 20 years of experience in the field of traffic and transportation engineering and have been recognized as an expert within those fields on numerous past occasions. And in fact, I have provided engineering design services to the Collier County Government in the past. I'm here speaking on behalf of the applicant. As stated by Mr. Arnold, the project initially proposed a eomp, plan amendment that consisted of 70,000 square feet of mixed commercial use. Based upon that level of development intensity, it was estimated that the project would generate approximately 500 trips during the highest peak hour, which was the PM peak hour. Based on the ITE trip generation manual, the Land Use Code 820. Based upon the assumption of 70,000 square feet of a development of mixed commercial use, Grady Page I 5 '-'-.'-'- ...,-,,~.-..,,-~---~--- , .,........................."'...._,'""".~~~.<<...""".,,'>~~._>-,- 16 C~ :: i ,JOctob{ 1'(( 2009 .. Minor & Associates prepared the trat1ic impact statement pursuant to the applicable guidelines as set forth by Collier County. The traffic study, which has been provided to the record, has a final revision date of October, 2009. I have reviewed the content of the traffic report and I am in agreement with its findings and conclusions, which are: Those segments of roadways that will be most impacted by the project have a surplus capacity well in excess of what is necessary to accommodate the traffic associated with the development of 70,000 square feet of mixed commercial use. The six-Ianed section of Immokalee Road, which is south of Oil Well, will have a projected surplus capacity of 1,400 vehicles per hour for the peak direction after project build-out. The two-lane section of Immokalee Road north of the site -- or north of Oil Well Road will have a projected surplus capacity of 420 vehieles per hour f()r the peak direction after project build-out. Those two segments of Immokalee Road will operate at level of service B, as in boy, conditions at project build-out completion. Furthermore, Oil Well Road will have a projected surplus capacity of230 vehicles per hour, and will operate at level of service C conditions at project build-out. The traffic report concludes that the roadway infrastructure has more than adequate capacity to accommodate the traffic associated with the proposed eomp. plan amendment, which consisted of 70,000 square feet of mixed commercial use. The applicant has recently revised his request to limit the development to 35,000 square feet of professional office and medical use. That development intensity will generate approximately 57 vehieles per hour, or approximately one-tenth what was estimated tor the 70,000 square /eet of mixed commercial use. So there has been a substantial reduction in the anticipated trafjie impacts associated with the project. I reiterate, one-tenth of what was projected. As such, it can be eoneluded that the reduction of the development intensity will result in a significant reduction of the pre>jeet's off-site impacts, as documented in the report that you have on record. That basically eoneludes my testimony regarding the trat1ie report that you have on file. And I think there's probably a question out there as to whether the proposed use as proposed now will generate new trips into Golden Gate community or will it actually have a potential to reduce vehicle mile trips for the Golden Gate Estates area. The answer is there will be an overall -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'd like to ask a question before he proceeds. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okav. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sir, I am a little confused. Be/ore you recited three figures, 1,400 peak hour on -- MR, BANKS: Immokalee. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- Immokalee, And then you said something about 458 or whatever it was on the two-lane road. MR. BANKS: Surplus capacity, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, sir. Then on Oil Well you cited another figure. I'm trying to figure out what happened to all those vehicles, from 1,400 down to Oil Well Road. They seem to have disappeared. MR. BANKS: We're talking about-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Use your numbers if you would, please, and recite them again, if you would, please? MR. BANKS: Yes, sir. It's 1,400 peak direction. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Peak direction. MR. BANKS: That's a surplus capacity. South -- that isn't vehicles, that's what the additional -- COMMISSIONER MlJRRA Y: I understand the capacity. I understand that. Go ahead. MR. BANKS: 1,400 vehicle capacity peak direction tor the segment south of Oil Well. There will be a remaining capacity of surplus of 435 -- let me double -- 425 for the segment north of Page 16 c 16/2 or= i~ Ye~er 20, 2009 Oil WelL And there is an available capacity of230 for Oil Well. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So my question is really the reciprocal of my first question, okay? With all of that capacity, I don't understand the arithmetic. And I don't want you to think poorly of me, but it just seems that somehow or another capacities changed. And I'm just trying to understand how that was possible. MR. BANKS: They did. Because the capacity levels for each road segment that I mentioned are different from one another. The available capacity for a six-lane facility is much greater than the available capacity for a two-lane facility, debating the two Immokalee sections. One's two lanes, one's six lanes. There is a significant increase in the amount of available capacity on that southern leg, That's why there's such a -- the number's much greater than the two-lane section. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I understand you have additional lane, you have additional capacity. I appreciate that. And maybe I'm making something out of nothing, but it just struck me as how the numbers didn't seem to apply. And that's my problem, I guess, MR. BANKS: I had no intent to confuse the commission, and I apologize. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, that's -- that may be my problem. But I listen intently and I'm trying to absorb all of it and it just seemed to be odd. Thank you. MR. BANKS: As it relates to the question as to whether the project will reduce or create new trips into the community versus will it reduce the vehicle miles traveled fur the residents of Golden Gate area, the answer is there will be an overall net decrease in vehicle miles traveled for the Golden Gate Estates community. The 35,000 square feet of office will predominantly function as a neighborhood center for employment opportunities, as well as providing professional services to the surrounding residents. As documented per the extensive research by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, the average trip length associated with professional and medical office space is seven miles and nine miles respectfully. That means -- respectively. What that means is that the overall average trip length associated with professional office, seven miles. Medical office, nine miles. Some people travel less than seven miles, some people drive greater than seven miles, but the average is seven miles. I submit to the commission that that trip length range, seven to nine miles, is well within the limits of the Golden Gate Estates community, So I submit to you that the overall effect will be a net decrease in vehicle miles traveled from the Golden Gate community. There will be an increase in the amount of trips surrounding the site on those particular segments, but the overall network will see a reduce in vehiele miles traveled. Also, there was a -- in the original application, the applicant was considering the access onto Immokalee Road via the Oil Well Road intersection. And DOT responded that they felt that there would probably be a substantial degradation of the operation of level of service at that signal if we developed the 70,000 square foot of mixed retail use and created the fourth leg ofthat intersection. I will point the Commission to a similar situation which I think DOT was relying upon was, like the intersection at Golden Gate Parkway at U.S. 41 where you've got the intersection of two major arterials and then on the other side of the intersection you have a shopping center and it has to run as a split phase. And based on that scenario, J would agree with DOT that the initial reaction would be that you will probably degrade the operation of that signal to an extent that would be undesirable. However, we have since then reduced the square footage that we're proposing to build and the intensity down to 35,000 square feet. I will remind the Commission, as I testified to earlier, that represents one-tenth the impact that the proposed shopping center would have had on this intersection. Now, with that said, I am not prepared to tell tile Commission whether or not that the safety aspects of having access onto Jmmokalee Road via that intersection, signalized intersection, versus the project having access on 33rd should be the deciding factor as to whether we have access at that location. What I submit to you is that that is an engineering decision that must be made at the time we know what the end user is. As Mr. Arnold mentioned, we may come in with an end use. Let's say it's a private school, maybe Page I 7 '_'O'~__"M__,,_._._..._.__ "".~ ._...__._____",.,_'~_~___~...>_."'_,.~".__~_._~__,.__+_,_ , 16 ;: .,. R~ ~ Oetol!e.l2~2009 it's an essential service, a church possibly. And a decision may be made at that time that it would be prudent to actually have that type of development access at that location. And let's say for example it was a church, it may be determined that it might be safer to have a police switch in the signal out there that would only be operated on Sunday, and so that use would not impact that intersection seven days a week as typically would a shopping center. So what I'm asking the Commission to do is to leavc that on the table as an alternative. That's an engineering -- I submit to the Commission that that should be an engineering decision that is made later down the road as to what it is that we're going to build on that particular site. Again, I agree with Nick and his staff that if we were going to do a shopping center at that location, I'm certain we could not have access at that location and not have a substantial affect on that intersection. All I'm asking for is the opportunity to come back to DOT at a later date. And please realize, DOT has many safeguards in place that will prevent a development from occurring at that location which would put a negative impact on that location. We will have to get zoning approval, we've got to get site plan approval. I have to go obtain a driveway connection permit from DOT and the traffic ops people, that's the traffic division. And I can assure this commission that at those numerous steps in the process, DOT can drive a stake through the heart of the idea of having access at that location at any time it cannot be proven that it is warranted that the project have access at that location. So I simply ask that that engineering decision be delayed at a later date and be left on the table as an option and not a mandate from the compo plan to e10se the door on that concept today. That basically concludes my testimony and I'm available to answcr any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the end of your presentation, Wayne? MR. ARNOLD: Ijust have a couple more remarks to make, if I could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: Unless there's some questions of Jim or me before I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can make them all at once or piecemeal, it's up to you. So why don't you finish up, then we'll get all your-- MR. ARNOLD: Ijust wanted to I think reiterate how undesirable the location is for the residential that we're only pcnnitted to put therc. I think that's probably the best aerial to look at, and I don't think -- I'm sure you all have driven there, like I said earlier. But keep in mind that if you're building the one lot that is at the intersection, its only access is to lmmokalee Road. The other lot has access potential to Immokalee Road or 33rd Avenue. And! guess if I'm building a house, whether it's on 33rd on the one lot or Immokalee Road on the other, it's at probably what's going to be the most major intersection. I can't imagine building a house at that location and having the traffic that stops at the Immokalee Road signal back up in tront of my house and my driveway every day. And that's an ongoing situation that I don't think makes good planning sense for this part of the world. I think when you look at the plan that we have that can bring office type uses to this location, I think that's what makes the most sense, not residential. If! can answer any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murrav') COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Wayne, how deep are those lots, the way you've got them? MR. ARNOLD: Approximately 330 feet, or just slightly under 330 feet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. Would you go back to that other picture that you had up there, your altel11ative design, 35,000 square, whatever it is. Do you folks intend to build a church or anything like the gentleman recited? MR. ARNOLD: I think under our office scenario, no. I know that it had been -- I brought that up because I know it was discussed just before us on the Wilson proposal, that maybe that made more sense to have conditional uses. And I think in that context if one of you were to head that direction, a prohibition to access Immokalee Road may not make sense. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. You have nine structures on there. I know you don't want Page IS 16 I 18 ;etober 21, 2009 to get into specificity, I'm not looking to get to the detail, per se, but I'm trying to understand, from looking at it from being up in the sky, so to speak, it kind of looks interesting. How tall would these structures be, do you envision? MR. ARNOLD: I didn't design anything vertical. But, I mean, our maximum height I think would be 35 feet COMMISSIONER MURRAY: 35 feet, I would guess. Okay, now, nine structures. And when you first opened up your statement, you indicated, you know, a hardware store person was interested in it possibly. Nine structures is a lot of structures, That becomes an interesting -- it's not a strip mall, certainly, but it becomes a question as to what all can you put there. You know, if you're intending to serve the community, nine structures is nice to serve the community. But what all are you intending to put into those structures? Have you gotten that far? MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think out of the C-l through C-3 uses that were proposed, there were offices in that mix, And what we envisioned our spaces for, professional offices where you might have an insurance agent, you might have your veterinarian, you might have a doctor, you might have your dentist I mean, there are uses like that that make a lot of sense. You know, you see nine structures there. And I think the intent of that design was to keep those. Each of those footprints is under 4,000 square feet COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But you don't want to be constrained to those. MR. ARNOLD: No. I mean, this was an idea. I sent this out to the neighbors to show them how you could really design a site that had very large buffers, low intensity type of use and make that work. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Here's my thought on it. I don't know what anybody else is thinking, But you're not that far from Randall where they want to do a whole bunch of stuff. And to put nine structures in there, possibly more, possibly less and have a repeat of -- potentially the repeat or something very similar to what's at Randall if they go forward, it strikes me as overly redundant. Would you be open -- I want you to think about being open, should this go forward, to being constrained to the types of businesses that you related to that might logically, more logically be appropriate in this area. I'm not asking you to define that right now, but I'm asking you to consider that. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, we're on the applicant's questions. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And Wayne, I think that was a reasonable thing to do, to drop back to office. It would be nice. I could see a really nice office park. We all in our imaginations see some really nice office parks that Naples has. But my question's actually kind of the opposite. Why would you drop the square footage down? Because if we do determine that this is a good location, what benefit is it to the community to underutilize the site? MR. ARNOLD: Well, and that's the same question that our client asked, do we really want to underutilize the site, And, you know, we were responding to some of the comments that we heard at the NIM, that 70,000 square feet just sounds like a lot to people. Is it really on 10 acres? No. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No. MR. ARNOLD: But if you're in the rural setting, which we've all heard about, these Golden Gate Estates properties, we were willing to go ahead and reduce that substantially to try to get support from the neighborhood. I don't think I found support and I'm not sure I found opposition with the change, But we were trying to respond to citizen comments we heard. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, but in terrns of planning and the square footage, which you said this footprint represents, essentially it's a difference between one-story, two-story. MR. ARNOLD: It could be. I mean, some of those -- like you said, I mean, there's room to make that site plan work in many different ways. But I think again the real intent with that was to show a development scenario that could still maintain very large buffers and be a very good neighbor for the residents that did use 33rd Avenue. Page 19 ..___"M____ _'_.'_;~____.""""'-'_',_..~_,w.,......""",.";,,,,,,",,'",,,.;""'''~nC.F_ _w"__~.~._"_.~"_'..~,~._v_,~~,~,~_,'."~.~~~~_'..'~,~~_...__..,._,.....". 161 J 'I ,n, .,~ , ., \. "."" J,. ober 20, ~09'" i ,~ , COMMISSIONER SCHJFFER: Okay. But the reason you're backing off that they're dividing the square footage in halt; which puts you down to a really low floor area ratio, is because of -- to satisfy some concerns ofthe neighbors, or what? MR. ARNOLD: It was an attempt to do that. And like I said, I mean, are we amenable to have more? If this Planning Commission would support more square footage than the 35,000 that Ijust threw out, I'd be happy to have it. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Again, my concern is that the site supports it. If it's efficient -- if it's a good location for office, it's a good location for something -- even as -- the 70's only like a 1.5 FAR which is really small. I'm done. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant" Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Your e1ient, Mr. Arnold, owns all 10 acres, correct? MR. ARNOLD: That's correct, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was there an aerial that you had on previously? Could you put that back on? MR. ARNOLD: Sure. I've got a couple of them. I don't know which one I had up. This one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How about the other one? MR. ARNOLD: This one shows better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well. you've been hanging around Richard too much. Still upside down. MR. ARNOLD: I know. I thought it tits better on the page that way. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It looks right to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, if you -- see the words Immokalee Road south of the subject site? MR. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just to the right of those words there's a big empty lot. MR. ARNOLD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is that zoned for? MR. ARNOLD: It's -- I believe it's designated CN under the Orangetree Master Plan -- Orangetree PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, is that a commercial site? MR. WEEKS: Yes, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAJN: Great. And that does have access to Immokalee Road and access to four-Ianed Oil Well Road when it gets four-Ianed without any problems. Okay, that's all. Anybody else have any questions ofthe applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll get our staffreport. MS. VALERA: Good morning. Carolina Valera, Principal Planner with the Comprehensive Planning Department. In light of the change of scope that was presented by the applicant, l'I1 keep my comments really brief. As noted in the staff report, staff is recommending not to transmit to the Department of Community Affairs. Consistency with 5.1 of the Transportation Element, we will not be able to demonstrate consistency with 5.1. And our Collier interactive growth model shows that the existing demand, commercial demand and future demand is not there but until after 2030, beyond 2030. We have not looked -- seen this proposal until today. This is the first time we are aware of the change of scope in the project, so staff hasn't been able to review this new proposal. If you have any questions, I'll be more than -- CI IAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, are there questions of staff? (No response.) Pane 20 " v.-j ~ 1 85 .,. October 20, 2009 .:[1 -I --1'" .:t>"- ,., ,,. ': CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Carolina, Page 6 of the staff report under House Bill 697 it says, the petitioner failed to address this statutory requirement. Does that mean you had no input in response to House Bill 6977 MS, VALERA: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I guess I have some questions of Nick. Is he -- no, he didn't leave, I thought he might have ran off. Hi, Nick. MR, CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your department found on Page 7, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven concerns with their trip -- their TIS. And one of those was that they didn't even use the correct methodology. Did you ever get a corrected TIS? MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So far as you're concerned the TIS still doesn't work. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, and the updated information that they changed today hasn't been reviewed, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Has any ofthe data analysis from your department or from David when-- you need to chime in too -- ever looked at the suggestion they're bringing forth today? MS. VALERA: No, we have not. And we did receive a revised TIS right after we sent the staff reports to you all. So we did not review that revised TIS that I think the applicant was talking to you about today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I have some 9J-5 questions, And I'm not sure they're yours, Nick, but you might as well just kind of hang around, I'll surely let you know. In the analysis, the data analysis that was attached to their document under consistency for 9J-5, number three, promotes, allows or designates urban development and radial, strip, isolated or ribbon patterns generally emanating from existing urban developments. The proposed subdistrict is adjacent to the Orangetree PUD, which is within the rural settlement area and is a small compact area. Therefore, this indicator of urban sprawl does not apply to the GMP. Do you agree with that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: I haven't reviewed that in the text that you've written it CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't mean you, I meant Carolina, MS. VALERA: We did. To a certain extent. When-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay, you did agree with it? That was my question, did you agree with that statement made by the applicant in response to 9J-5, item V -3 on Page 8 of II of their data and analysis application. MS. VALERA: I'm sorry, if you could restate that-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not going to read it again, I'll let you read it. If you turn to Page 8 oftheir data and analysis application. And looks like it's Page 61 of the overall package. MS. VALERA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And look at number three. MS. VALERA: This indicator of urban sprawl does not apply to the Growth Management Plan amendment. No, I do not agree. It does, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine, thank you. On the next page, number seven: Fails to maximize use of future public facilities and services. The Orangetree utility service area, do you know any -- isn't that the one the county is taking over? And do they have current problems with their -- MS. VALERA: There are some issues, yes. And there are some plans for the county to I guess eventually take over, They are outside the Orangetree service area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They're outside of it? MS. VALERA: Yes. Page 21 16 11 f;' ' ~) oet~;'~, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 63, number 12, results in poor accessibility among -- linked to related land use. This is one f,x Nick. It says in the second sentence that they apparently relied upon, the development will have access to a local road as well as this intersection. Is that a true statement, Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: They will have access to a local road, but not the intersection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Number 13, Carolina, results of the loss of significant amounts of functional open space. The way they've reviewed this it says, there is a minimal amount of open space when compared to the entire county. So when you read 9J-5 and you're supposed to determine ifit has a significant amount of functional open space, does that mean every small site within the county is applied to the entire county's open space as a whole? Is that how that's supposed to be read? MS. VALERA: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think I've had enough questions on this one. Anybody -- oh, Nick, you have something you want to add? MR. CASALANGUlDA: Yes, if I could. The comment that's been put on the record, it's on a busy road, therefore it shouldn't be a residential house, you can't apply that statement. There's going to be a multitude of intersections and roadways that have traffic projections 50, 60,000 ADT, so all those lots should be commercial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know, the applicant representative, Mr. Yovanovieh, actually is involved in a project that is only 35 or 50 feet off of Vanderbilt Beach Road, which is a six-lane road. And it's got two stories right there overlooking the road. And if that can be done, I'm sure that other housing that can have vegetated buffer far into the site can be done. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Understood. But the justification of a busy road-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, Mr. Yovanovieh represented that developer. MR. YOV ANOVICII: Which project" CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the one at Vanderbilt Beach Road behind the shopping center, Sweet Bay, the one that's half built. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commercial project? CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the residential project. I'm saying residential can be put along streets successfully. We have DiVosta's projects along Vanderbilt Beach Road, we have multiple projects along there. And those houses don't have the benelit of big lots to where they can have buffers built in like these do. They're put right up against a major highway. And I'm not -- I agree with you, Nick, I don't see why every site that is against a major road qualifies for commercial in this county. I don't think it does. It just means you may have a less expensive purchase price for the home, but -- MR. CASALANGUlDA: If I could add one statement. And it should apply to the review of all these eomp. plan amendments in the East of951 location. Your review on 5.1 is a five-year review. And it was set up that way to say the roads have capacity in five years, And Mr. Banks is correct, these roads have been widened and they will have capacity in five years. You're supposed to be looking at these in ten]]s of the long range. Your LRTP, your long-range transportation plan and financially feasible needs plan don't match. And we're going through an update. It's going to get worse. So when you review these things, if they're small locations they're not going to add value to that long-range transportation plan and planning process where they provide a realistic destination in a location that needs destinations. You should consider that. And small applications, these small zoning applications don't provide those large destinations in areas. So consider that when you're making your-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schilfer" Page 22 16 1 1 OBSO,200' COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And again, the question is did you think this would provide a greater efficiency of transportation in that area? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Mr. Banks' comments was correct, but in general when you run a model, these small locations, that could be said for a lot of them, if they're not sufficient size and you run an area-wide model, they're not going to draw like they would a larger location. So it provides a benefit, but they become minimized when they're very small. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right, it could be small, but it's a small project. But essentially everybody that goes to an office here is not going to an office someplace else, And we all know that someplace else is further away. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That said, if you take the rural area and you plunk down a bunch of small office locations, that general statement is true, It's just the benefit is minimal. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. Well, it's a minimal project. I mean, this isn't going to tip the county. Can you discuss why that intersection would be bad? I mean, the geometry of the site is such that it would come in with sufficient dimension that, you know, could really be well planned, good rate, everything could be well done on the site. But what you're concerned about, letting that site join that light. MR CASALANGUIDA: Sure, I think you documented well. When you add a different phase or a different leg to that intersection, there's more movements and the operations start to degrade a little bit. Obviously based on sides, that degradation can be changed. But there's no reason to add a fourth leg to that intersection. It degrades the operation of the mainline and the intersection itself. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But essentially the only concern would be coming out ofthat using that light. But people coming -- using that intersection going into the site, it wouldn't slow it down at all, would it? MR, CASALANGUIDA: Well, you're opposing left from the northbound, it would be timed in with that phase. But depending on the volume, and as you noted, depending on the size, it would impact that. That'd be reviewed based on the size of the application. But any time you add another leg to an intersection, and more conflict points and more issues there, the intersection starts to degrade. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. But that's only -- there's multiple turns that could go in there. The only one that really could slow it down is the guy trying to go north using the light. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, then it's coming out as well too. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, that's what I mean, coming out to go north-- MR. CASALANGUIDA: Coming out and -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- using that light. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. And it's another movement. It's right in/right out. It's the lefts in, it's the lefts out. It's the through traffic that wants to get around. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. And it would really mess it up such that you really wouldn't want that on there. MR, CASALANGUIDA: If these become -- as you know, we pointed out Immokalee and Randall become our high volume roads. They need to be protected at all cost. So I would not recommend a connection at that location. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thank you. I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, let's take a break for 15 minutes, and we'll resume at 10: 15. (Recess, ) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone, welcome back from our break. We had left off finishing up, I believe, the presentation by the applicant on Item CP-2007-2, It's the petition on Immokalee Road and Oil Well Road. Carolina, I think you were up next. MS. VALERA: If] may, I would like to introduce for the record some of the comments from our County Attorney regard to this petition. In our suggested language, which -- well, as pointed out by the applicant, it may not be relevant Page 23 - --~".,..'.'-'-_'__ _ , L... ,____...___,.~.~,~~ ...~,__." ._~,_~-,~ . ~,-~~,--.,--.-._->"_.." ,-- - 11 ft, ~ 'it I~ 1. i cB~20, 20: anymore. Our County Attorney had suggested that some of the SIC codes may not be a good idea, and just -- she suggested that the uses prevail, not the SIC Code. As you know, the SIC Code may allow more uses than what are noted in our suggested allowed uses for this project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can't remember, but did we have SIC codes in the GMP Golden Gate Area Master Plan? MS. VALERA: I believe not. Right, David? MR. WEEKS: Well. they exist in that list of prohibited uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, that's the only place. Well, then where are the SIC codes in the staff's recommended language that you're referring to as brought up by the County Attorney's Oltiee? MS. VALERA: Allowed in the sense that the prohibited uses in letter R, where it says the following principal permitted uses are prohibited. And you're right, I mean, it's the list of prohibited uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But Davidjust said they're already in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan with the SIC codes, right, David? MR. WEEKS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So why would we not leave them here with the SIC codes? Because if that was the intent -- MS. VALERA: Then let me ask for the record to start the comments from our County Attorney. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't understand the reasoning, but-- MR. WEEKS: I think that's identified here is what I will call a global issue, because if it's a problem with this petitioner, you know, concem, legal coneem for this petition, because it is already in the master plan, that means it's a concern f(lr how it's worded in the master plan. So what I get out of all of this is I'm going to write another note here for that list ofGMP amendments needed initiated by staff, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before you go there, David, you need to consider one of the petitions that came here, and I forgot wh ich one it was, discussed the problems that they had in one of the original segments of a Pun they had within themselves. I think it was the Randall one. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Randall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where they had the word shopping center. And that was real ditlicult f()r staff to make a decision to a point where it had to go to the BCC. But if you had shopping center and you listed all the uses of the SIC Code, you wouldn't have had that problem. So why would we want to take out the delinitiveness of the number, if that's the way it was intended from the beginning, to make it less definitive by what's being suggested? MR. WEEKS: Okay, two comments. One, I have to say something about that shopping center issue. I don't think staff had any issue with it. That was the applicant who chose to appeal that ultimately to the Board of County Commissioners. Without going into all the detail and staying low on the soap box, I'll just say that shopping center all the way back to the 1982 zoning ordinance, which is relevant at the time ofthe PUD that we're talking about here, the Randall Boulevard Center PUD, was very -- the definition of that was very similar as it is today. It is not a land use, A shopping center is a type of development. It's a certain number of uses within a building, or it's a certain building square f,)otage of retail development. But, you know, off the soap box. Shopping center's not a use and it should not exist in a PUD. And it no longer exists in our Land Development Code as a use. That was a -- I don't know why it ever got there, but it was. And it's been rectified now. Now, back to the point. I think the remedy here ultimately is going to be to simply clarify the language. I'm looking at Page 16, paragraph R, number one as an example. Drinking places (SIC Code 58] 3.) Now, ] believe the comment from the County Attorney's Oltiee is if we look at the SIC Code book at 5813, we're going to see severa] different specific uses therein. And the question is going to be which carries. If drinking places is a broader category than the SIC Code number, or vice versa, then the question is which rules? Is it the broader? If drinking places applies to -- is a single use and the SIC Code 5813 in fact includes Page 24 , 16/1 oeBe~o, 2009 ! five different uses, then what was the intent of the language? Was it-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bars. I was there. The intent was we didn't want bars popping up everywhere in Golden Gate Estates. And that's why that was put in there, MR. WEEKS: So we'd be referring to a single use, not-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WEEKS: -- maybe four other uses that might occur on-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Restaurants that serve alcohol weren't of the concern, it was bars, And Stevie Tomatoes would be definitely problematic in Golden Gate Estates. MR. WEEKS: I believe the comment from the Attorney's Office was raising an issue of clarity. And they just want it resolved. I don't think they're -- MS. VALERA: And that is correct, it's more of a clarity issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm glad we talked about it. Better understood now, thank you. Okay, did you finish, Carolina? MS. VALERA: Yes, That's all -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions of staff? David, you've got a question of staff? MR. WEEKS: Again, I'm going to chew my tongue off if] don't get this out I just have to say this. This petition was submitted two and a half years ago this month, And it was submitted with data and analysis that presumably the applicant believed would justify and support the approval of the petition. And now here today at this hearing a substantial change is made to the application. That's not right. Also, to my knowledge there's been no data and analysis submitted, no needs analysis submitted for this revised application, because now they're talking about office use only. Had they presented any needs analysis to show that we need office uses at this location or in this general area. And from some of the comments made, it sounds like this is more of a compatibility driven amendment, as was the last one that was specifically stated on the record that it was, and it's starting to sound to me like that's the case here as well. The other comment is Ijust observed that in the submitted application, a single-family dwelling is a retained use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any other questions of the -- of anyone before we go to public speakers? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public speakers registered, David? MR. WEEKS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does any member of the public wish to speak on this petition, please raise your hand and come on up and use the microphone. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody's still -- okay, no public speakers. Richard, now you're going to have some rebuttal time prior to our vote, but if you have something you want to add to your presentation, feel free. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. At the risk of using David's analogy about biting my tongue off -- MR. WEEKS: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Not yours, his. MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- I need to point out that if] look at the date of the staff report, which I think it was signed by staff on September 28th, 2009, that's the fIrst time we got a substantive review of the data and analysis we provided. Yes, we believe our data and analysis supported what we requested. But it was not until then that we found out that staff disagreed with our conclusion, And it wasn't until after we had our neighborhood information meeting that we got neighborhood information or neighborhood feedback to discuss the issue. The uses we're asking for, office, arc all within the C-I through C-3 uses, which is what we originally requested. So what we've done is we've gone with a subset of our original request and we've reduced our number in reaction to the staff report and the neighborhood information meeting. Page 25 _ mm_"_"__'.H.__' _. "~'.~-'-~'-~'--'~--_,_,~,~-_,~"-~-,,, ,~._,...,'"----"._--_..__. '11 ,/ \\.. :, .\-"<, ;.; , I .-.j ,', j B~ dJ '1 dCoetober 20, 2009 And what happened was the neighbors didn't like that we were being forced onto 33rd as our access point. That was one of their comments. So in reaction to staff telling us we can't go on Oil Well and the neighbors, we made a change. That is not an inappropriate thing to do. And to be chastised for reacting to a staff report and neighborhood comments I think is not fair. And it's not been an interactive process for these two years. We have received comments on the format of our data and analysis. Change this, change that, change this, change that We have not received feedback on the what I will say quality of the information until we get the staff report. And we're going to-- we've done that throughout the history of eomp. plan amendments, we've reacted to staff reports, and I think we should be allowed to do that. And every one of the petitions pretty much has done that. And I'm sorry if staff doesn't like the way the process is going, but we have to live with that process, and we're going to continue to react because we have neighborhood input at the end of the game. And we've got staff input at the end of the game. So I wanted to respond to that comment. And we'll get into more of the substantive in closing as far as the presentation goes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You might as well stay up there with Carolina, because we want to walk through the proposed language by staff that starts on Page 14 of the staff report, as we have with each petition prior to this. And it begins on Page 14 with a paragraph on the bottom. And the first question, Richard, any of the changes in that paragraph, are you or your client objecting to those? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody from the Planning Commission have questions on Page 14? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: .lust-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Rick, maybe you should call this now an office park instead of commercial subdistrict. Just a thought. Just to be-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're fine with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Page 15 there arc a series of changes by staff. Richard, do you or your client have any problems with those? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Looks like they're just trying to make this the same as all other neighborhood centers in Golden Gate Estates, except lor, you know, we had asked for the change of the 70,000 to 35,000. And reducing the uses to office -- you know, professional and medical and veterinarian office type uses. So other -- I guess the answer is no, we don't have an objection, but it's not consistent with what we had modified the request to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the way I'm assuming this would happen is at the end of the presentations and we do get into our voting, those that do get voted on, the appropriate change will have to be made based upon the vote, so we understand that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does anybody else have any questions on Page 15. Mr. Schiffer, and then David. Or David, you might as well go first, it might solve Brad's issue. MR. WEEKS: I was just going to say, on Page 15, paragraph B, I know the applicant has referred to what I heard was professional and medical oftiees. We've dealt with the issue before of identifying categories of use, and it can be problematic. I would suggest that we simply change the language to delete C-2 and C-3 so that paragraph B would allow the permitted and conditional uses of the C-I zoning district. That does go beyond professional medical offices, allows general ofliees and allows some personal services. But at the time of rezoning, if they don't want to avail themselves of some of those other uses, then that can be restricted. It's much easier I believe to do it that way in the process rather than try to state a category of use which we don't even have definitions for. We don't actually have a definition of professional office, as an example, in the LDC. MR. YOV ANOVICII: And I would -- I think generally I agree with that but I'm fairly certain that a veterinarian's office is not a C-I use. So we may need to supplement -- in other words, say the C-I plus the veterinarian ol1iee, or other things like those types of offices that we think are appropriate in this location. So Page 26 16/2 Ri 20, 2" we can come up with a better list. But in general I agree with what David is saying to the C- 1, but I think a veterinarian's office is not a C- 1 use. There may be those oddball uses that we need to add to the list. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If this does survive and you come back for adoption, all that would have to be modified in any new langnage and it would be dealt with at that time. MR, YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Brad, you wanted to-- COMMISSIONER SCHlFFER: Well, yeah, my concern was still the 35 thou. I mean, that's really underutilization of the site. So if -- you know, sprawl is a disaster and it's a disaster in Collier County. That picture kind of shows it. So if we're -- to me if this is a good site for professional offices, underutilizing it to me is a highly negative thing, MR. YOV ANOVICH: And Mr. Schiffer, I was going to address that later, but I'll address it now. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: You can address it later. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, but I -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Maybe you could address it later when it's important close to a vote. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it will certainly make those of us that may wanted to go the other way. Why don't we go on with the next page, Page 16. Any questions on Page 16'1 From the applicant's perspective, is there anything there that you object to? MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think -- again, I think we're okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions from the Planning Commission? Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I do. I mean, the two-story, I can't see again what that does. This thing -- this thing is totally going to be nested in preserves and buffers, And what the two stories is going to achieve, rm not sure. MR. YOV ANOVICH: We had envisioned -- and I don't know if you're familiar with this. Pretty much everybody knows where the Wilson-Miller building is on Airport Road. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. YOV ANOVICH: As you go a little bit further north, there's the -- there was a children's dentist. And immediately next to that was a small office complex, I think it's called Everglades Professional Center. And what that is is that's just smaller single-story, you know, quaint -- I would think that's old Florida because they're tin roof with porches type of a project fitting in, And that's the model of what we were thinking is one story, multiple small buildings. And that was kind of the character of Golden Gate Estates when we were going with the concept. So one story, I guess we're only 35,000 square feet, you know, one story -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, you know, I would go back and stop right at Wilson-Miller's office. How can you do it any better than that? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It is a beautiful building. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, and it's set in a -- it's the density we're talking about. If you were up at 70,000 feet and two stories. I mean, that to me is one of the greatest office work spaces in the county. MR. YOV ANOVICH: With local street access. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, is the Wilson-Miller center in the urban area? Is this facility out here in the urban area? The answer is no. What we do in the urban area is a lot different than what we do in the rural areas of Collier County. Densities, intensities and height., all affect rural areas than they do urban areas, where it's expected. ML Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yeah, I'm going to ask another question. On that "I", all buildings Page 27 -~" ,....." 'bct~er 20, 2~) 'J ,'" .'" , shall have tile roofs, old style Florida metal roofs with decorative parapet. We asked today, we were talking about Bermuda and so forth, Remind me again why we do this, we focus on the roofs and not on the architectural style. Or at least we should have consistency, I would hope. MR. WEEKS: I don't have that history. I know it came out of the Golden Gate Master Plan committee. I believe it was part ofthe original. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, it was a recommendation from the committee when we studied the various styles going in Golden Gate. What we didn't want were flat roofs with false parapets and air condition equipment sticking up and things like that and styles -- COMMISSIONER MlIRRA Y: I don't have a problem with it, my issue was yesterday we talked about Bermuda and we don't have that kind of thing here. And I'm trying to -- well, we seek consistency where we can get it. And we're looking for -- if this is a de[mition of some form, we ought to have something that I can look at and recognize again and again. I don't want to make it -- it's not a big deal about it. but J was just curious. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I was just giving you the history of how it got there. COMMISSIONER MlIRRA Y: I got you. I understand that. I'm not questioning that part of it. But it's different than the presentation we got yesterday. Now I realize different people make different presentations. MS. VALERA: And if lmay add, Commissioner, I know there's been some talk about old Florida style. And as recognized, that old Florida is in the eye of the beholder, I think Mr. Schiller put it. When we tried to implement regulations lor activity center number nine, I think that was the first time we came across the old Florida -- trying to define what is old Florida. And in doing the research, and I was assigned to that. it had been done by a firm that had been contracted by the county. And there were some pictures, some colors, some architectural elements that gave us some hint of what it meant. And people had left the company, so it was -- we were not able to actually talk to the people that had introduced the tenn. But the idea was to resemble more the Florida cracker style, which is more defined, it's been studied by somc of our bigger universities in the state, and the idea is that you have that, as Rich actually pointed out, the home with the metal roof, sloped roofs, porches around. So it defines more the residences that we used to build here in Florida because of our e1imate. You know, it's a reaction to the climate of Florida, the wind, the sun, et cetera, et cetera, and how homes were, you know, lifted up because of our water and protected from the sun and the rain with these steep long roofs. So the idea, when we were looking into creating or implementing regulations for -- especially for activity center number nine, we tried to take hints from that Florida cracker. And the idea is that from the pieturcs that were shown in the study, they wanted one story, just as most of our homes, or what used to be in the state. So one story. So the flat roofs were prohibited for outer parcels for activity center number nine, Any out-parcel in activity center number nine can now have more than one story and so that's the idea behind that no flat roof, And to have certain elements and colors from the Florida -- so I just wanted to add that up. I hope it helps a little bit into what was the context behind that style. COMMISSIONER MlJRRA Y: Carolina, I thank you very much. And I recognize what you're saymg. Yesterday what we had, in a similar statement we had old Florida, Key West and Bermuda. And today we have old Florida or decorative parapet. And I don't really care ultimately because I know we'll find our way. But my point was merely to try to have consistency. And Ijust brought that -- I was hoping to bring it to your attention. If it's meaningful, fine. If not, fine too. That was all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Randy? MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, members of the CCPC, obviously with what's transpired today with respect to this petition from the change from the proposed GMP amendment which is in the staff report and then what you've heard today, a lot ofthings that are in the staff report are obviously incorrect. Ifit's the intent of the CCPC to consider those proposed changes, obviously it would be appropriate for the staff to go back and to review these items in terms of impact. Page 28 161 ~ Bi 20,2009; And when I look at it, it would be from the standpoint of looking at the staff report and we would have -- in essence we'd have to take a look at the traffic capacity and the circulation analysis impact. We would have to look at how the Collier interactive growth model would look at this particular proposal. The appropriateness of the change, section would change in the staff report. Then the question comes up, they held the neighborhood information meeting, Based on the proposed change, how would the neighborhood react to this particular change. We don't know. In addition to that, the findings and conclusions obviously would change as well, too. It's very difficult for a report like this, if the CCPC was to vote, to transmit at this point in time to move forward with something that is totally different than it would with what is now being asked for. I just wanted to point that out, because it would get extremely confusing going to the BCC and also going up to DCA if it was to be transmitted as such. MS. VALERA: And if I may, I would like to add also for the record that at the neighborhood information meeting people were not only concerned about not having access from Immokalee Road, they were concerned of the commercial uses in general, because they felt that -- that's what I heard at the meeting, that that will just bring traffic to their neighborhood. And if you look at the aerial, most of the streets and residences that are around this property, they're not -- they don't abut -- they don't have accessing to Immokalee Road. They have access through other roads and then -- so in order to get to homes, people have to drive several small roads to gct to their home. So bringing traffic and opening an accessing to this parcel will bring traffic and will change, and that's what they express, will change the character, the residential character of their neighborhood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Nick, I have -- somethingjust dawned on me. I know that takes me a little while sometil11es to come up with these questions. But since you are so good at scheming on how to bulldoze down people's homes in Golden Gate Estates. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's a fair word, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you planning to at any point extend Oil Well over to meet a future connection to a north-south link of Wilson from Immokalee Road? MR. CASALANGUIDA: Only if] could swing it over your house. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I figured as much. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir, there's nothing in the long-range transportation plan that shows that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Because at one time I had -- years ago there had been some talk about making some connection and extending it. Because this project or any attempt to this project would certainly have a detrimental effect on that cause, if that's what you were thinking of doing. Not that I'd help you there, but I was curious. MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir, no plans. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, Richard, you're standing up there like you want to say something. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no, no, I'm just waiting my turn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you can -- we're going to-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're going through the words still, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought we finished up, except for page -- I think we had one page left. MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's the only reason I'm up here is we hadn't quite gotten all the way through, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Page 17 is the top of the page. It's only one -- do you have any problems with the two sentences on the top of Page 17'1 MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody on the Planning Commission have any concerns on Page 177 (No response,) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, with that we I believe are coneluded with that GMP amendment discussion until we go to round up our votes later on. Page 29 I' n!/'" "" .'~ f. \'tlfo'f. ~9' October 20, 2ilJJ c~. . 'l'f( Item #4F CP-2007-3, MISSION SUBDISTRICT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that in mind, let's move on to the next one, and that's CP-2007-3. It's another petition for the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. And this is called the Mission Subdistrict. It's for a church and related uses off of Oil Well Road. All those wishing to participate on behalf of this petition, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the first time I've ever seen a pastor sworn in, but that's -- okay, disclosures on the part ofthe Planning Commission. Are there any~ COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes, I'm sorry. I spoke to Mr. Y ovanovieh on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Homiak~ COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I spoke to Mr. Yovanovieh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else') Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I also spoke to Mr. Y ovanovich. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: And so did I. Looks like he's made his rounds. Okay, Richard, it's all yours. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovieh, on behalf of the petitioner. With me today is Pastor Steve WigdahL of Emmanuel Lutheran Church. Tom Gemmer also from the church. Bob Duane from Hole-Montes. Chuck Mohlke who did our market study. And I don't see Ted Treeseh, but I don't think we had any transportation issues. He was going to be here when he was here yesterday for the other petitions. The way we're going to handle this is the Pastor's going to give you a brief overview of; you know, the church's desires on this particular site, and then I will take you through the specifics of our request. At the risk of giving David another uncomfortable moment, we are going to make a modification, very small. And I'll say that -- do it up front so he can have time to sit there and stew. COMMISS10NER WOLFLEY: He's chewing on his tongue. MR. YOV ANOVICH: It seemed that the 2,500 square feet of commercial we were asking for really confused things. So we thought it would be hest to just delete the request for 2,500 square feet of commercial and focus on the use of the church, day care and private school in our presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: WelL before you go too far, I think David anticipated it, because on Page 15 he has an alternative review language. Is that a fair statement, David? Looks like you took out the commercial. MR. WEEKS: That's the impression, doesn't (sic) it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Did you anticipate Richard changing? MR. WEEKS: We did not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that might work to his benefit on this one. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So that must not have cost him too much of a heartache. And with that, I'll turn it over to the Pastor to give you an overview ofthe church's goals lor this property and then we'll go through the petition. PASTOR WIGDAHL: Good morning. And thank you, I appreciate this opportunity. I have -- when I take out notes like this, these are not sennon notes or any1hing like that, these are simply some notes that I brought this morning to help you understand what we are intending to do in that part of the county. I have been a pastor in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America for 25 years, and I have served here in the Naples area since 1999. The congregation that I serve is located on Mooring Line Drive, 777 Mooring Line Drive. Page 30 16/1 ~c~er 20:;109 We have had a history of 50 years in that location. We celebrated our 50th year anniversary last March. And part of our ministry of course is -- entails the many different ways that we have served the community, An example of that would be that within the last 10 years we have built 1 I homes for Habitat for Humanity, we have been heavily involved in the development of St. Matthew's House and other means of dealing with people in the community that carry such need, The Boys and Girls Clubs of Southwest Florida, The list really could go on and on in terms of the way that our ministry has been a servant ministry in the Naples area for over 50 years. One of the things that we have certainly considered in terms of Collier County in light and being aware of the increased population, the growth to the northeast, I remember Mr. Scltmitt was at our congregation some time ago and helped us understand the rapid rate of growth beyond Collier Boulevard that was projected into the year 2025. With that awareness and aJso an accompanying need that we discovered for community services in that part of the county, we as a congregation thought it would be appropriate for us to consider an extension of our ministry to that part of Collier County. As I mentioned earlier, we are part of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. It includes such nationally recognized organizations and world organizations as Lutheran World Relief; Lutheran Social Services of Florida, which have tremendous reputations in terms of serving the population. And as we talked to the planning portions of our faith community, we had consistent recommendations from development experts that a minimum of 20 acres would be needed for us to provide adequate space for the variety of mission and ministry opportunities that we are considering to help serve that part of the county. We looked specifically in the demographic study at a couple of zip codes, and one of those was 34117 and the other being 34120, The analysis that we put forward at that time revealed that there was limited availability of services and certainly the lack of the presence of any mainline churches in that area. Now, I might not know that for certain at this point. You may know more than me if there are other plans in that area. But when I look at some of the mainline denominations ofthe Christian faith, including the Lutheran community, we were not aware of any other developments that were being planned in that area. Along with that, certainly the significant need for family oriented services and programs. We talked with officials, school officials from Corkscrew Elementary, the middle and high schools. Also, current providers of service, such as the Boys and Girls Club, Grace Place, Baby Basics of Collier County. We spent some time in dialogue with the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association, and all seem to echo the message to us that there was a largely underserved population of families in that area to the northeast. So when we looked at the opportunities that we might have as a faith-based community, certainly among that would be to provide a worship center; an education center; alongside that we have expertise in infant and preschool care, child and youth after-school activities; certainly parent support programs; counseling services for those who are in need. That includes even work with Lutheran Services of Florida. We also have quite a program that we have developed in our own parish at present around health and wellness, and also we see that there might be some need for adult day care. The question in terms of why the site on Oil Well Road: Through investigations of many land parcels, many we felt were not suited due to limited acreage, a lack of major road frontage or access, and certainly some excessive prices. The most desirable parcel which was ultimately purchased on Oil Well Road seemed to meet all of our criteria: Being larger than 20 acres within the zip code areas targeted; having significant road frontage with a price within our range; and certainly the location and proximity to growing schools. So with that, that is just an indicator again of what we would like to do to be a -- try to be a servant community to the growing part of Collier County, and I appreciate the opportunity to express that this morning. Thank you, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. YOV ANOVICH: If you have any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I do, And anybody else first want to go? Page 3 I " _.._ .__._ ",'__~';'_' _.__"____~~__.~ "_"~"'._'_; _,_.. ,.,.u._ _ , ,,,~,,,,,,,___,_~~,,,,_,__=-,-...~_____,.".,._.,~,,.,,__>_,,.___.__. ---- -"~-'--'..-_.'''-'''----' '" " , I "'~ It",) -.~' ""--', . !.",~ ,',' 'I . ,- , October to, 2009 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You now have reduced your uses to basically church, private schools and child care, all church related. David, as a conditional use, wouldn't they fit under a condi -- not at this location, but doesn't those criteria fall under conditional uses? MR. WEEKS: Yes, they do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because they're looking still to qualify this as a subdistrict, which I'm afraid would then allow more transitional uses next to it and we've now got a spreading of something. What if they just were to be asking for an amendment to the Growth Management Plan to become a conditional use in that area, wouldn't that work for them? MR. WEEKS: I need to e1arify. My response may not have been correct. What I thought you were asking was are these uses, church, child care and school, are these uses allowed as a conditional use, and the answer is yes, in the Estates zoning district. This property does not qualify, does not meet the loeational criteria for a conditional use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand that. MR, WEEKS: Okay. And on top of that. their size is beyond what is allowed as well. And that's one of their -- trankly, one of the points that they've raised as a support for their petition is that there is no provision in the Golden Gate Master Plan in the Estates for these institutional uses, these conditional uses under the Estates zoning district for this magnitude of a project. It simply doesn't exist. The only allowance for these five-acre tracts either in a neighborhood center or the certain transitional or -- there's another provision or two. But they're small. There's no ability to do a church campus, which is what] would say they're proposing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, I was just trying to figure out an easier way. Because if this goes in as a subdistrict, do the adjoining parcels then qualify for transitional conditional use? MR. WEEKS: I would say no, because it's not a -- the transitional conditional use, one of the criteria is that you're not abutting a conditional use allowed in the Estates zoning district. But because this is a separate subdistrict, someone might raise the question. So I think the easy solution will be if we just put language right in the subdistrict that this approval of this project -- or this subdistrict shall not qualify adjacent properties to obtain a conditional use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This will go down as the shortest presentation we've had probably so far, except for the last one we're going to hear. Okay, staff presentation? MS. YANG: Good morning, Commissioners. For the records, Beth Yang, Principal Planner with Comprehensive Planning Department. You have read the staff report, so I won't go over it in detail. I will jump right to the findings and concluslons. But just now we heard that there's a late change, as agent just mention. So my -- when I go over my staff report, I'll be (sic) the old staff report staff originally received. As outlined in the staflreport, there are no significant impact to public facility, nor there are (sic) any special environmental concerns as the result of this proposal. However, this project is inconsistent with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan for development of commercial and institutional uses in the Golden Gate Estate area, The data and analysis provided in the support of the requested institutional changes was limited to compatibility findings associated with the past conditional use approvals. The data does not inelude the needs analysis. Staff preap. notes clearly requested that analysis of sites that allow the proposed use without the need for GMP amendment, including rural fringe mixed use district, neutral and receiving lands, Golden Gate Estates, rural settlement area, which includes Orangetree PUD and Orange Blossom Ranch PUD, as well as various neighborhood centers in Golden Gate Estate area that allows use by right as well as sites and zoning, Page 32 16/1 , I 1 85 ..~ October 20, 200~ that allows use by conditional use, Agent failed to provide the needed data analysis. The originaJ submittal, they have the commercial, of course they want use as a medical uses, as social services in activity centers, adult handicap only, that C- I uses (phonetic), They have -- agent prepared a market condition study, analyze market conditions within their market area, which consists of rural Estates and Corkscrew Planning Community districts, As outlined in the staff report, staff determined that there appears to be an adequate supply of commercial square foot to support a growing population in this two planning communities. No additional eommereiaJ square foot is needed. Staff has not received any correspondence for the petition such as supporting letters or objection letters. For House Bill 697, which pertains to energy conservation and efficiency, went in effect on July] st, 2008, and DCA will be reviewing all the GMP amendments in regards to compliance with this requirement. Agent failed to address this legislative requirement, so it is anticipated that there will be objection in the ORC Report from the Department of Community Affairs in regards to compliance with this legislation. In conclusion, as noted in the staff report, the staff is recommending that this commission does not recommend transmittal of this petition to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. Again, there's a late change just mentioned by the applicant, they want to remove the C-I uses, but staff did not have the time -- of course the chance to review those changes, as staffhas not received any data and analysis to go with this change. That's all I have, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you very much, I -- looking for questions of staff or the applicant at this time. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, I wanted to ask the Reverend a couple of questions. Do you provide the same sort of services you're looking to provide out in the Estates at your Mooring Line? PASTOR WIGDAHL: At Mooring Line Drive we have provided --I arrived, again, in 1999, In 1996 we provided a day school facility, preschool work, In terms of other specific ministries, you are questioning what? Most of what I'm talking about in terms of transferring to another site, we have experience and expertise in all ofthose areas. COMMISSIONER CARON: Right, and are you providing those at your Mooring Line parish? PASTOR W1GDAHL: Not all of those we are not. But if I looked at the list, again, the day school we are. The health care, we have a parish nurse that is a part of our stafrthat works with the community. We have a large what is called Stephen Ministry program which helps the elderly with their needs. We also -- in terms of the adult day care at this point, we have not had any special work in that area, but we believe because of the staff that we employ and the congregational membership, that we have many-- much potential in that area. COMMISSIONER CARON: And how many acres do you have at Mooring Line? PASTOR WIG DAHL: ] knew that would be asked of me. Do you have that? Is it about five acres? Tom had to go back to the church and I said Tom, they'll probably ask me something about those specifics that I don't know. I would suspect around five acres or so, five to six acres. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I think that's what he told us in the office. PASTOR W1GDAHL: Is that what he told you, Rich? Okay. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I was counting on him-- PASTOR WIGOAHL: I apologize, I don't carry all of that detail. I should have. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's all, Pastor. Thank you. Page 33 _ ......,_.,,,..._....._.__..__... ,.._"'"""'"___".""'-._.............,.,~'~__._.. _.~_o,_."",._^,..>..~,..,-.-...-..... -,^ ........~_._,,-..,.,..,__., __ _ 1 (, , '1 ~:berS~9 ..t,. ,,J PASTOR WIGDAHL: I will say, though, that site on Mooring Line Drive was again established in the early 1960s. And I presume you know where the location is? Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, or Beth, I don't -- one of you. One of the -- I'm assuming we're going to be working on the alternative on Page 15, which you anticipated them changing to. And that was good anticipation on your part, Dave, or Beth. Did the uses listed there, would that open the door for any soup kitchens or homeless shelters? MR. WEEKS: No, it doesn't. And Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind me interjecting this, rather than going with the separate subdistrict -- it goes back to what I think you were perhaps wondering about a while ago. A different way to approach this, Randy had mentioned, is we already have in the Golden Gate Master Plan in the conditional uses subdistrict a listing of the various types or categories of ways to qualify. Essential services are allowed everywhere, then we have the transitional conditional uses, transitional if you're next to a neighborhood center~ and therers another one or two. Last category is exceptions to the conditional use locational criteria. And you might recall a comprehensive plan amendment, I think it was in the 2006 cycle, up on Immokalee Road just east of Oaks Boulevard, that was approved to add a specific property there in the Estates as an exception for a church. I would suggest -- well, Randy's suggesting, it's a good one, take a similar approach here. Then we don't have to deal with the special subdistrict. We just identify this property as an exception to the loeational criteria. And from there we have a couple of directions. Could either be very specific and only identify the three uses the applicant has mentioned, or we could more broadly say that the site would be eligible for all of the conditional uses allowed in the Estales zoning district. That would mean the church, the child care, the private school, social/fraternal organization, ALF's and nursing homes. And there might be one or two more, but that's about it. That would give them a little broader -- again everything in the Estates zoning district. So it gives them a little bit of a broader list of uses to consider when they come in for their conditional use request, rather than tying them down to just the three uses they've mentioned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, but they would still need to go through this GMP amendment process to get that exception to the conditional use location criteria: is that correct? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But they would just modify in the way it's being presented. And I don't -- I think that's probably a good idea. What's the applicant -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: That gets us to the same place, so we don't have an issue with going to that type of approach of creating this particular property as an exception to the prohibition, if I restated it correctly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron'! COMMISSIONER CARON: David, how are exceptions then handled with what can go on either side of the exception area'! MR. WEEKS: The adjacent properties would not qualify for -- COMMISSIONER CARON: Cannot qualify. MR. WEEKS: -- transitional conditional use. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Ijust wanted to make sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that might be a solution. Anybody else have any questions') (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any public speakers? MR. WEEKS: There are none. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Docs anybody wish to speak on this matter? Mr. Gaddy? Peter, were you sworn in earlier today? MR. GADDY: Yes, I was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Identify your name and address and ready to go. MR. GADDY Peter Gaddy, 370 12th Avenue Northwest. I'd just like to point out that this project is going to be a wonderful benefit to the community, and I'd Pane 34 e ~ , :) 85 : 1f ,)<., October 20,2009 ~ like to point out that they're doing it the right way. They're getting a parcel that's large enough so as they expand they're not going to run across land use problems of the type you've seen before with respect to other churches, So by starting with a large enough parcel, it's going to be a big benefit. Thank you, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Are there any -- anybody else wishing to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. David, the process we normally review the language, is it worth reviewing the language on Page 15 or is it going to have to change substantially so that it doesn't make -- generally you know the concept, I think we do. Mr. Kolflat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, I didn't understand whether staff endorsed this change that was put forward by the applicant. In other words, does your recommendation still maintain a denial on the basis of what you've heard on the supervision? MR. WEEKS: Our position is still for denial. The basis for it is primarily that global approach that we've explained earlier regarding the commercial request. Our preference would still be that this type of an amendment go through a restudy process. The Golden Gate Master Plan only provides for five-acre properties to qualify for conditional uses, so we would say this is not part of the vision. But certainly our concerns about this are far less than they are for commercial. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: And for the record, your reeoll1ll1endation is still denial. MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, as far as the language goes on Page 15, based on the discussions we've just had, rather than go through this, I think there's an understanding that there is a better process and any new language would come up in that regard if this project succeeds after today's recommendations. MR. WEEKS: That's correct. We would just start all over, and none of this would apply on Page 15. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is the generalities on Page 15, that being churches, child care, adult day care and private schools with 90,000 square feet and a maximum zoned height of 30 feet, does that all work for the applicant? MR, YOV ANOVICH: We -- I think we want -- what page did you say, Mr. Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 15, MR. YOVANOVICH: 15. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The bottom of the page. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I was looking at the -- above the word or. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm saying look below the word or. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I know. And I'm asking if we can use the above the word or and simply delete E. Because I think what we're talking about is A, B, C and D are the types of uses we described. Because we do have -- I mean, I do think activity centers for the elderly and things like that are uses that we're proposing, so I think D should stay up. And it doesn't find its way down to the bottom part. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, so you could use the bottom part as long as we took D from above and added it to D below. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right. Okay, we're both saying the same thing. I'm just saying I need D. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I need D. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: But the Pastor indicated that he has a nurse and they would like to provide health services; at least I thought that's what he indicated. PASTOR WIGDAHL: We do have a parish. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, you'll have to use the microphone. Just say your name again so she gets it on the record. PASTOR WIGDAHL: Steve Wigdahl, the Senior Pastor at Emmanuel Lutheran. Page 35 'n_ ~_ ._.,.__._.____~_w....__..~,_>_,,~,,_.~.~,___,_~._..__~~..,~ ......~ _ '"' _"__'._~_~_" .__~____,__..,..._..~_."'_...__ .. _, ."....u.....~_,__._____u !I r,> ^ . fr~ i" _!' , .\ ~ , ,,:,( ;' , , ';4.~ . , 3 dl ~~~ f1 Oet~e '0,2009 Yes, we do have a parish nurse at this time. And that parish nurse works with a team of people in our congregation to serve the health needs of members of our congregation and the community. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Pastor, if I heard you correctly, I thought that you indicated that in the new place you'd like to have those same services. PASTOR WIGOAHL: Well, we certainly feel prepared to provide those services. And I think in regard to any work that I have done in congregational life, part of what we deal on a daily basis with our parishioners and the people who come into our community, it has a lot to do with health care issues. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: What you're missing here is tllat we're talking about deleting a statement that states that health services, offices and e1inics would go away. PASTOR WIGDAHL: Oh, no, no, we do not charge that. I'm sorry if you were asking-- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I still didn't get that point clear then. MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I understand your point. I think what -- the reason we deleted it is because we thought that that really applied to a medical clinic where people would come and we would charge for those services. We saw the church nurse and people as part of the church outreach activities versus a medical e1inie where we charge for the services. And that's why we were deleting the 2,500 square feet, because that seemed to be more of a, if you will-- I don't want to use the word for profit but, you know, more of the commercial medical office, which we're not in that business. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Well, you know, I didn't attribute one way or the other because it doesn't give me enough to make that determination. I thought it's not unusual fix a church to provide services of those types. So I'm -- I just want to be e1ear that that's going to go away and he'll be preeluded from having those services. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Actually, I thought they stayed because it was under the regular church type services. So if there's an ambiguity there, we need to address that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You definitely -- because I do not consider health services as a normal church service, per se. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What does stall consider it as') MR. WEEKS: The reason staff in our second alternative had deleted items D and E on Page 15 is that those are uses that appear in the zoning code under commercial zoning districts. So from our perspective, our second alternative is to approve their request only to allow conditional uses in the Estates zoning district. We've recognized that churches, particularly the big campus style churches -- and I think that's what they're proposing here -- I think provide more services to a community than the traditional small church does. I happen to belong to a very large church, and I know the array of activities at that church are far beyond just come to worship on Sunday morning and Wednesday evening and choir practice and a couple of meetings, lmean, it's a full-time operational campus, various outreach ministries. That's what I see this being. From our perspective, everything you're allowed to do under the church ul11brella, that would be allowed in the second altel11ative of our proposal. What we oqject to are uses that would be categorized as commercial. So the real question comes to just exactly what uses are allowed under a church umbrella. Comprehensive planning staff cannot answer that question. That's really a zoning question. But we did go to the zoning department and we did ask, here's the two uses they're calling for, health services, albeit only 5,000 square feet, and the individual and tillnily social services. Both of those again fall under the commercial zoning categories. The response we received from zoning department as, well, you can't get that through a conditional use. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: That's crazy, though. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chainnan, I think the better question that needs to be answered is the Pastor described some specific uses. Then the question is, is do they qualify as related uses based on what's in the comprehensive plan per determination ofthe zoning department. And I think that's where we need to go to Page 36 make sure that all those uses are covered, COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Could we -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let me see if I can give you some examples -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wait a minute you guys, both of you can't speak at the same time. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I thought I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Mr. Murray -- no, I'm just trying to stop Richard from speaking. Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All I was going to say is can we not attribute a no fee statement to these and satisfy that? Because prior to any commercial, there had always been people of generous nature, church or otherwise, who provided such services. And just because somebody decided to make money should not preclude others from providing them for no cost. So can we not do that simply? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's asking you the question, I guess, David, so -- MR, WEEKS: Okay. When we posed the question to zoning, we didn't get into the nuances. We just said here's the two uses, where do they fit and could you do this under a conditional use umbrella? And the response was no, We did not discuss the specifics of well, this is going to be operated by a church, not for profit. We just didn't get, I don't believe, into that level of detail. Again -- I'm sympathetic and again, I've stated my own experience with a large church campus, And I know that the full-time ministry goes beyond again your worship services. I fully recognize that. But I cannot speak for the zoning department and specifically put on the record today yes, what they're proposing would fall under the Estates umbrella. We need to discuss that in more detail with zoning staff and with applicant. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. Because I think it would be a travesty if what they came through all this point to achieve, that they failed to achieve it, if it were approved. MR. YOV ANOVICH: And let me -- if] can, rrom my own personal church experience, I know every Sunday we usually rotate amongst the things we do. Blood pressure screening, cholesterol screening, things like that we do for the members or whoever is attending church that day. I never envisioned that that was, quote, a medical clinic, I always thought that was -- or we brought the Bloodmobile there or we -- if the community wanted to have -- you know, we wanted to have screening for a community. We never envisioned that made us now a, quote, medical clinic, Those are the types of thing we're talking about when we're talking about health services. We're not talking about providing doctor. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Social-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: -- levcl care. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: -- and health services, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr, Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: The -- mostly answered my question. You are not looking for a walk-in clinic -- MR, YOV ANOVICH: Right COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- on-site. Your services are provided mostly outside, off property, off premises? PASTOR WIGDAHL: It's just as was described. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: It's just as what you said. PASTOR WIGDAHL: We provide opportunities for Bloodmobiles and so on to come and make contact with our community. But other than that, no, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yeah, with respect to D, which is the individual and family social services, and in parens it says activity centers for the elderly or handicapped only and day care centers, adult and handicapped only. I'm asking why that doesn't also fall under C. I mean, it doesn't seem to exclude it under C. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Under private schools? Page 37 16 , I ~. OctlYtfer ~ . I COMMISSIONER CARON: Under childcare centers and adult day care centers. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: B. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: B. COMMISSIONER CARON: I'm sorry, B. I'm sorry. MR. WEEKS: Actually, there is some overlap when we discovered that. Because we look in the SIC codes, there's a separate listing for adult day care center. And then we have this category here that partly repeats that use but expands it. Again, I think the end result will be when it's discussed in proper context that the county's going to say yes, the uses you're proposing would fall under the church umbrella. The real concern we have was when we saw these uses culled out individually. Then we looked, okay, where arc those individual uses allowed. They fall under commercial zoning districts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. David, if the Pastor and his church wanted to olTer the swine flu vaccine to people in their congregation, would the language that we have in the alternative -- could they do that here without a problem? MR. WEEKS: I'm hesitant to speak for the zoning staft~ because we're talking about staffs suggestion as a conditional use for a church. My reaction would be yes, they could. But I don't have the authority to say that. And that's why we need to go back and talk in detail with zoning stafT. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think you know then the intent is e1ear. If you have -- by the way, if zoning staff has a problem with that, would you call me up and let me know? Because I'd like to file a complaint against developmental services for offering the swine flue vaccine to all their staff right there in the hallway. So on -- MR. SCHMITT: Regular flu vaccine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I ran into a whole line of people getting that vaccine one day and I thought how interesting, we're now a medical clinic. Maybe you could correct the concerns if under A where it says churches you added, and related social and health care services affiliated with the church. And that may get you to where you're going. But I think you know the intent of the direction of the discussion today. And when we get to the motion, if the motion follows the intent, well, then I would expect the language could come back cleaned up in a manner that's acceptable to everybody. So with that I think we -- is there any other public speakers" (No response.) ClIAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, I think that -- and do you have any -- you're going to have time for your closing statement before we vote, but do you have something else you wanted to add to your presentation? MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I was going to ask, is there any chance we could go either in reverse order or -- when we come back? This one is freshest in my mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As old is you're getting, that's difficult to-- MR. YOV ANOVICH: It is harder than vou think. It was just a suggestion. Or at least start with this one and then go back one, two, three, four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think what that takes us to is a discussion with the Planning Commission and how the Commission would like to proceed trom here. We have listened to five presentations by both applicants and staff. We've had public discussion. We've had our questions. The purpose of doing it in a phased group like this was to see the big picture in Golden Gate Estates, and whether all of them are needed or just some of them are needed. I'm comfortable with starting with the first one and going through it with their -- let each applicant have its 10 minutes and then us have our discussion and vote. I think we're all relevant -- cognizant of what occurred in the last two days, so we probably know where we might stand as we go through the linishing up ofthis. Does that work for everybody? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I think this one is away frol11 the other ones anyway in Page 38 16/1 85 f October 20, 2009 concept, so I would have no problem going back in on this one for a vote. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean hearing this one fIrst out of order? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Sure. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, I think that's good, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that okay? Okay, well, that's what we'll do to accommodate the feeble mind of a certain individual who requested it And then we'll go back and start all over. So the first item that we will consider now for a vote is CP-2007-3, the Mission Subdistrict Church on Oil Well Road, Richard, you have 10 minutes or less to wrap it up. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I actually don't have anything much further to say other than if you do look at our market study, we did look at a lot of parcels and did they meet the criteria that the church set out as what they needed for a church campus. So we didn't just simply go out and pick a piece. So we did analyze is this the right location and is there other areas that we can go to. So with that, we think that this church obviously is needed in the area. You don't have an overabundance of churches out in Golden Gate Estates. And you certainly don't have an overabundance of day care, because the day care cited by staff are really preschool -- or actually related to schools, they're kids programs, things that my kids go to, either before school or after school. It's not your true day care scenario. So I think the staff report even supports the need for churches in the area and day care in the area. And I think private school is always an option that should be provided to people, should they want a private school. And we would hope that the Planning Commission could recommend to the Board of County Commissioners a transmittal of this, whether we're either going to do it as a subdistrict or as an exception area, to the State DCA for their review, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I would -- Mr. Cohen? MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, Ijust wanted to point out at this time with not only this petition but any of the petitions that you're dealing with today and in the future, that if there's any possibility that there's not adequate data, analysis or documented need as associated with any of these, and it can be provided, that it's essential that the petitioner do so in light of recent litigation that's occurred and a court case that transpired where DCA was charged with the responsibility of having the proper analysis and demonstrated need. So I'm just -- it's more a point where a lot of times there's more analysis and demonstration of need that can be shown, And I would just ask the petitioners to please do so. And ifthe CCPC notices any deficiencies, to please note them as well for the record so we can get those things in hand before transmitting to DCA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've got a question for you, I mean, it's one thing to show data and analysis for a need for commercial, because you can weigh that by household income, number of rooftops and things like that. How do you show data and analysis based on a religion? MR. COHEN: Well, that's why I added the comment with respect to all petitions. In some cases it may be appropriate, in other cases it may not. And since we were starting off with the Golden Gate petitions and we have five of them to consider, I thought it was probably appropriate to start at this point in time. If there was -- I know Mr, Yovanoviehjust made a comment about there was a demonstrated need. And I just wanted to make sure that that need was spelled out, you know, in a manner that qualified everything, you know, for his petition in a manner that he thought would get approved if it was transmitted. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm the one that sent you that court case on the need. It was in March of'09, it was a recent case. It does have a lot of bearing. But with them having removed the commercial component of this, I certainly feel this one stands out dilferentIy, which is going to be my reason for supporting it. MR. COHEN: And my point wasn't just for this particular petition, but for all petitions in general. I wanted the entirety of the CCPC to be aware of that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. COHEN: Thank you. Page 39 P ~f'''20, 20073 5 ~ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the Planning Commission's motion, whoever decides to make it, we did have a recommendation that this might be better considered as and identified as an exception to the conditional use criteria within the Golden Gate Area Master Plan in lieu of a subdistrict. And I think any direction ought to be provided in that regard. We heard that they weren't going to be using this for soup kitchens or homeless shelters, And we would also want to, depending on how it comes out, to retain any language to assure there's no additional transitional conditional uses alongside this if it isn't identified as a separate cu on its own. So with that in mind, is there a motion froTll the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll Tllake that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray made a motion. What's ML Murray's motion, first. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Just as you indicated it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Recommendation lor approval -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: For transmittal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- as indicated. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Right. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that was seconded by Mr. Vigliotti. Is there any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Ave. ~ COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Ave. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAJN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you. And let's now move back to the probably more intense ones. And the first one that we had started our review on -- and by the way, we'll try to break -- let me ask the Planning Commission. I'd suggest we either can finish up voting on all these, or we can break now till 12:30. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, let's do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Break now" COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And then come back and do them all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So let's break now, we'll come back here at 12:30 and finish up the remaining four for the first phase and then go right into the second phase. Thank you. (Luncheon recess.) MR. SCHMITT: Live mike. ltem#4A CP-2008-1, ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER SUBDISTRICT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Welcome back, everybody, from the lunch break. Before we had left this morning we finished up the review of all the Growth Management Plan amendments working east of 951. and then the last one of those, the fifih one, was on the Lutheran Church off Oil Well Road. We voted on that, recommended approval. And then we're going to go back on the order of the agenda for actual voting on Page 40 ) I 1 i"'f C I: . OetoYr ;J, 2009 . each item as we heard them. Prior to each vote, the applicant will have ten minutes to express any final concerns, comments, or items they'd like to note. First one we're going to consider is CP2008-1. It's the Golden Gate Area Master Plan for the commercial application of the comer of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevard. Richard Y ovanovieh. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you, Again, for the record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. Wayne Arnold will also be doing part of the summary. I wanted to just briefly talk about the community involvement process that some have referred to as marketing, and others -- we like to refer to it as actually finding out what the community wants. And we spent a lot oftime asking the community what they wanted, We started with a survey. We sent it to everybody in our market area. We didn't pick a sampling. We sent it to everybody. We got 1,600 responses, and of those 1,600 responses, 83 percent said they wanted a grocery-anchored shopping center on this property, Recognizing that not everybody lived adjacent to the property, there would be a varying of opinion as to, was this the appropriate location or not the appropriate location. We also submitted to staff over 2,000 letters of support from the community for the shopping center. That's the pushpin of -- up there is the pushpin of where those letters are from, and that's just the in-close portion of our market area. I showed you yesterday the larger area, but I wanted to focus on the closer area. And the green is what we determined to be the immediate vicinity of the center, and the white is as you get further out. I've put on the visualizer an even closer area for the pushpin to show you that we have worked our way out to our way in for community support. Obviously on the visualizer is, the green area is our shopping center request The green dots are people who have supported the petition. The red dots are the two people who spoke yesterday against the petition. And I don't know if there are others, but I haven't seen other emails for or against that are either in close proximity to this petition or not. I'd like to quickly take you through it just so we can -- from an adjacency standpoint, the level of support. The immediate parcel to the west of 3rd Street actually runs in a north/south direction, so that property owner who is immediately adjacent has signed a letter of support for our project The next parcel here is Tim Whalen. He is one of the integral players in the 1st and 3rd Group. He has supported the project. The next parcel here adjacent to us we own. We've deliberately kept it out of the project so it would serve as a buffer, an additional buffer, for the project. Obviously we support our own project. The next immediate neighbor to that property also supported the project. This parcel is owned by Com Cast Com Cast has not voiced an objection to our project Mr. Harris is one of the individuals who spoke on 1st Street. He's adjacent to the ComCast parcel. And Wayne will take you through our site plan to show you the buffer we have between us and Mr. Harris. Working our way further to the east, this individual who's adjacent to us signed a letter of support, and that is actually across the street. That's the ten acres that -- five of which is already in the neighborhood center. So from an adjacency standpoint, those immediately adjacent to us have basically signed off on our proposal. We don't think just because there were form letters that you should discount those letters. They were signed by people who are providing input as to whether or not they support the project When we went through this process, I would -- I would equate the first NIM as very ugly. You had neighbor against neighbor. You had neighbors who wanted this against neighbors who didn't want this. We continued our hearing. We went back and we started over. And I think at the end of the day, we have shown you that this room was not packed with opposition. There were a few who spoke against us. Four of the six that spoke against us don't live immediately adjacent to the project, and their question was about changing the character of Golden Gate Estates, Somehow we were going to make Golden Gate Estates Miami. I don't know how that would ever happen when you have the minimum acre size oftwo-and-a-quarter acres. And having one shopping center Page 4 I _",.-'_ ,~_.__._.^___.."....__..._.,,,._.,,,....__~,____.,_.._~_.~.",~~",.~. ..'......._._,~~~...~_~__~~_~_,~.,,_..~_.'___"w,,_. _........ _, _ 1161:: 4 .' 'I .!~ ) H 0~':1 J:' "1' i'>.1 R~:.,' ',. k .~. .. w . >~" ' et ber 20, .... is not going to create Miami out in Golden Gate. What we did is we worked with our neighbors. We've reduced that opposition. Is there still some opposition? Yes, But the level of opposition that started, to where we are today, has diminished dramatically to where we believe we have a very good project. We have -- the main concern we heard from the neighbors were, we want a grocery store. Will you guarantee us a grocery store') We said, absolutely, we'll guarantee you the grocery store. It is our first CO in our project. Nobody else, no other petitioner here today has guaranteed you a grocery store as the first CO. Public need is a grocery store. We're meeting that public need and we're guaranteeing that we will meet that public need. We will also -- one of the questions that came up was, you know, how many jobs are you going to create? We're going to create between 350 and 400 jobs within that center with an average pay of 34- to 38,000. That's average. There'll be some, you know, obviously, lower-level positions and there will be management positions, but that's a signifieant economic input. We were asked about the scale of the buildings. Can we go to one story? We can go to one story. We'll lose 15,000 square feet by going to one story, but we think that that will help with this more in keeping with the character of the community. So the request would be to go to one story, as staff has modified the language, reduce the request to 210,000 square feet because we're going to lose that square f()otage. We have already started working with our neighbors on the design. Wayne is going to take you through our, basically PUD master plan to show you how that master plan does, in fact, fit in with the community and bringing down the scale of the buildings within the project. So, yes, we still have the square footage, but we're fitting that square footage on a bigger area, and we'll be able to fit that square footage out in the community. I've only got ten minutes so I'm rushing. If you have any questions, please interrupt me, But I would like to get Wayne up here to quickly take you through our master plan, and then I hope we can have an interaction on some questions regarding what we're proposing. But from a community support, we believe there is genuine support. I think if you read your staff report, you will see that your staff acknowledges that there is zero supply out there for a grocery-anchored shopping center in Golden Gate Estates. There's zero supply whether you call it a neighborhood center or a community center. So with that, I'll turn it over quickly to Wayne, and then we'll hopefully answer any questions you mav have. , MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. Wayne Arnold with Grady Minor. Just in addition to some of the community support you heard Rich reaffirm, I wanted to focus on a con pie of aspects of the project that I think are still critical, and that is, we think this location is an absolute perfect location for grocery-anchored shopping centers. It's at the confluence of two of the busiest roads in Golden Gate. You heard your transportation staff yesterday indicate that this type of use made all the sense in the world from at least transportation planning perspective. I told you it made good land planning sense, and I still believe it does. It makes sense for a couple of reasons. One, it's satisfying a demand that we heard from the community input that we've had, and we know that there's no supply. We also know that with the size of the property, we have ample room to provide the right butTers that are going to make it the compatible use for the neighbors. We showed you some images from the different buffer angles. We think that the neighbors are happy with that. We think that there's still work to do with the PUD to refine some of this, but we think that it makes perfect planning sense. The other thing that I think's important is to take a look at the plan we had yesterday. That was what was submitted with the Growth Management Plan application to show you the larger areas that it really was meant to focus on, areas that would be preserves and how building setbacks would play into this. What we did tor the zoning application that was submitted was take that to a little bit different level, if you will. And you'll see that the tan colored areas really reflect the various development tracts which we Page 42 16 11 0850,2009' have once you start to put access through the site and into the site, and it really breaks it up, And I guess what I'm trying to demonstrate to you here is, the scale and massing of this isn't so that you've got one large development tract that houses a large, large building. Except for the grocery-anchored tenant space that we need and probably some inline stores, much of the site can be developed with smaller footprint stores. And I think that we can certainly work on some ofthose numbers. We're happy to work with our neighbors on what those numbers and what the feel would be for something like that and take the site plan into another level. But I wanted to show you this image, because I think what it does demonstrate is you're not going to get this big massive building envelope to construct a single building in. The other thing that's important on this exhibit is to show you that with respect to our neighbor to the north that spoke that was a 1 st Street resident, you'll see that what's shown as Tract A of the northernmost tract, that is the widest part of our buffer between 1st and 3rd. And as Rich mentioned, the parcel immediately to our north is owned by ComCast It's not a residential lot. So there's a 75-foot-wide lot plus our buffer separating the two of us, So we're confident that that will achieve the buffer requirement that he needs. There are also a lot of other operational characteristics in the PUD document itself that have been discussed with the 1st and 3rd Group, and I'm sure that list will be refined as we keep moving forward. I wanted to also talk to you about the feel. And we showed you these images yesterday, too. They're just conceptual images that we've been showing the neighbors to show you that this doesn't have to feel large scale, And you heard Rich mention that if it's important to you to bring the scale down, we can live with the one-story buildings. You know, if you look back on our PUD master plan, that was a discussion point with our neighbors, and we limited the location where any two-story buildings could be. We further limited where any type of gas and convenience store could be and things of that nature, but that's the level of detail that we've taken this discussion to. But I think it all points back to, it's a compatible project, it meets the demand, and we can make it function and fit into the Golden Gate community. Rich, you want to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Thank you. From the Planning Commission's perspective, are there any last-minute questions that may have not been asked before? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I'm not sure it hasn't been asked before. Would you put that back on again, please? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Which one? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: The last one that you had. MR. YOV ANOVICH: The visual? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. And you had the one before that showed the tracts broken, and I don't want to see that at the moment, but I want to relate to that. Is -- with this -- is this intended for us to understand it as representative for all of the tracts? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And so I could look at that building there and I could see in my mind then that might be a shopping -- I'm sorry -- a grocery store, as we call it, or supermarket, but I could also see it as a sweater (sic) or dresses or whatever. They're all going to be that style? MR. YOV ANOVICI-1: We committed to a common architectural theme of, I believe, Old Florida, Key West, and it was. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Bermuda. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Bermuda. I was going to say Bahamas, but I knew that was wrong, so -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, we could do a sing-along. MR. YOV ANOVICH: But we were -- the thought would be is there would be the common architectural theme throughout, low scale, appropriate buffering so that you basically wouldn't see it. Page 43 n""__'""'__~_'_"."_~~_,"....,__'b~.'."'~""_"'"'__''''_'_.",.__.~.~.",____.".___".._"_.._,_..,~___.,~",,._;...._____.~.,..__'_~''''_'__'_ "V t t. 11' ~ ,'1 ~-~\ &to~ 20, 2009 - . - Yo. ,~.,."... :'"1.' , ,.j . , , ~. The examples I've used -- and when I was going to school in South Carolina, Hilton Head Island was a development that the commercial, you really didn't see it from the road. They had very, very minimal signage, and even the McDonald's there bought into the concepts there where you had very minimal signage. So it clearly fit in and -- but, you know, we're not going to do -- unless that's the type of architecture you want. But that's the feel we would have is we would fit in -- you wouldn't basically even know we're there because you wouldn't need to know we're there because everybody in the community's going to know we're there because we're the grocery store in Golden Gate Estates. We've got restaurants, so you don't need the big typical shopping center signages and views from the street. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And the front setbacks would be how deep? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We had -- I think we had an enhanced 25-foot buffer, but we could -- we can work with that at the PUD level or put it now. We can do that to assure the appropriate screening, because we've done that for 3rd Strcet with thc appropriate landscape buffering to assure their view is no view. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Now, we talk about, there is a requirement for shielded light. Can we even further reduce the potential for lighting by having bollard lighting in the parking areas and such? MR. YOV ANOVICH: We had committed to a night skies type of lighting in the PUD. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, good. MR. YOV ANOVICH: So, you know, that's a sensitive area out there as tar as being able to, you know, see the stars in thc skies, and we had committed to, in the PUD, a night skies theme oflighting. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And the last piece that I have is that therc was purportedly a box that eontaincd all those form letters that nobody really got a chance 10 look at. But what -- you're asserting that there were 1,700, 1,600'1 MR. YOV ANOVICH: 1,900 and either 60 or 40. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And they were -- they were all in the affirmative that you received? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And that's your tcstimony? MR. YOVANOVICH: I swore to it. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. Those are my questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a question, Brad') COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, yeah. So you got no negative responses back? That wasn't my question, bul I can't -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: We didn't receive any back. I'm assuming the people who had negative responses either, you know, sent them somewhere, to the staflor -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The thing I'd like -- is this the time, Mark, where we could discuss in our motion? Because therc is one thing I'd like to discuss. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'd like to get -- yeah, we need to discuss a motion, but the objective was to have the applicant get a last tcn-minute presentation. I didn't expect a lot of questions from us unless they were new questions or stuffthat was not in our material so we could go into discussion. But I want to make sure we're done with interaction with the applicant first because that's not fair to have us discuss things and have the applicant popping up every minute to correct us. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Then let's jump back. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any questions of the applicant from the Planning Commission at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we will close that portion of our public process, and we will have discussion. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, do -- and it's really the common architectural theme. Ijust want to -- everybody to be aware what they're doing here is that -- would you put up, Rich, that site plan that shows the latest one, the f(lur quadrants or something, which can start to excite me. For example, look at that road down the center. That could become an internal road with -- I mean, the imagination can go wild on what that could be. Page 44 16/1 l:l~ober20:~009 But if you make all of these areas have the same architectural theme, this thing is going to be perceived as a three-block-long building, I don't care how many roads you run through it or holes you cut in it or notches you put in it So I really don't think that's something we should put in in the GMP. If it's in the GMP, it has to happen. That's not to say it doesn't happen down the road or someone's showing a really good design that does happen to have the eOll1ll1on architectural theme, but maybe these comers are different than the site in the back so that it looks like it's notjust'om!"big bu~g. And this would be a really big building with this size area. lt's a quarter of a million square feet. . MR. YOV ANOVICH: Am I allowed to-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I thought we were past this, but I guess we're not. So we'll continue the public hearing. We will not be in for discussion ofa motion, We'll now ask questions of applicant. So I'm sorry. We're back to where we were. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm sorry, too. I mean, we're -- as you can see, we've done a lot oflevel of detail. And if I could just point to the site plan, lbis is where we basically have laid out the grocery store and some inline stores, and the rest of the site we've laid out with smaller buildings. So as far as -- we have no intention -- and I'll give you an example. We have no intentions of building any of the centers you see at the comer of Pine Ridge Road and Airport Road where you start with one that building and it just goes continuous, and you've got several hundred thousand square feet. We would have this building, and then everything else would be broken up separately onto the different tracts. COMMISSIONER SCHlFFER: Let me -- you know, my concern is not client specific, it's site specific. So in other words, you could also sell it as soon as you walk out tbe door. So I just -- my only concern is, I really have a big concern over common architectural theme. I would like to see it removed from here. It's not a deal breaker, but it could be dangerous in the future. Don't answer it, because that's -- MR. YOV ANOVICH: I wasn't going to talk about that, but as far as the size of the building, if you're worried we're going to sell it, we would agree to size limitations so you wouldn't have to worry about that issue down the road. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Too late now, I'm done, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other questions of the applicant? It would be best if we ask those outside of our discussion and a motion. So is there any other -- I mean, honestly, if there are-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It wasn't a question. He jumped up and wanted to talk about it, but my -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sit down. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: -- concern was -- yeah. My concern was to the-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to get to a conclusion here. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand, But, you know, this has kind of been a little different process than we normally do. We usually -- when there's comments, we're usually given an opportunity to respond to comments. But if you don't want us to, then we won't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. Richard, here's the problem I have. You've had four hours yesterday or more to provide your presentation, we had public input, we had discussion, we had groups that are working with you come forward, and this panel spent many hours and time discussing this project. This was the longest one in the bunch, At some point we've got to stop asking the questions and going back and forth, read the data, and make a decision. If we're not ready to make a decision, that's fine with me. I'm not trying to say everybody needs to be ready, but at least tell me so that we don't close the public hearing and we don't try to go into discussion amongst ourselves, because at some point it's the eight of us that have to have that discussion. And if you think we can have a discussion by allowing that applicant or others who disagree with usjump in every few minutes, it isn't going to work. So I mean, I'm just -- you tell me, guys. Are we done? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark, I just want to say, I was discussing this with you guys. Page 45 ,......._._-,~.-._.,._.,..._--,""'-........"'--_."-._","""'-..-_.,,.'-~-""'~~,' "--'- ,'"'' ,,.-.... " --_."-,,,,~-,, 16 r ~ /, \,..".. Fe' ,n,..,,,,, \ -;'::" ~, -'" ,-.\ ."1 '" ' , ~, 'i..::'!' '-' October 20, 2009 I mean, it made Richard excited and -- but -- and I think what excited him is my describing the worst-case solution, and he's out there, no, no, no, we're not going to do that. But that -- I just want to make sure that -- you know, my intention is, can we pull N out of this agreement? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I would think -- and I can tell you from my experience as the chairman of the Golden Gate Master Planning Committee in the year 2001/2 of the two years that went on the first part of the decade, we wanted to have architectural criteria in the master plan for those neighborhood centers. Now, honestly, we didn't envision, I don't believe -- or I know we didn't envision something ofthis size because this goes beyond the neighborhood center size. Had we thought of this or had this been suggested as even something anybody would have thought of: we may have looked at it differently. I can't tell you sitting here today if that's the case. But what I might suggest is if the majority feels this project should go forward, you may want to suggest that before adoption, either staff come back with a better definition of the architecture or it be pulled out, but only after consulting with the groups that have provided input, and I'm thinking the I st and 3rd Group. Because everybody that has gone to an NIM or done anything else in regards to this application did so, most likely, on the assumptions that have been presented to us. And I'm just trying to be consistent with what the public's seen to date, so -- COMMISSIONER SCI IIFFER: Okay. But the point on this clause is that it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen that way. That could be part of the, YOll know, encouragement in the PUD process. It's just -- I just feel that it's a dangerous thing for the neighborhood. I mean, there's no other self-serving reason for this the way it is. But, again, I don't know if you want to straw poll the board to see if they want to yank it out or leave it in. I'm going to go the same way one \vay or the other, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can iinish with our discussion and then see where the board wants to go. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okav. . CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any discussion before we entertain a motion? I just want to tell you, /Tom -- the rcason we reviewed these five applications together is to see how they look in the big picture in Golden Gate Estates. I don't doubt there's a need for more commercial in Golden Gate Estates, and that was one of the hottest topics of the Golden Gate Visioning Committee back in 2000/2001. When we had commercial discussion the rooms werc filII, standing room only; regular discussion, we had a lot of attendance. lt wasn't as packed though. The neighborhood centers were set up purposely in reaction to the citizens there at the time. And the external centers were set up in the same manner. We felt that commercial out on 951 or extel11al to the heart of the Estate was better than large commercial inside the Estates. Part of the reason we've reviewed this as one big phase was we've got two projects that are more or less competing, one on the external location of the Estates and one on the internal. The internal one is a big project; the external one is a big project. Based on my understanding of what we did when we set the master plan up, the external one adheres more to the requirements of the Golden Gate area vision than the internal one. Had the people on Randall Boulevard come into the Golden Gate Master Plan Committee eight nine years ago and said, instead the two of projects that are currently commercial we want to set aside a long stretch of commercial in that location, I would expect it to have been approved because that was what we were expecting to have as commercial. Had this one come along a few years back, I think it would have had some resistance with the mindset at the time. Granted people's minds change. And if their surveys are valid, then certainly that shows change. But there's two choices of commercial centers, and this is just one of two. The other thing that troubles me with this one, it goes beyond the C3 uses that we always had limited Golden Gate Estates to. It is no longer a neighhorhood commercial center, as staff said. It's more of a community -- a larger commercial center. Page 46 16/11 8 'tober., 2009 They are looking at drive-throughs, which we had not. And I believe it sets a precedent, as we've heard from staff, that there are -- the same application might occur in other comers because of this one. And I have to agree with staffs findings of need. I see the need external, not internal, and so I'm not going to be voting in favor of this project as it's been presented. So with that in mind, is there any other discussion? Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. I will just give you my opinion as I gave it to the petitioners. I will not support the petition. I will support staffs position. I don't think that there is a need for anything of this scale, This is 41 acres, and even if they develop only half of it, let me try to put that in perspective for you. Twenty-one acres sits at the western comer of Wiggins Pass and 41. If you've ever been by there, you know what these people are going to be looking at. They're -- in their own document it says that any use on this property can be 30,000 square feet other than the -- the supermarket, which can be 27- or whatever they can get to go in there. I think it is really out of scale. lt's not in keeping with the master plan or the rural character of the area. And I'm not saying that they haven't tried to make it thus, but it is just not. They claim 83 percent of the people who sent back their -- from their mailing were in favor ofthis, but let's do the real math. They sent out 5,500 letters, They got back 30 percent return, which is 1,650. Of that number, 83 percent said okay. So that means 4,130 people either said no or didn't respond. So the correlation is more appropriate to be 75 percent either said no or no response and 25 percent ofthe people said they'd like this project. I think that if this gets approved, it will be a precursor to other people wanting the same or similar type projects and that suddenly the Estates area will no longer be the Estates area. I also have a real concern about overall general commercial and office development in this county as a whole. We are overdeveloped to the max at this point. We cannot support what's out there now. If you go and put additional development in this area drawing it away from what already can't be supported then the point that I tried to make at a Planning Commission meeting a few weeks back is, we're going to run into blight in this community, and that's not going to be a pretty picture for everybody, At any rate, that's basically -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Koltlat, then Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, Based on the findings of the staff report and conclusions, as well as the testimony I heard today, I'm going to vote for denial of this petition, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: This is a very nice project conceptually. Golden Gate Estates is a lovely neighborhood, in fact. Well-intended development, even considering dark skies, doesn't actually get us to where the community is happy with its -- its homes. And while I would like to support this project, I think it is intrusive. It is huge. It could best be located someplace else as it is focused there, And I -- I don't have a real problem in saying no to it, but I would like it to be understood that it does have merit perhaps on the periphery somehow, on the periphery of Golden Gate Estates, I know we build for the future, and it is hoped that we will not be into blight, but there is a possibility of that certainly. Overbuilding is a dangerous thing. And so while I would like to support it, I'm afraid I cannot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I look at those numbers a little bit differently. I've done mailings in my time, and a 30 percent return is absolutely unheard of. And for 83 percent of those to be in approval, or in -- approving it, is -- another step, just absolutely amazing. I've never heard numbers like that, and that's why I'm glad somebody kept asking him, how many were there? And it's because it's unheard of in a mailing. I have heard in -- I'm glad we put all these five together because I've heard people say, it's too big and then another project is too small -- five acres or ten is too small. And, you know, and this blight thing -- 1'111 just trying to get through it quickly here -- we can't forget this House Bill or Senate Bill 697 and the intent. I don't particularly like -- and I know an awful lot of people in the Estates, and they say, I don't even like to go on the other side of 75. It's sort of ajoke, but it's for real. I want to stay out here. Page 47 __ __._ '.,.~.' ....."_.~.,~.~,'__'",''',._;._.._...~__"_..,..._'-'___" " "__'~N""';_~"___~""'__~~____'_""''''''_'_ '", 5' II ,.~' ., .. <'f,<t". " , ,I ,'''~ t" ,,~:c' \',c'" IA "fl...! ; R if'" V-.t ~,:<,,{\ ,,:.J " . . '" October 20, 2009 ... And it seems as though quite a few people that live out there feel the way I do, I want to stay out there. I don't particularly care to go in to Wiggins Pass or to Airport and Pine Ridge to do my shopping. But it's going to be great to me for the economy. It's not going to happen this year. It's not going to be built next year. I think it's going to be a great benefit to support jobs in the future and the economy for the future. And, again, it's going to keep those vehiele miles traveled down. And that -- ever since I've been on the Planning Commission and I started on the Orangetree area, we have got to get facilities, commercial facilities, out in the Estates. I think that the project is going to look great. At -- my tirst blush was that it just looked like it was too big, it was too much. But the more I look at it I see that it's going to have -- almost have to be that size to provide the amount of services. And just with that -- and we can also get part of that -- potentially get that comer fixed a little bit. So I am in support of the project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other comments from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, I'm going to be against the motion in support of this because while it appears we're really -- I think the image of that neighborhood is these are huge subdivided lots. And when the developer subdivided this, he only sold residential lots in. He never put commercial in. And this is what -- I think a start where they could have something that would resemble a downtown, would resemble a commercial center tor the neighborhood. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that. Mr. Vigliotti" COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I will be voting for it. Actually, I'd like to make a motion-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: -- for transmittal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion in favor') COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: In favor to transmit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If you're going to make a motion in favor, what language, the staffs -- the language from staffthat we went over') COMMISSIONER VIGLlOTrI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's been a motion -- COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'll second it, and-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a motion made from Mr. Vigliotti in favor of transmittal pursuant with the staffs language. Mr. Wolfley, you want to second it? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I'm looking at staffs language here, and they've crossed out virtually everything over on Page 29, all of the uses, the allowable uses. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And I believe that we had gone back and corrected those, that we would put the uses back in but eliminate number 28. Is that how you understood it, David? David, did that -- did you understand our discussion that they would be back in with the exception of number 28? MR. WEEKS: I understood you-all had discussed that. I wasn't sure if that was the consensus ~ OpInIOn or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, is that the consensus of the motion maker and the second? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because I think that was the only confusing part. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Can I make one more statement? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure -- well, yeah. We're in discussion again. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right. I'm just sorry, but I also noticed some of the dissenters from staff and on this board don't live out there except for one -- sorry Mark. But you have to -- you have to kind Page 48 ~ 16/1 B 50ctOb~0, 2009 oflive there and be there and know what it's like to just keep going, geez, I mean, I'm out of bread, I'm out of milk, and, you know, have to drive] 0 miles to go get it. And Ijust wanted to say that CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David, what side of951 do you live on? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, I'm on the close side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're on the west side of951? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I live on the east side of951. Thank you. Mr, Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: The only statement I want to make is, if we transmit this today, it's going to come back again so we will get another bite at the apple at some point to reject it, if that's the case, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms, Caron, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER CARON: What about the 210,000 square feet that the petitioner had stated? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: The reduction? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. He was on record to reduce it, correct? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your motion was to accept the staff language, which was one story, which would reduce the gross down to 210 (sic) square feet? COMMISSIONER VIGLlOTfI: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Wolfley, was that your second? MR, YOV ANOVICH: 210,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 210,000. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Remove the second floor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Yeah, I like 210 better. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer, did you have-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. I'd still like to talk to the motion maker and see ifhe could pull N out of there. I'm still in favor ofthat. And the reason is, I think -- and this layout shows it -- if these -- if this does become something that they start to build kind ofa little village downtown thing, I don't want them to be hampered by the fact that all the buildings have to look like they're related. They're -- I mean, we have an architectural standard that studies massing to scale. In this case they're all going to be one story anyway, so that will be pretty easy. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Well, if we put it in now, then we can't change it. Ifwe pull it out now, we can always -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: If we pull it out now, when they come through for a PUD, we can say we want this to be a common architectural theme. If we leave it in, it has to be a common architecture. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: No, I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the motion maker agrees to take Item N out. Does the second agree to that? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Homiak? MS. HOMIAK: This kind of bothers me a bit that we're just picking apart the Golden Gate's master plan like this, and now we're picking up the -- they wanted an architectural theme basically in Golden Gate, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what we voted on -- MS. HOMIAK: And this is taking that away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- in the other years, yes, COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I mean, if this should make it to the end. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct Unless it goes back in during the PUD process, which is, I think, as Brad was pointing out. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yeah, if we leave it in, we cannot change it later. If we leave it out, we can always require them to do the architectural theme. It will give them a chance to go back and talk Page 49 ,_.~_.._."~._,.~_,__....._._,.,_,..___.._.,___' _ '_,,__,_,.~_ __~___ _ _....__""_.. .. ",_ __0' .,_."_,_ 1 6 ~ ,'~ ~:' I , , ., octobR~009 "" to the people and see exactly what they want with the actual picture. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So this is going to give it more of a public process should this go to transmittal where, I mean -- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, with or without that theme, it-- MS. HOMIAK: Doing a restudy of the area bothers me, but-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifthis -- if this succeeds in transmittal, then it does -- it will come back for what's called adoption. And then after adoption or concurrent with adoption, we have the PUD rezone hearing, so there probably is in any -- ifthis goes forward, it will have at least two more hearings. I mean, that's the way they all work. Brad, did you want to add something? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, Ijust wanted to say that the Golden Gate never imagined something this big, so it would be hard to test whether, you know -- and like I said earlier, the smaller projects, this makes sense. It's just, once it gets to be this big, you don't want it to look like one building for three blocks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you're right, we never intended anything this big in the heart of Golden Gate Estates. So with that in mind, if there's no other comments, I'll ask for the vote on the motion. I'll ask you to raise your hand and signify by saying aye if you're in favor of transmitting. All those in favor of trans milling, please raise your hand and say aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okav. Four in favor. , All those against? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Four against. That's a tie vole, so it goes with no recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Perfect. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. CHA1RMAN STRAIN: Thank vou. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chainnan'! CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. WEEKS: Because we need to -- staff needs to accurately reflect the commission's motion, I'd like to ask a couple of questions for clarity. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. WEEKS: In yesterday's discussion -- and the motion reflected keeping the applicant's specific list of allowable uses, removing number 28, which is a -- kind of a catchall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WEEKS: Yesterday's discussion reflected that if that specific list of uses stayed in, then a new number 14 would be added under prohibited uses. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah. MR. WEEKS: That was the intent of the motion today? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At the time it was read in yesterday, I don't think anybody objected to it, but it just basically says, any llse that's not listed is prohibited. So it just re-emphasizes that. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Yeah. Page 50 16 I 1 :1 octBr5, 2009"i COMMISSIONER CARON: Maybe we're supposed to be reading our code to begin with. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Well, we moved it, yeah. MR. WEEKS: And another change -- again, yesterday's discussion, Ijust wasn't clear if the idea was all of that would carry over to today necessarily or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,just continue on. MR. WEEKS: On Page 30, paragraph C, a minor change was suggested. Instead of saying "a" grocery to "the first" grocery. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, I think -- you see, the way you should look at it, when those things were discussed, if there wasn't objection from the members, it was more like a consensus that those minor changes should have continued -- should have been there in the first place. I would think so, yes, MR. WEEKS: Okay. Let me see if there's any more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: E 1 was after the PUD approval, if you remember correctly. MR. WEEKS: Okay. The architectural standards-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They just took those out -- well, the motion that was made would have taken them out. The motion didn't succeed, so I think it's a draw on that one. MR. WEEKS: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, if anybody disagrees with me, speak out, but I think-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, that raises -- if I may? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: That raises a very good question because on the basis of a draw, I'm not sure -- I'm not sure that -- other than what is exactly in the motion, can be carried. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think David's looking for something to go -- when he reports this, he wants to suggest to the commission that we considered these other things, and there weren't any objections with some of the changes that were recommended. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would -- ifhe does that, it would be better that, ifthe commission considers it, it would be better to be done with better language than worse. So I think that's all we're trying to do is-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I don't object, it just occurred to me that it's not clear, and that's what is occurring to me. It's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Well, let's make it clear, Mr. Murray, because I don't want to see us send anything forward if we can't clear it up. MR, SCHMITT: And if I would -- I would agree, Mr. Chairman. The -- we would simply want consensus as to what is brought forward. We want clarity and consensus, because this will be presented, as you-all know, to the board, and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, ifthat's what you're looking for, Mr. Schmitt, you're not going to get consensus from me that this should be brought forward. MR. SCHMITT: Well, it's 4-4, it's 4-4. But consensus on what was discussed. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Individual items may be consensus. MR. SCHMITT: Alii want is consensus on what was discussed so we reflect the language appropriately, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, David, Couldn't you just leave it in and then note that during the motion -- this was removed during the motion? You know, I mean, I think you're right Can you take it out? Maybe not, but at least note the fact that the motion did not include this. MR, WEEKS: Well, you hit a stalemate with your vote with a 4-4, but what Ijust want to be able to accurately reflect is what was the motion, and was the motion to remove it, if that was it. You know, it doesn't matter what the vote -- I mean, I will relay the vote, but obviously that was 4-4, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then really your question is directed to the motion maker and the second, and now I'll let Mr. Vigliotti take -- respond to you. Because if your intention is to go to the BCC that we had a -- we were 4-4, a tie vote, and then you start telling thel11 about language changes that we talked Page 51 .~_.,,_.._--_.__..- ~ ~"~.~.. 16/1 6c2er 20'~09 about, that's not -- no, that wouldn't be fair because -- leave it to the motion -- the four that wanted to recommend transmittal. Those are the ones that want that language change. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Exeept-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murrav" COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Mr. Chairman, except that on a 4-4, both sides, since they -- since the motion failed, both sides have equality in that sense. I recognize where you're trying to go. I'm not trying to be a problem, but both side in that sense. So maybe the best way is not necessarily on the basis of the motion maker but rather on the basis of individual items that we need to, and see if we can get a consensus for those given items. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, but see, that's almost acknowledging then that we should transmit because we're willing to change it, and I'm not even to that point. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. I don't how to handle it, but I know that I --I know that my sense of it is, it's wacky. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: What is it specifically? MR. WEEKS: Instead, a suggestion. Since this is going to come back under consent agenda, you'll get to see what staff writes up, what we understood the motion to be, and that could be a time for correction if we didn't get it right; is that acceptable" COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. CHALRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But David -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I was giving you concession. I mean, you would have to reflect the motion that failed. The motion that failed did not include N. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: So my suggestion was, you could leave it in and put a note that the motion did not include this item, was giving the benefit of the doubt to the commission. MR. WEEKS: Now, when you say, did not include this item, as in, delete paragraph N was part of the motion? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: It wa~ deleted from the motion, right. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Delete architectural. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Or just go by the correct method and take it out, and they'll never see it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tor? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Yeah. The motion was not to deny; the motion was to transmit? MR. WEEKS: Right. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: So what was defeated was the motion to transmit. What was tied is the motion to transmit, not a motion to deny. MR. WEEKS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. The motion was defeated to transmit. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Right. And the motion was to transmit the results, recommendation, not to deny. MR. WEEKS: Correct. We would state as, a motion to approve failed, I think, is the way we'd phrase it, 4-4, because there was no majority. And if the opposite would have been true, ifit would have been not to transmit and the same vote, then it would have been a motion not to transmit failed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Randy, if you go to mix this up any more. MR. COHEN: I'm going to -- we were just talking about what you're obligations are under Chapter 163, and I'll let Heidi go ahead and tell you what it says under 163.3174 in terms of making a recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the applicant's already -- oh, no, he's still here. So if we have any -- at least they're witnessing that he's here for this purpose. Go ahead, Heidi. Page 52 16/1 oc~e!ib,200~ '1 MS. ASHTON: Well, the statute requires that you make a recommendation. So in this case since you're split 4-4, it's a recommendation of no recommendation. And, you know, I think David was just discussing that if it went the other way, it's probably 4-4, So Mr. Klatzkow is comfortable with going forward with the 4-4 and letting the board know what the motion was. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I was there before Randy interrupted us, so now what are you telling us that's new? MR. COHEN: Well, I guess what you have on the record is that you have a motion to transmit which failed, okay. So, in essence, it constitutes-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: A denial. MR. COHEN: -- a denial and a recommendation not to transmit So that's kind of where you're sitting, in the middle, and it's problematic from that perspective, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we've done it before. MR. COHEN: I understand. But I'm just wanting to know how the record would reflect it, okay? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Randy, I mean, if we had a motion to fail and that was 4-4, would that be a recommendation to approve transmittal? MR. COHEN: Yeah, that's the problem with the motions, you know, being tied the way they are. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Please, staff, don't show it that way just because you weren't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Wolfley? Go ahead, ML Weeks. MR. WEEKS: Well, at the risk of stirring up a hornets nest, the -- only because I've seen this before, particularly at the county commission level, sometimes when a vote fails, then a motion is -- fails, then an opposing motion is made. I'll just throw that out as you have the option to do that, but I don't -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. The applicants and some of their people have left, some of the public's left. I think we did our motion. You guys deal with it. You've dealt with it before. It's 4-4. You're going to come back on consent with a cleanup of the language. That's as far as it needs to go. MR, WEEKS: That sounds good. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Great CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else at this point have any other comments on this one before moving to the next one? (No response.) Item #4B CP-2008-2, RANDALL BOULEVARD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next item for voting is CP2008-2. It's, again, for the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. This is the commercial project on Randall Boulevard at Immokalee Road. And I -- Mr. Anderson, you can have up to ten minutes for any clarification, discussion, or comments you wish to make. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'll just quickly remind you that this is the application that has a public/private partnership. This is the project that is located at what will be two six-lane roads at what will probably be the busiest intersection east of951. This project has strong support from the abutting neighbors and the general community. I'm going to ask Mr. Hancock to come up and answer -- provide some answers on a couple issues that were left hanging from yesterday. We are both available to answer any questions, And thank you for your consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HANCOCK: Tim Hancock with Davidson Engineering, I'd like to preface the information I'm going to supplement yesterday's meeting with by indicating that, of course, the CIGM report indicates that the only two areas underserved with commercia' activity arc Immokalee and the Estates. Our own independent data supports that, the data we shared with you yesterday. The market timing Page 53 16 11 ~ ,~?'... , -' :'.-" '. ,- ." ';' .,~ .. October 20, 2009 for this project is some five-plus years out because of being tied to the widening of Randall Boulevard. That in and of itself, I think, continues to strengthen that point. What I have -- and Mr. Chairman, I'll leave it to the discretion of the Planning Commission how you want to do this, but the infonnation I'm about to present to you in answering some of the questions that were left hanging yesterday, I do have individual packets for each of the Planning Commission members if you wish to take them with you. If you have no use ofthem, let me know, and I'll just make sure the file copies are appropriate. But I do have enough packets for everyone so you can take them with you in case you need them coming back on the consent agenda, if that's what you would like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What questions do you have remaining? MR. HANCOCK: One was the square footage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we settled at 411,950, I thought. MR. HANCOCK: No. If I can take 30 seconds. The number actually is 414,300. It's very close, but CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okav. ~ MR. HANCOCK: All it is is the economic development property; the 340,950 is the same as yesterday. The Randall Boulevard Center PUD -- and this is where that change is -- is we wanted to make sure that the proposed amount of 30,000 square feet was in addition to the existing amount, and that's a number I did not have in my head yesterday, and I apologize. They have 3,350 square feet currently developed. We believe the portion behind it could have up 30,000 square feet; therefore, that total accumulative amount is 33,350, the MirMar PUD, which is built out at 20,000 square feet, and that just tallies up on the bottom right to 414,300 square feet, a minor variation from the number yesterday but more accurate as to what is out there today. And my apologies for not having those numbers nailed down a little more specifically. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why couldn't you propose, where it says Randall Boulevard PUD, now that you know the existing is 3,350, you think it could take another 30,000 behind it. Why don't you it could take 26,650'1 Then that gets you back to the 411,950. MR. HANCOCK: That may be the case, however, our discussions with the Randall Boulevard ~ Center PUD, which is a part of our application-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, these are all assumptions. I'm just saying, if you're going to assume something, why don't you assume something in numbers we're already using? MR. HANCOCK: Our assumption's based on an equivalency of7,S00 square feet per acre throughout the project. We were just trying to be consistent !Tom one parcel to the next. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But your inconsistency in the numbers presented, data and analysis and all along, is more concerning to me now than this last-minute stab at another 3,300 square feet. You guys are looking at over 400,000 square feet. You're probably on the threshold of approval, and you want to quibble over 3,350'1 MR. HANCOCK: No, sir, we don't. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Good. MR. HANCOCK: Next item. The -- we had some questions on noticing. And I'm providing again, for the record, this is the list of labels provided to us. We went through each sheet. We further looked at the 1,000 foot radius. I counted rooftops in Valencia Lakes. Out of 147 rooftops, I 1 0 are listed here. The other times are -- many times you're not a homesteaded property and you're up north, but all of the streets that are in Valencia Lakes within 1,000 feet arc included in this list. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good. MR. HANCOCK: In addition, on the last page, the homeowners association's notice included Valencia Lakes at Orangetree HOA at their given address. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, in reaction to what we heard yesterday about this possibly not having occurred, they asked for a commitment that you would at least meet with them and work with their concerns before you came back tor adoption. I'd like -- rather than put that in a written stipulation, can we get that commitment here today if you Page 54 . c..; _ .-",,,, :J ; . :;:"~ i; . " ,.", 1 ~02 20,2;01 succeed with this vote today? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. We're already doing that. It's in motion. We've discussed it with the association already. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good, thank you. MR, HANCOCK: And the last item does not need to be necessarily discussed, This is just backup to -- you received a table that talked about demand that was from CR Richard Ellis. We're including in the packet for you the demographic report on how those numbers were arrived at. Needs no further discussion than that other than it's backup for your use. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Does that wind up your discussion? MR. HANCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, any there any questions ofthe applicant from the Planning Commission before we go into our own discussion? (No response,) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just so we're all on the same page, you were at 41 1,950 square feet is the total square footage for all combined parcels, and we were supposed to modify G on the last page. There was a discussion there about when the fire station and forestry would be relocated, and you guys had some issues with a road that you needed to put in. The timing of that, staff was going to modify the language, and you-all were in. I'm assuming that's still needed. Okay. David, before we go into a motion, are you e1ear on the language that we're -- on the staffs language and any changes that may be needed to that? Why don't we do that first and get it cleared up. Michele and David, we want to know from you if you have any further clarifications or changes on the actual amendment language before we vote on it so when we vote we're all in -- we know what we're voting on. MS. MOSCA: We're clear, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So any changes or things that occurred yesterday, you're clear on that? MR WEEKS: Yes, we're clear; yes, we have a change. MS. MOSCA: Yes, that's correct. It's actually on the visualizer now. We discussed the relocation of the fire station. You asked that we come back and provide a different language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. WEEKS: So if you look at paragraph G on the visualizer, the yellow highlighted text view as deleted, and the red text is added. So, different way of saying it, the non-highlighted text would be the new paragraph G. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need the consensus on this one from the applicant. Tim, is there any problem with the language? MR. HANCOCK: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So now we're in agreement on the language. We have all our questions asked ofthe applicant. Are there -- is there any comment -- let's go into discussion by the Planning Commission, Any general discussion? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Once again, I want to bring up our -- nearly our fiduciary responsibility to do the best we can to keep cars off the road by keeping travel time down from home to shopping and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: fiduciary? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: -- so on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fiduciary? How can we have a fiduciary responsibility involving cars on the road? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: House Bill 697, which I read, was-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But fiduciary means we are financially responsible for it, David. I don't want to put on record something like that. Page 55 , '., q5 ~ ^; Il~ October 20, 2009 COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Provide's a better word. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okav. . ~ COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: That we are, in essence, responsible, in a sense, to follow the state edict of trying to keep cars offthe road. It's as simple as that. Didn't mean fiduciary. I'm in favor of the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah. The only thing, my concern is -- and I know it's a small amount of square footage, but to me it's 7,350 feet that doesn't have to be built someplace else. So what is the good reason to not give them that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't they just ask for 50,000 more square feet? I mean, where are we going to stop, Brad? I think the original application was for II by the way it was totaled. Let's just leave it like that, but -- COMMISSIONER SCI lIFFER: To me -- again, Ijust want to say, it's square footage that's going to be built someplace else ultimately in the future, but we can move on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, if David -- well, I'm not -- we're not quite done yet. David, do you have any response to the square footage issue? MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. On the visualizer, again, this goes back to yesterday's discussion, I understood that today there is no change from the appl ieant based on their earlier conversation. So the changes, again, being shown highlighted is the old figure of 31 ,950, and that instead should be 411,950. That would be on Page 25 of your staff report, paragraph number three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Was your data and analysis, would it be -- were you in line with the 411.950 in vourreview of this? . , MR. WEEKS: We were actually looking at a higher square footage. I think 20,000 square feet higher. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. MOSCA: I believe so, because what we -- what we thought was 390,950 was in addition to the two PUDs; one approved for 21 ,000, the other approved for 20,000. Michele Mosca, for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You recommended denial based on the higher number. Would you still recommend denial based on the lower number') MS. MOSCA: Well, I think what we did is we looked at the prCljects collectively, and so we were coneemed about the vision changing and so forth. So I mean -- oh, are you just talking about the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ijust need you to answer my question. MS. MOSCA: We -- I'm sorry. It would still be a recommendation of denial. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do we get closer to a recommendation of approval the less square footage there is or the more? MR. WEEKS: Well, zero would work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's exactly why I was asking the question. So the lower this number gets, the better it gets from the perspective of staff, even though it's still not acceptable, MS. MOSCA: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Go ahead. Well, I'm not ready for a motion yet so if that's -- you've been trying to push one. Just give us a -- could I have -- let us all have our talk here first for our discussion, COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: figured if we made a motion, then we'd be able to discuss it so we don't have to involve staff. COMMISSIONER CARON: Well, David has more. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: It may be easier, and less confusion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need their input. David') MR. WEEKS: Yeah, Commissioners, just to finish the square footage revisions. Also on the visualizer will be paragraph E, which comes from Page 26 of your staff report. Again, responding to yesterday's discussion and getting the numhers right. Instead of390,950, that figure should be 370,950. Again, that's paragraph E, Page 26. And then paragraph F, same page of the staff rep011-- I'm sorry -- same paragraph E, changing the Page 56 41 1 851 6 , 1 October 20, 2009 . figure from 21,000 up to 31,000 on Tract 71, and Tract 71 is the Randall Boulevard commercial-- excuse me __ Randall Boulevard Center PUD, and that is the tract that the applicant indicated they wanted to provide an additionaJ 10,000 square feet to be eligible for. And then paragraph F on Page 26 of your staff report, I'm showing a change, but actually it should be disregarded. The discussion yesterday was whether or not C4 captures the uses allowed in a C 1, 2, and 3 zoning districts, And in reading the C4 zoning district purpose and intent section, it clearly does capture those uses; therefore, no change to paragraph F despite what the visualizer shows. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Mr. Schiffer's question -- and Brad, I guess the way you could -- we could handle it is, if you really feel that additional square footage is needed, either at the -- whoever makes the motion can include it, or you can ask for the motion to be amended if it's not included. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And my point, Mark, is that it has to go -- you know, I have the impression -- some people don't have the similar impression -- that if you don't build here, you're going to build it someplace else, and I'd rather not be building all over the place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I certainly don't agree with you, but that's no problem, COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yeah, I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other discussion on this issue? Because I simply want to say that this particular project along Randall is outside of the core of Golden Gate Estates. It is one of those outskirt areas that, on the Visioning Committee years ago, we did accept those as being the focus for retail. And I would -- I believe that if we do need additional retail, this is a better place to put it than where the previous one was recommending. But there's a big difference between community desire and community need. I have to agree with staff. I certainly question the need, but the community desire is to have more commercial. And of the two, for that reason, I will support this one. So with that in mind, is there any other discussion? Randy, you're going to throw something into the works? MR. COHEN: Just -- I want to point something out. You asked Ms. Mosca if staffs recommendation would still be denial. I wanted to be point out that up until today, we had not received any data and analysis with respect to need from the applicant, and they have put something into the record, and we will take a look at that prior to the BCC transmittal hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other discussion from the Planning Commission? If not, ML Vigliotti, you wanted to make a motion. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'd like to make a motion for transmittal at the 414,300 square feet that was just submitted today with all the changes we had made yesterday. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded at 414,000. Okay. I will not support a recommendation for more than 41 1,950. So I will be voting -- Mr. Murray? MR. ANDERSON: We withdraw that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'll withdraw my second then. MR. ANDERSON: We withdraw that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You withdraw what? MR. ANDERSON: We withdraw that extra 3,500 square feet, COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Back to the 411-? MR. ANDERSON: Yeah, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Mr. Vigliotti, do you want to make a motion? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. We'll go back to the 411-. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Who's ringing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who's -- I hope it ain't mine. Nope, it ain't mine. Whoever ringing away, please step -- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It's over here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh,just throw it out the window if you can, There's not supposed to be anything left alone in a room, by the way, 1bat is-- Page 57 .. .__ ._,_,,, ... _"_'~".~_~'__ '~ _ """><_"-"""_,",'"~"',"''''''~_'M'_'' .~"'~_~_""R_'___________'_"_"_ - 16 I 1 R ;tober~2009 THE AUDIENCE: It stopped. ] don't know whose stuff it is. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Okav. Back to the motion. I'll make a motion we transmit at the . 411,000 square feet with the reduction from the 414- of the 3,300. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that is subject to the changes that we've discussed-- COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yesterday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- with staff and the -- yeah, the changes we've just been presented today? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Exaetlv. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's been a motion set and made by Mr. Vigliotti to transmit, seconded by Mr. Murray. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. I will not support the motion, not because I don't (sic) think that commercial and retail is not appropriate at this intersection. I do think this is where it should be; however, I have a problem with the amount that is being proposed and the correlating need for that amount So I'll be supporting staff once again. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other comments from the Planning Commission? David? MR. WEEKS: Clarification. The motion then would be per staff's recommended language in the staff report as revised today? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: The 411,950. Okay. Same sign, all those in favor of transmittaL signify by raising your hand and saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ave. ~ CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those opposed, same sign. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: No. COMMISSIONER CARON: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two opposed, motion carries 6-2. Mr. -- oh, who -- did you oppose, Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: No, I would say yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, David's looking at you. MR. WEEKS: I saw your hand still up during the vote. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, I'm sony. I was -- once again -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion catTies 6-2 lor the Randall Boulevard Center. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. ~ Item #40 CP-2007-1, WILSON BOULEV ARD COMMERCIAL SU!lDLSTRICT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next item is petition 2007-1. It's the Golden Gate Area Master Plan on Wilson Boulevard at Immokalee Road. Mr. Anderson, you've got ten minutes. Page 58 MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir, I won't take it. Just a few comments, Yesterday's discussion was about the possibility that you could put a berm on this property; you could put two homes on the property. And I spoke with the planner on the project to ask for some dimensions and how much acreage was going to be eaten up. And with the county right-of-way that they want, that brings us down from 5.17 to 3 acres. And then if there's a berm, that will take another half to a third of an acre, So there'll be 50 percent left of what they own today. And all of that -- all of the lost acreage is due solely to the roadways, This is a compatibility issue. And I ask you, please keep that in mind. Also I want to point out in the staff report that they say that we can have these other uses. Some of them are conditional, and that's what we're asking for the ability to at least apply for. And I thought it was ironic that among the uses they want to prohibit under their language are two of the ones that would ordinarily be allowed as a matter of right on this property, schools and libraries. So I think that they are being inconsistent. And, again, we ask you to at least allow a compatible use at this time. And, again, I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Arc there any questions of the applicant on this issue? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Hearing none, thank you, Bruce. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll entertain discussion from the Planning Commission. Anybody have any comments? (No response,) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're all pretty quiet on this one. Okay. We'll go into motion, Is there a motion from anybody on this particular item? We've got to do something. COMMISSIONER SCHlFFER: Tor wants one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Make a motion to deny the recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Kolflat made a motion to deny the recommendation. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Ms. Caron, Now for discussion. Anybody have any items for discussion? Mr. Schmitt? MR. SCHMITT: For clarification, It's deny the petitioner's recommendation, support of staff recommendation to deny; is that correct, Mr. Koltlat? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Well-- go ahead, did you need clarification, Brad? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: No, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought you did. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But we're not making motions to honor staff. Aren't we making motions to recommend transmittal or not, right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I think the motion is made to not transmit. MR. SCHMITT: Okay. That's-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's -- Mr. Kolflat, is that what you're intending to do? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the second was the same way. Discussion? I'll offer some discussion, is simply some of the facts, This is a small piece of property. It is more of a spot zoning nature than anything else that I can see. I do think that if they wanted to come back for the next round of the Golden Gate Master Plan review and suggest that we look at transitional uses for areas like this, that would be an option at that time. I don't see the timing of it needed now. They did not respond to House Bill 697, and there is no data and analysis on the transitional application, should it go in this location, and it is inconsistent with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and 16' 1 r 20, 2009 f Page 59 16 I 1" ocf:je50, 2009 vision that was set up several years ago at this time. So I'll be voting to support the motion. Anybody else have any comments? Mr. Schiller? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, I mean, I could make a comment. One problem with this-- and we think we're planning, but actually we're doing gatekeeper planning. People come to the gate, we let them in or not let them in. And Dave, is there ever -- anything going to happen where people actually look at Immokalee and plan what should be on Immokalee Drive (sic)? I mean, some of his arguments are very strong. You certainly don't want to live here, but what would it be used for? I mean, is that happening or is that part of the Golden Gate review? In other words, why aren't we looking at the future uses of this land? Why are we just standing by this gate letting people in or not? MR. WEEKS: Well, that's -- I think you're supporting the staff position for the restudy, the need for the restudy to comprehensively review the area for land uses, infrastructure, and whatnot, as opposed to this piecemeal approach of onc at a time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And the reason it hasn't been done prior to now is no one ever thought that that corridor should have residential? MR. WEEKS: Well, the last restudy was earlier this decade. I mean, we don't do restudies too frequently. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right. But that's enough of on answer. I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, if there's no more discussion, all in favor ofthe motion to recommend not to transmit, please indicate by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Ave. , CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ayc. COMMISSIONER VIGLlUITI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Bruce. Sorry you lost one. Item #4E CP-2007-2, IMMOKALEE ROAD/OIL WELL ROAD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next one is 2007-2, Golden Gate Area Master Plan for Immokalee Road and Oil Well Road. Richard, you have ten minutes. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. On the visualizer you have the location of our particular piece of property. You'll note that we're, I guess, similar to the big shopping center you just recently recommended transmittal. We're kind of on the outskirts of the Estates. We're not in the heart of the Estates. We're also located at the intersection of Oil Well Road, which is going to be one of the busiest roads in Collier County, as well as Immokalee Road. And this particular piece of propelty, if you look at it, the live acres adjacent to Immokalee Road, candidly or not, were residential properties. Page 60 16 11 85 ~ October 20, 2009 We added the additional five acres to make this site a better development site so it wasn't too small. This particular piece of property also has the FPL corridor power lines right in front of it, so this is not your ideal residential piece of property. A comment was made earlier about a project that I was involved in on Vanderbilt Beach Road, and I think actually that's a good example for this particular situation. The actual intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and 951 /Collier Boulevard is commercial, and as you get further away from the intersection, that's when residential became appropriate. Similar circumstance occurs on Santa Barbara and Golden Gate Parkway, the northwest quadrant of that. It was also on the outskirts of Golden Gate Estates. It was at the intersection of what was going to be two future six-lane roads, and the Comprehensive Plan was changed to allow the properties ill1ll1ediately at the intersection to become commercial. And as you got further away, you got away from the intersection; residential became more viable. So the argument that just because you approved this project because it's at the intersection you're somehow going to have to approve every parcel of property that's on a four- or a six-lane road for a retail or office use or even transitional conditional use is not a valid argument and can be easily defeated. The further you get away from this intersection, residential can make sense, The two parcels that immediately front Immokalee Road in their current configuration are not residential parcels. You took right-of-way to make them narrower, you've got the FPL corridor, and now you've got an intersection of two major roadways, and we've got, clearly, non-Estates type development around us. I mean, across the street, look at that, you've got Waterways, and then you've got commercial diagonally across from us and more urban development. Our proposal was modified from the original 70,000 square feet of retail down to 35,000 square feet of office. We were forced to design our project to have access on a local road, 33rd Street. We've designed that access to where it will be across from the county's -- and you can see it on the visualizer, the county's drainage area for their road project. So we have kept the entrance of this project away from the residential neighborhood. We are underutilizing this acreage from a square footage calculation, and that is because we're now being forced to use our access off of the residential street versus the Oi I Well Road access point. We think that our proposal makes sense. We think there's clearly a demand for office out in the fringes of Golden Gate Estates. We think that this is not an appropriate parcel for residential use, the two parcels that front Immokalee Road. It is a subset of what we originally requested, It's a CI use. We asked for Cl through C3. We've reduced the request to 35,000 square feet. And we submit that our request is appropriate for the area, does make planning sense, will reduce trips. Is it a big project? No. Is it a small project? Yes. I think a small project fits in this area. And with that, we are requesting that the Planning Commission recoll1ll1end to the Board of County Commission transmittal of the 35,000 square feet of office on this particular parcel of property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, MR. YOV ANOVICH: We're available to answer any questions you may have, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any questions? Mr. Murray, then Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's a confirmation that it's only going to be office? MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir. And that's a better breakdown ofthe configuration of the 10 acres, You'll see the two smaller narrow parcels on 41. Yes, 35,000 square feet of office. And we talked about the offices being professional offices, medical offices, and veterinary offices, and we were going to talk about how we needed to -- staffhad suggested if we were going to modify the language and go to, I think, C I use -- and then I had brought up that vet offices, I'm not sure if it fits in a C 1, so it would be a C I plus like a veterinary office. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, you know, the nature of our current economic is, of course, hopefully not going to be the nature of our future economics. But there is a predicate here, there is a time factor that's involved. Page 61 , ___ '_n" .....__.w._~"._,____~_ "__~~~_.._.""o<.~~'_" _ ~__..'_'~H~.__~.'~_ ~~.i_ .. ._~_____".." ,:~-: - , ",,' r cqllll! , , '-r",P ;- ,.,..~ In your -- I don't know what you want to call it, the analysis that you had performed, was that for the 70,000 square feet originally? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It was. It was for 70,000 squarc feet. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Commercial? MR. YOV ANOVICH: It was for retail. and a subset of retail is office, We asked for CI through C3 zone request. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And is that -- I guess maybe I'll end up asking David whether or not that analysis sustains for this change. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well. let me-- COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: You can answer it. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well. I mean, I think it does, and we can -- if you need us to refine the data to look solely at office, we can do that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: That's what you're offering? MR. YOV ANOVICH: That's what we're offering in response to staff recommendation of denial and our meeting with the neighbors. Can I ask about the time -- I'd like to comment on the timing of this, because everybody's saying that there's empty stores right now, I've got a couple comments to that. First of all, you're not going to build it unless you have tenants. The days of building it and hoping that they will come are gone. So we're going to have to know there's a need and we're going to have to have tenants signed up to come. We are in a horrible economic time rlght now. We arc going to come out of it and we are at some point going to fill up the available space today and there will be a need in the future. To sit there and say that, you know, today is a horrible time, we shouldn't be approving anything now for the future, is, in my opinion, a short-sided approach. It's a long-range plan. It's 20-year plan. And we're talking long-term. Now, if I were to try to go forward today, you know, today I've got a Compo Plan amendment. Adoption is next fall, sometime -- summer/fall of '0 10, then I've got to rezone the property. It's going to take me another year to do that. Then I've got to do a Site Development Plan and a building permit, you could easily put another year on top of that, and then I've got to -- and that's assuming I've leased it up in the interim. We're three, four years away best-case scenario from producing anything on this particular piece of property . So the thought that this is an immediate change in the area is not -- is not the case. We're several years out before we're going to deliver the offices, and I think that hopefully at that time -- because if it's not, the economy will be back and we'll be moving forward again and not looking backwards. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I don't know ifthe -- if this is going to give you heartburn, but if the Visioning Committee were to be put in place in the next two years and they would resolve whatever it is that they would make changes on and they agreed that this was an appropriate type of thing, my concern is whether the timing would be the same. MR. YOV ANOVICII: Well, my -- I think experience teaches us, no. I think that -- I don't know when the decision is going to be made to actually set up the Visioning Committee. I'm not clear on that. Maybe that will help. David, can I ask staff-- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, let me just make one comment that may neutralize that, because I'm not trying to give you a bad time, but you said it yourself you're not going to build if there's no tenants. So, you know, then this gets into the area of speculation in terms of whether or not -- when it will. We all know it will come back, the economy, et cetera. So that's what I'm wrestling with. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Okay. Plus the fact that it really -- as far as I can see, it doesn't really comport with what the intent of the Visioning Committee was for the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. It doesn't comport. Is it a good idea? Probably, but it doesn't comport. And my responsibility is to try to understand what is needed and wanted by the residents, and that's the issue. Now, if you want to address those, I'd be happy to hear that. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I think that -- there is always going to be a private sector amendment Page 62 ,.6/1 i , B ~tober"2009 process that we're allowed to go through. No matter how many times we do a comprehensive study of the area, there are going to be oddball properties that don't fit the cookie-cutter analysis that was originally out there, The world has changed. I mean, Oil Well Road is going to be a major road, and this piece of property gets to share the burden of that. And we're trying to make this a piece -- a parcel of property that is of value to the person who bought it in 1986 who never envisioned what they have in front of them today or in the near future and, at the same time, balance the needs of the community. We believe there's a need out there for office space. It will be in the relatively near future. I don't know how long this visioning process is going to take. And let's just say it takes another four years, then I've got -- then I get to start my rezone process and all that other stuff. It could be well out into the future, And no disrespect to staff, but the EAR process takes a long time, all these restudies take a long time to do. If you were to tell me, we'll be done with the restudy in the next two years, my answer might be, okay, let's go through it But if you can't give me -- it's an open-ended question -- and I think it is open ended -- we don't know the answer, so I think this makes sense today, and we would -- we would hope that we can transmit today and, ifnot, then we'll have to deal with what the -- what happens on the review. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I understand, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCl-IIFFER: Rich, if this is a good site for office buildings, you were going to tell me why it's a good thing to reduce the -- essentially reducing the efficiency of the site. MR. YOV ANOVICH: I understand that And what it -- it's in response to our neighbors, quite honestly, is that we are -- we are -- we had originally envisioned that our access would be onto an extension of Oil Well Road, a driveway for us for the project. Transportation staff -- I think Nick is -- is he still here? No. But he was pretty adamant that that ain't going to happen. He's decided that in the Compo Plan we need to make the decision that under no circumstances would access on Oil Well Road make sense, I don't know why we can't delay that till later, but he's made that decision. So we had to figure out, what can we do now that we're being forced onto 33rd Street as access and to minimize. And we've cut our impact, our trips, to one-tenth by going to office. And what we're looking at is blending in with our residential neighbor, because now we're sharing that street with them. And we know we're underutilizing the square footage, but we had offered the neighbors that reduction because we were going to now share their residential street with our office. And so that's why we're underutilizing is out of respect for our neighbors and compatibility for our neighbors, COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Discussion ofthe Planning Commission before we go to motion? Is there any discussion? Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I will be voting in favor of transmittal. I wasn't too happy about the 70,000 retail, but now that we're down to 35- office with a buffering, I think it's a small little project that makes sense out there. And, again, only for the office. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response,) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I will be voting against this project. It makes absolutely no sense when across the street there's an area as big, if not bigger, that is zoned commercial that has got a good access, that has water and sewer and everything needed, and it is not adjacent to Estates residential. The applicant wants to modify the uses at the last minute. I'm not -- without the submission to match those uses, this is not a neighborhood center, it's not part ofthe Visioning Committee's recommendations, when Golden Gate Master Plan was first put together, they did not respond to House Bill 697, and it's inconsistent with the Golden Gate -- with 9J 5 and in numerous ways that I reiterated during my discussion on this issue. That's my position. Page 63 "'~_ ,._"_._~_,,._...",,~_~_ _ . _ ~_--"'_~'." ,'_,'__ ,_,""~_"~_~,,__,_'~_'~"M_~~.'_"',,,,,"__'_~'_"~'_'__'_'" ..., , t', ,<' 1!1f;",: e ~ filii t'_ I' I':;. -..,. ''', r: ',' Octo er , 2009 . Anybody else? Mr. Koltlat? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: This is changing -- attempting to change the residential to commercial, and I'm very much against that. I'll vote against it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okav. Anvbodvelse? - ~ , (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a motion for either recommendation of transmittal or recommendation not to transmit? And I imagine we'd be using staffs language that we reviewed during our discussion. But before we go into the motion, David, are there any e1arifieations from staff needed on the language? MR. WEEKS: One really tiny point. Ijust noticed a word missing, get it on the record. Page 15 of the staff report. paragraph C. This is referring to the paragraph that deals with floor area, and as modified would be a maximum of35,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area. The word area is missing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with all those comments, is there a motion from anybody on the -- Mr. Vigliotti? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: I'll make a motion to transmit with the changes we had just discussed, and as I said, the 35,000 square foot of ot1ice. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion made by Mr. Vigliotti to transmit and seconded by Mr. Schiffer. Is there any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you're in favor to transmit-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Dave's got -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David? MR. WEEKS: I missed my chance a while ago. I apologize. Actually there was the question of the uses. The applicant has phrased it as professional medical offices. The motion maker referred to offices. Staff had suggested earlier that C I uses we thought would be appropriate. I can answer a specific question that Rich had asked about; a veterinary oftice is allowed as a conditional use in the C I district excluding outdoor kenneling; but on the other hand, I certainly understand his concem that, well, what if there's other types of professional office uses that they might have been contemplating that arc not allowed in C I? But that would be staffs recommendation. That is the zoning district for office uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Leaving it at C I? MR. WEEKS: Yes, permitted and conditional. MR. YOV ANOVICH: Does that include medical? MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Vigliotti, are you in alignment with that in your motion? COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Schiffer') COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So let's go back to the vote then. This is a motion to recommend approval for transmittal. Signify by raising your hand and saying aye if you're in favor of that motion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Three in favor. Those against the motion, same sign. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (Raises hand.) Page 64 ~ 611&\1 BtSr 20, 200~ COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Five against Motion fails -- or recommendation to not transmit, 5-3. Well, actually, no. How is that worded? Recommended they -- yeah, go ahead, Heidi, Clarify what I just said, MS. ASHTON: I would suggest that you make another motion and see if another one passes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yeah, we needed a new motion. I recommend that it not be transmitted. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Second, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Motion made by Mr. Murray, second by Mr. Kolflat My reasons for -- I would be voting for this, and my reasons as previously stated. All those in favor of the motion, same sign as we had before, raising your hand. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye, CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two, three, four -- what, this is six? You're in favor of it this time? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: The reason I'm in of favor it is because it supports my inefficient use of the property. The future will do better. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that's six in favor of the motion to not transmit. Those against the motion? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I didn't hear what he said. Can you repeat that? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: He said he withdrew his view. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: What I said, that I'm glad it's failing because when somebody comes back in the future, there'll be a much more efficient use of the property. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Oh, okay, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Those against the motion, signify by saying aye and raising your hand, COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Against? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Against the motion. This is a motion to not transmit. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I'm with you. I'm sorry. I'm tired, COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: (Raises hand,) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two against So motion to not -- recommend not to transmit carries 6-2. With that, we have ended our first phase of our criteria -- I mean our Golden Gate area -- I mean -- yeah, the master plan amendments. We will come back. We're going to take a IS-minute break to 2: 15. When we come back, we'll be starting on CP2008-4, which is in the rural fringe mixed-use sending lands and neutral lands district. (A brief recess was had.) MR. WEEKS: Hot mike. Item #4H CP-2008-4, RURAL FRINGE MIXED-USE DISTRICT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Welcome back lrom the break, everyone. And we are back on the Golden Gate -- well, actually, not Golden Gate anymore. I'm getting so used to saying that -- the Growth Management Plan amendments, The next one up is CP200S-4. It's for the Future Land Use Element Map in the rural fringe Page 65 ---- _...---,<",-~_._.~- . ""'""'...,......=_.---'..,.....-..>~--_."_._.""-,~ -~^"~._-"-,-,,--~~-,-~-_._.._,,.__..._.--,. -, 16 ';October e ~9 mixed-use district from sending lands to neutral lands. All those wishing to participate in this item, please rise to be swom in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly swom and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures from the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. I had a conversation with Mr. Nadeau. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: AnybodyelseO COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray') COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I spoke with him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I can't remember ifl-- I know it wouldn't have been -- I didn't think-- MR. NADEAU: Bob and Pat. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob and who') MR. NADEAU: Bob, and -- you spoke with Bob. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, okay. That's -- yeah, I thought Bob and I may have talked, and I honestly don't remember what we walked about, so he left a lasting impression, so -- MR. WOLFLEY: Well. that's all right. lie yelled at me earlier. CIIAII~MAN STRAIN: So, okav Dwight. It's all vours. ,~ , MR. NADEAU: All righty. Commissioners, good afternoon. For the record, my name's Dwight Nadeau. I'm planning manager for RW A, and I'm representing Filmore, LLC, on this Growth Management Plan amendment CP2008-4. With me in attendance today arc John and Theresa Filmore, the property owners and the petitioners; Gina Green, professional engineer of Gina Green Engineering; Mr. Reed Jarvi, of Omega Transportation; and Mr. Mike Ramsey of Ramsey Environmental. They'll be here to answer any specific questions within their disciplines if you have any; however, I am fortunate enough to have the only petition that has a recommendation to transmit, so I'm going to proceed with my presentation. I'll make it relatively brief though so that you can have an opportunity to ask questions should you have them. Subject property is 28.7 acres. It's located off Washburn Avenue and White Lake Boulevard in Section 31, Township 49, Range 27. The property's currently zoned agricultural and is partially improved with the existing yellow mulching and recycling facility. I have a vicinity map up on the board, and now I'll put up an aerial photo. The aerial photo depicts the subject property and the existing mulching operations on the site. Those mulching operations have been in existence for a number of years, and they date back to conditional uses approved for the recycling. The reason for this al11endment is that they're proposing to do some construction and demolition debris. Effectively it's not necessarily recycling, but they're taking construction materials, breaking them up into their component parts, and then transferring them to actual recycling facilities. So any of the iron that would come out of the -- or rebar that would corne out of the concrete would go to a foundry and concrete may be used for roadbed. The subject property and the mulching operations have been working in parody with the solid waste department and (heir landfill operations, accepting mulching -- landscape mulching debris in the past and using that for -- excuse me -- mulching landscaping debris and providing the mulch for the community. With the new solid waste park coming in immediately adjacent to us to the west. we will still be working in operation with the waste management but maybe to some lesser extent. We have met with the solid waste department with Dan Rodriguez and Phi] Gramatges, and they have -- we have the support of county utilities on this proposed request. The site is entirely permitted by the Anny Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water Management District. The materials, data, and analysis submitted with this petition have demonstrated that there has been nine years of wildlife surveys on the property, and in no instance was a listed species or the property used for wildlife foraging. Now, we're proposing to make a map change which -- which would change the designation from rural fringe mixed-use district sending designation to rural fringe mixed-use district sending designation (sic), and that's what it would look like on the Future Land Use Map should it be approved. Page 66 1611w'8~ ...1 ~ctober~, 2009 In addition, the subject 29 acres has been removed from the sending lands total acreage in the overlays and special features portion of the Growth Management Plan Future Land Use Element as is referenced on Page 2 of your staff report. The same acreage has been added to the neutral designation in that same location ofthe plan. With staffs finding that the petition is in compliance with the transportation policies, we're not going to have any significant impacts on public facilities and, in effect, this petition or this proposed land use will, in effect, assist or further the intent of House Bill 697 through the recycling efforts. There is no residential component proposed, no commercial, so we feel that this would be a reduction of greenhouse gases just through the recycling operations. And with that, we have a recommendation to transmit by staff. There is a condition applied related to the reservation of some right-of-way on the southern boundary of the property for the future Benfield Road corridor. We do not have any objection to that. We understand that it's merely going to be informative in this Growth Management Plan amendment, and it would be more -- it would be formalized through the reservation with the conditional use and the rezoning of this property. There are also some findings and conclusions that are referenced on Page I I of your staff report, and we find no objection to those findings and conclusions. With that, I'm open to any questions that you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there questions of the applicant? Anybody? Dwight, you said that you are in compliance with House Bill 697. MR. NADEAU: I'm verbally stating to you that the recycling operations themselves are going to have an opportunity to reduce greenhouse gases and dependence on automobiles. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But in the staff report on Page 10 it says, the petitioner has not submitted a response, data, or analysis regarding this legislation. They're referring to House Bill 697. MR. NADEAU: That is accurate. I have not submitted that material. I offer that commentary verbally to you today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are you going to be submitting that material ifthis were to go forward before adoption? MR. NADEAU: I would be happy to write a paragraph to include and provide that to staff that we could use in consent hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, interestingly enough, in all the previous staff denials, they used the lack of information and consistency with House Bill 697 as the reason for denial. In this staff report they acknowledge you didn't supply them with anything yet they went ahead and approved this. And I'm just a little curious as to why we have that conflict. And maybe, I guess, that's not a question of you now that I understand what you did and didn't do, but certainly it is one of Mr. Weeks as to why staff is inconsistent on analysis. MR. NADEAU: Well, if! can clarity just a little bit, David, before you jump in. Corby and I had this discussion. It was a verbal discussion. And it was our impression that without the residential land use components, that it may not be necessary to respond to those provisions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I don't care about your discussion. Your discussion is not what's going to be sent to DCA, the staff transmittal is. And when we get to the staff report, then I certainly will-- they've got some time now to think about it before we ask the question. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: If! may? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And not to start things up unnecessarily, but in the course of breaking down material, there's an expenditure, and the expenditure is X and one hopes that the result is X plus, plus, plus, plus. MR. NADEAU: Yes, of course. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: We wouldn't know that unless and until. So I think -- strong suggestion. MR. NADEAU: Very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other questions of the applicant before we get into the staff report? Page 67 .__" ,_. ......_._ . _. ._._.._.. __ _.._. __ ,.___~_._____,.._._... ,...., .,"__,....~__~,__,,_,".,.___. '_._'_"_,'___,,~,_,___~_,~_,_.""'_"_~_,."~_~~_,__""_'.._,_m_ 16: t'1: \,;.\" . . . . . . October 20, 2009 (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In the document submitted, I believe, by your office -- yes, RW A -- the noise issues that you're going to be getting into as a result of the changes that you're asking for, that's not the kind of issue we get into in a GMP amendment, but I want to kind of give you a heads-up that when you come back in and ask for the uses, the Collier Landfill has done a good job in the way they've handled their noise, their dust, and their other issues. I would suggest that you use, at least as a minimum, the standards that they set, because they are getting along with their neighbors to a -- at least in that regard, because I also notice that right now you have a positive relationship with your neighbors. according to your report. MR. NADEAU: Indeed, we do, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you haven't been doing the things, I believe, that you're now asking to have changed to do: is that a fair statement, or you're doing them now and -- MR. NADEAU: Oh, no, no. We're not doing construction demolition on site right now. We do have authority to improve some of the neighborhood roadbeds with some concrete material, but we are not doing the C&D operations. They would be very similar in noise to what is on the property with tub grinders and mulching equipment. And we've also agreed with the landfill that -- with solid waste that we would conform with the same regulations that they would have to should they be approved with their conditional use. So, yes, we will comply with the county noise ordinance. and actually we don't have any complaints from our neighbors. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I'm just suggesting when you -- I don't want to see you have complaints with your neighbors. because that just makes everybody's life more difficult. And one way to maybe mitigate that is to consider what the county landfill has done and take a look at that as a part of your application in the future when you come in for the uses. The preserve areas that you've shown on your property. it seems like the northern part of the site's operation is split by a preserve from the southern part of the site, and that's the way it seems to be located on Ramsey, Inc.'s. preserve area map. How do you get through the preserve to go from the north to the south? MR. NADEAU: l11at area of vegetation that is not within the preserve is to be removed as a part of the new C&D operations. So there is some vegetation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's a preserve map in the Ramsey, Inc.-- MR. NADEAU: Excuse me. If I may introduce Gina Green, the Engineer. She will be doing -- she did the engineering on the site and will be pursuing the conditional use. So you may want to ask Ms. Green. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Ijust havc a question. If you look at the study that was provided by Ramsey. Inc., there's a preserve area map, okay, and it shows a preserve area number five all across the bottom part ofthat upper site. The upper site's got a lot of activity in the northem part of that site. Do you intend to drive through the preserve to get to the activity in the south? Is that how you're setting this up? MR. GREENWOOD: For the record, Gina Green, professional engineer. The preserve area -- and I'm just going to go ahead and point on the overhead. Are you speaking ofthe-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 624 number 5. It really goes all across the bottom, yeah. MR. GREENWOOD: Right. That is a wetland designation that is not a preserve area. That is a flux mapping. And the actual preserve area actually encompasses the eastern portion, wraps around this existing and is through the southerly portions of the project, and that's been what's approved by South Florida and Army Corps. There is a conservation easement over those areas presently that -- but that 624 where you see this vegetation here is not a preserve area. That is part of the operation that they have an approved SDP amendment for and all their environmental permitting. They just have not completed their construction of their horticultural activities that they were allowed to with the conditional use that gave them an expansion back years ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. The TIS. TIS is based on the site of approximately 16 acres. This one, I think, is 29? MR. NADEAU: Yes, but there's no traffic generated by the 12-acre preserve. Page 68 16/1" B~er 20, 2909 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I -- so that -- but the site itself is 29 though, even though -- MR. NADEAU: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You have 500 weekly and 100 daily truck trips? So that's about-- well, 500 weekly. That's -- and 100 daily. Well, if that's what your TIS is based on, it doesn't -- there's no complaints from transportation, I don't -- I guess fll pass on that question then. Okay. The rest will be of staff. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ifnot, can we get staff presentation? MR. SCHMIDT: COll1ll1issioners, good afternoon. Again, for the record, Corby Schmidt. I think I won't spend a lot of time with this one, just to highlight the findings of the staff. And we found that the data and analysis submitted did support the environmental conditions being explained to us and the redesignation itself. The impacts on the Transfer of Development Rights Program are negligible. There's no residential components either before or after that are affected. The property boundaries coincide with a reservation request from the transportation department for a right-of-way along the southern edge ofthe su~ject property. And certainly after redesignation, the property would be subject to all the limitations and rights ofthe neutral lands designation. 11,at's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you say that's it? MR. SCHMIDT: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. Go ahead, Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. Corby, I was just wondering, this ago operation has obviously been there for a long time, and they've been doing their mulching for a long time, but it is in the sending area right now. I understand how certain properties got into the sending area. I realize it was a global thing. If you look at the map that Dwight had up there, everything in his hood is orange. However, if you look on Page 2 of your staff report -- and I don't know if this map moves at all, but next to the mulching to the right of the site, to the east of the site, is another rather large ago parcel. What, if anything, is there to prevent them and future people down the line from coming in and saying that they want their designation changed from sending to neutral or sending to receiving? You know, I don't know. MR. SCHMIDT: First, let's clarity what we see on that image or on that map. Except for a small parcel off on the left side, all of that area is agricultural. Some of those red boundaries are there not to distinguish from one ago to another, but all of that is agricultural. There's an -- another use there, but they're all agricultural. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right. Well, my question remains. What's to prevent the person next door from requesting the same change as this petitioner? MR. SCHMIDT: The characteristics of the property itself and the environmental values for each individual piece might dictate whether they might be suitable or not for that. But I'm not aware of anything that would prohibit them from asking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that it? COMMISSIONER CARON: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. This particular site though, one of the reasons you're moving forward -- it's already -- it was kind oflike grandfathered in? Is that -- it's been there for a while? MR. SCHMIDT: It has had some permissions to do some of those operations over the years, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because it -- one of your statements in the staff report on Page 5, it says, the subject property was not submitted and would have not qualified, does not abut neutral lands or receiving lands, and this is during the redesignation process. So it was already used for this at that time though, right? MR. SCHMIDT: It was. ~ . Page 69 1611 .. OW;20, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: But the uses of property were not the reason that it did not quality. It had more to do with locational aspects of the property than the use aspects. That wholesale study and the county's offer to redesignate some ofthose properties, that's when those properties that might be not a round edge that might be holes in the cheese -- there were a number of analogies used at the time -- but those same criteria are no longer in effect, just used at that time. So here we have a piece of property that is essentially surrounded by its base sending lands, and that's no longer an impediment to the request. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. But -- so, the neighbor next door who has an ago designation can clear their site to do their ago operation, and then they ean come in and ask for the same thing, correct? MR. WEEKS: Let me take that. MR. SCHMIDT: Okay. MR. WEEKS: The answer is yes. You might remember under the sending designations, the agricultural uses consistent with the Florida Right to Fann Act are allowed. There are two, I'll say, restrictions though that corne into play. One is, there's a 25-year -- once you have -- start over. Once you've cleared your property for agricultuml uses, there's a 25-year prohibition from participating in the Transfer of Development Rights Program, and there's also a 25-year prohibition on change of land use unless you restore the habitat that you had cleared. So it's a very big disincentive to do that, but certainly it is -- ultimately your scenario is possible. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okav. ~ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Corby. is -- I asked a question earlier. Wejust got done with five commercial parcels, and each one of those somewhat tried to do -- respond to HB697. Some didn't even bother to respond. I believe in every case, the staff fi.mnd insutlicient either their response or insutlieient the fact they didn't bother to respond to House Bill 697, and that you used that as a premise to deny the application. In this application they did not respond either and yet we have a recommendation of approval. Now, I'm not against this project. I'm just trying to find out why we have an inconsistency like that in this round of GMP amendments. MR. SCHMIDT: I'm not aware that the lack of submission hy the applicant or their agent were reasons to recommend denial. We made the observations throughout every staflreport. We were careful to point out that they gave us nothing and -- because no one gave us any kind of response. we didn't know what to expect from those that might have. So the state hasn't given us direction, DCA, as to what kinds of responses we're going to see on this, nor have, in this cycle of amendments. have we seen evidence of what we might see as responses. So we've just made the observation that they're absent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well. maybe -- I mean, I can pull up the old reports in the bullets at the end where it said -- I thought you guys kept referring to HB697 in -- almost in every single ease as in- -- you didn't have the right information to weigh in on that, and that was part of your recommendation -- well, let me get it. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, if I might, while you're looking. You are correct that in the findings and conclusions section of the staff reports for most. ifnot all of the other petitions, we did identify the either lack of or inadequate response to HR697 as one ofthose findings. I would also go further to say that I believe because it is a data and analysis requirement, that it could be a reason or part of a reason for recommendation either to the support or not support depending upon the response that was provided. And I'll agree with Corby that we don't know exactly what the Department of Community Affairs is looking for, but we do believe that they want some quantification of how greenhouse gases are reduced, how vehicle mile trips are going to be reduced through the approval of each individual plan amendment. We're all anxious to see what type of comments or objections come from that state agency during the Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report that will come after transmittal. Page 70 L 1 , ~ . . e'., , > " " '",.; 1~ 85 October 20, 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So when you wrote in some of the reports that the petitioner failed to address the statutory requirement and that staff anticipates the DCA to raise an objection, you really were telling us that you don't even know what they're supposed to do to provide, and you're waiting for DCA to tell you what to get; does that kind of -- ... MR. WEEKS: I guess a yes-and-no answer. On the one hand, we're not totally just saying either do or don't -- either submit whatever you want or don't submit anything because we know that DCA is requiring something. And you'll notice within those staff reports for commercial requests we included from Secretary Pehlam the PowerPoint presentation that he prepared on that very subject matter. And I think that gives some indication of what DCA is expecting. But because it's new legislation, because we've never -- this is our first time going through the process, we don't know exactly what they're expecting. We don't know if a response -- I'll call it almost a layman's response -- to say, well, look, I'm proposing a commercial project that's located in a sea of residential development so I can observe that some of the surrounding residences are going to shop here instead of elsewhere; therefore, they're going to drive less, I don't know if that's going to be acceptable or if they actually want quantification, actually, you know, traffic counts and, you know, other type of empirical data. We don't know. We think they're going to want that quantification, but we just don't know for certain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions of either staff or the applicant on this particular amendment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Arc there any public speakers, David? MR. WEEKS: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody fi-om the public wishing to speak on this matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that -- I don't think you need a rebuttal, Duane. Is there a reeommendation for -- to transmit or not to transmit? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes, I would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: -- make that recommendation, but I would include that they should have at least an attempt at an analysis under 697. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So a recommendation has been made to transmit with the condition that they should have -- at least attempt to provide information in a response to House Bill 697; is that fair? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there a second to that? COMMISSIONER CARON: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Mrs. Caron. Okay. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signifY by saying -- oh, hold it, hold it. David's got further discussion. David, under staff report, you guys can tell me all the things you need to under there before we get to this point, but go ahead. MR. WEEKS: Okay. Well, sometimes it's triggered during your motion, and that's the case here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WEEKS: I would ask if you -- the motion maker would consider, rather than saying attempt to submit, in fact, submit something. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was being overly generous. Submit. MR. WEEKS: And the timing? I would presume that would be prior to -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, prior to-- MR. WEEKS: -- a commission hearing? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, yeah. MR. WEEKS: Okay. Page 7 I ,-, .-.........-- _.._,-,_......,_..._---_..~-_.,-_.._,.^_._--,._._. ,- ...--.....--.... ._..'---~"~--"'_,_- -~-_._.__."---~-_...._,._..,~..,_._.~_. ~ etober 20. 2009 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Prior to the BCC hearings. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the motion maker is stating that the response to House Bill 697 will be submitted prior to the BCC hearing. And there was -- does the second accept that? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Second accepts it. Corby? MR. SCHMIDT: And that's also with the understanding, not just Exhibit A language, but the stipulation for the reservation of property along the south edge'> COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would assume that was statf recommendation. Was the motion maker accepting staffs recommendation? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the second has accepted it. COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This was a simple one. With all that in mind, is there any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, all those in lavor. signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ave. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Thank you. That was the simplest one we've had yet. Item #41 CPSP-2008-7, FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So now we move on to one that will probably be a little more compli--- well, hopefully not. David, the next one up is your petition, CPSP2008-7. It's a language change to the Future Land Use Element. Rather than you guys get into a long dissertation of why you're doing this, can you just simply say it needs to be done, it had to be done, do you have any questions, thank you? MR. WEEKS: David Weeks, for the record. Andjust pretend Ijust said that. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I was just going to make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mr. Murray. Does anybody have any questions on the staff language change? It's a very minor change. It's a requirement to have it done. COMMISSIONER CARON: Any questions on the kiek-the-can amendment you mean? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, that's -- okay. If there's no questions, is there a motion to recommend approval? COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I would make that motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray made that motion to recommend for transmittal, CPSP2008-7. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: (Raises hand.) Page 72 16/1 4 at: .~ ~ctober 2 cmJ CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Mr. Schiffer. He had his hand up first, Tor. Did you have a question, Tor? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: No, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You didn't. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signity by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMLAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. Item #4J CP-2009-I, DADE-COLLIER CYPRESS RECREATION AREA DISTRICT CHAIRMAN STRAIN; And last but not least for today is CP2009-1, Future Land Use Element, and it's to create the Dade/Collier Cypress Recreation Area District within the conservation designation. All those wishing to participate in this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any disclosures on tile part of the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Hearing none, we'll look for a presentation by the applicant. We've already got one, thank you. We need one for the record. So just leave one with the girl behind you, if you could. Thank you. MR. ASHER: For the record, representing Miami-Dade County, my name is Kevin Asher, Miami-Dade County Parks Department; and two gentlemen I will have provide additional information, Andy McHall (phonetic) and Mark Clark, who will be similarly presenting information. The county has provided a PowerPoint presentation. You've been given a copy. Kind of walk through it as the basis for summary of our application. Very quickly, the Miami-Dade County Parks Department is a large system. We own approximately 12,000 acres within Miami-Dade County and manage an additional 36,000 acres of recreation open space. The park system is managed by an open space master plan, and a lot of these I'm trying to put context into our application so you'll understand both our interests, the community desire, and the community need both within Miami-Dade County and Collier County. The department is driven by an open space master plan, which is determined to maximize the amount of open space for public use, both recreation, conservation, and preservation, and to do it in a manner which provides for greater equity, public accessibility, a seamlessness between county, city, state, and federal open space lands, a manner in which those projects and those properties are sustained, that our parks are both beautiful and they provide multiple benefits. We, like every county, is seeing growth. With growth, as it relates to our level of service, requires us to add additional land, and we have done so within Miami-Dade County, both local land as in municipal type of parks, and area-wide land, which is more of your conservation and recreation lands. Page 73 - -_.'^'-,...."--~._~....~_.__.."~-_..,,~. ,>"""---~-.'._'~-.-"-_.~,.",,,~,.,~,--_.> ..... .__~._"__~,..........._",..""""..,,,,._______..-,,~_".,__~_."_.m.._'~_'__'"'' 16 j {!.,~ . , 'BS .' ,. o 0,2009 f'" And as a part of our open space master plan, you can see that not only are we acquiring it in municipal areas as in developed areas. but there is a strong county effort to create a kind of marginal (sic) line and -- a not-to-exceed line on the periphery where the county is seeking to acquire all of the open space on the very periphery as recreation open space as a means of halting development into further areas. In this particular case, not only did we notice that we have a sustained need for recreation open space for the public, but there are certain recreation open space needs for certain recreational activities, one of which, among a more topical one, has been OHVs. that we've seen that there has been a pronounced increase in OHVs, as in A TVs and small and enduro motorcycles and as such. not only within Miami-Dade County, not only within the State of Florida, but across thc United States. But what we're seeing more importantly is that there are few, if any, locations in Miami-Dade County able to support a safe and secure and proximate location. And we're beginning to address the fact that our cultural areas are being impacted, our environmental areas are impacted, and the lives of riders who do not have a safc arca are being impacted. We went through a feasibility study with our partner, which is the State of Florida Division of Forestry, who funded an analysis for us to go through and look at location criteria as in what we wanted in a property. And again, knowing that we were -- we wcre never looking for an OHV arca that was simply just an OHV area but one that was going to he part of an amalgam of other reereational activities. So we went through a series of feasibility studies. We looked at a variety of other locations within Miami-Dade County, some ofwhich were owned by the county, some of which were owned privately, some of which were an aggregate of smaller parcels. some of which were intact, some on natural areas, some had no natural values at all. All said and done, we ultimately came up with a recommendation that we look at focusing our area of interest on the TNT, which is the Transition and Takeoll Airport. This is a 24,OOO-acre property the county owns that kind of straddles the Miami-Dade County and Collier border. Once we zeroed in on this area. we were contacted bv and we forwarded discussion with Collier . . County about the prospect for partnering on such a project. Collier County had gone through a similar process, and they had found that that -- there was not a viable site at that time, and they were interested in partnering with us. In this particular case, if you'll look -- we are looking at a 1.600-acre property immediately south of the runway. The runway is a two-mile-Iong runway. It's the second longest runway in the State of Florida after NASA. In fact, it was designed not only for supersonic transport planes, but as an alternate site for the space shuttle. It is an activity airport, although minimal. In this particular case the area is managed principally for aviation use, but there are permitted uses for swamp buggies and hunting and gladesmen camp, and a modicum of mineral exploration in terms of oil and gas leases that, when the property was purchased in 1965 through 1968, were retained. The current recreational use of the area is defined largely by the resource areas. There are six lakes on the property. There is a smattering of really quality cyprcss head, cypress domes, hardwood hammocks, other freshwater wetlands and marshes, all of which arc in various states of either being in excellent condition, some ofthem are in adequate condition. and some of them are actually impacted by some of the permitted uses right now. The areas that -- right now on the site the -- we are looking in this amendment for a variety of uses. Some of those uses, particularly those exclusively passive uses, are already permitted by the current conservation district. Those that are already pennitted by right arc camping and hiking and fishing and bicycles and wildlife viewing and other conservation uses. OHV s are permitted solely as a transportation, meaning for a person to hunt or a gladesman or some other -- but there is no motorized recreation permitted on the site. What we are looking for in this amendment is to modity both the Future Land Use Element as it relates to creating a specific Dade/Collier Cypress Recreation Area District, and we did that in kind of working with staff to note that we wanted to create almost an exception to the conservation area that would single out this area, that it wouldn't be readily repeatable such that we were able to control it, although please understand that the adjacent land use is Big Cypress National Preserve which allows almost 300,000 acres of Pagc 74 16 114 ~ct~er 20,19 OHV s along it through a management plan, and that is an important distinction, that the conservation use might otherwise permit OHVs for recreational use were tllere to be a management plan. There is not one in our property yet, although as -- although we've agreed and worked with staff that as we move into zoning and others, that we will put an overlay management plan on this property to make certain that it's both consistent with our adjacent uses and your Growth Management Plan. Weare also looking to modity language in your -- in your Growth Management Plan to make two exceptions; one is for a proposed visitor's center because right now a nature center is permissible, but our is a visitor's center; in other words, it allows people a little more orientation and understanding to the site wherein we're going to require that anyone who seeks to ride on the property would have a level of education and understanding that they would not, you know, go off trails, you're not going to further impact the property. And second, that we would permit textual modification to allow OHVs for recreation, not just for transportation. As you can see, the conservation land subdistrict in the lime green, this property is in the far southeast corner, the 1,600 acres, and would be in essentially a subdistrict. The proposed text change, essentially create a future land use district to expand the range of permissible uses by only those two items, the visitor's center and the motorized recreation; they commit to an adaptive management plan at the time of zoning to manage both site and environmental analysis to make certain that we are going to confine ourselves to those permitted passive uses and to do so in a way that only enhances the site. And the last one is to demonstrate a compliance with county and state regulations, both county regulations for growth management and state regulations. This is an area of critical state concern. The state has raised concern that the Big Cypress area of critical state concern, which this is in, that we abide by it and that this application is solely within it and that we are far below any threshold of impact proposed by that. And ifthere are -- ifthere is any further consideration, we'll see that when the state tenders their ORC Report. But thus far, what we -- whom we have talked with and what we have addressed, we think that we are clearly compliant in this. I'm not going to go through all the details, but essentially you have the larger one. We are in agreement not only with the language proposed by staff to modity the Growth Management Plan as it relates to this -- the creation of this district, but we're also in agreement to some ofthe conditions that staff has proposed as a means of making certain that this is a property -- this is a projeet that will benefit both the -- impact natural resources, the public, as well as all regulatory considerations. And then again, this is the area that the proposed map change would take place, which is the 1,600 acres of the 24,OOO-aere property. I want to make certain that you understand the existing site use on the property. Right now there's about 40-plus miles of trails on the property. It is used almost exclusively as pennitted land for hunters, gladesmen camps, a certain amount of riding back and forth, and then a certain amount of unauthorized trespassing because there is no on-site management, so you get people who like the site so much that they come at unscheduled times uninvited. The existing use has certain impacts that the -- some of the uses in terms of the riding on the property either off of infill -- remember that when this property was created, there was a -- six lakes that were dredged, and pads around them were filled. This property looks to make use of virtually only the filled area. The only exception to that are trails on the east side. And, in fact, our recommendation is, is that we're going to limit or eliminate some of the, quote, noncontributing use. For example, we intend to eliminate hunting on the south side. We don't think that's necessarily compatible with a park. We're going to probably eliminate all ofthe legacy camp sites on there. In other words, we would allow the permits to terminate. And we would probably almost certainly remove the swamp buggies. The swamp buggies, although they -- on a site-by-site basis are not that egregious, when you see in wetlands over the years what they do, they kind of make a mess of the site, and it warrants our attention as a county property to look at mitigation and improvement of the property, allow it to be restored in many areas. The proposed site -- the proposed site LIse of the -- actually the proposed land use for this is a certain Page 75 , I' , . ; ~ . 14ber 20, 200~ 5 ~J . , amount of using the lakes for fishing, eliminating essentially half of all the trails and converting one quarter of the remaining to hiking and bicycling and retaining only one quarter of the trails for OHVs, and of those, they would be stabilized, not anything different than Big Cypress has done in terms of how you manage and maintain appropriate motorized access. But the motorized access is also removed from sensitive areas whether they use a firebreak road or an extra existing fill pad. We just don't think as a parks department it would be appropriate to allow those type of uses to kind of go anywhere. So there -- when we get to that, we will prescribe the exact locations where they would be permitted. There's also an area for archery. because we've had certain interest in archery, had certain interest in camping, either -- both primitive camping and all RV pad area. And the last is a visitor's center just to provide a basis for rest rooms and site management. In general, the proposed sitc usc, we're looking to convert aviation lands to conservation and recreation, use impacted areas only, eliminatc half of all trails and all legacy campsites, convert the remaining trails to stabilize areas, supporting hiking and biking and OHV use, restore the natural flow and degraded trails. And I think this is important that there has been a eoncem that to formalize and stabilize certain trails would do so -- would impact the sheet flow of the area, the natural flow of water. Well, in fact, working with Big Cypress, we've seen that you can very easily stabilize it at grade and provide a surface that can accept motorized use without impeding sheet tlow. So I think that we're not looking to invent any -- anything new, but to adapt and adopt some of the policies that have worked in the hundreds of thousands of acres next door. And the last is eliminate hunting. And I think that all we want to do is just to reiterate, we want to introduce some additional recreation areas. Some of these have been as a part of discussion with Collier County, some of them are our own. In fact, we've already been testing our own staff. The bottom right picture is kind of a swamp tromp from our eco-adventure staff who have already been looking at programming this property on both -- basically pedestrian trails at different times ofthe year. And you will see here it's a wet trail. Now, there is -- clearly this is a wetlands. and no one would be -- you'd be foolish to deny that there are certain hydric periods of the ycar. whether it's really wet or really dry. that we're going to have to very strongly manage use. We wouldn't want it -- very wet periods or very dry periods to allow OHV use. We don't want to-- may not want to allow camping at the very dry uses. So this is a certain obvious and cogent way that we will manage this property to look at the types of recreational uses and when it can be open. In fact, there may be times ofthe year that simply this property is just not open because of the conditions therein. It is important that you recognize that your county has been very torward and very aggressive in working with us. In -- June 9th they passed a Collier County resolution in support of this joint project, and we've been working with them both in the land use and as upeoming zoning will take place. And I will halt my presentation now. and we would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before questions, during disclosure I forgot to mention I had two contacts. Ms. Judith Huchinson (sic), who's with our EAC, contacted me. She was the -- I guess a no vote on the EAC when this came through and had some environmental concerns. She was not in favor of the project, and a Carolyn Kritts (phonetic) who is the retired deputy superintendent of Big Cypress National Preserve notified me that she also was not in favor of this project for various reasons. And that's my disclosure. Sorry I didn't make them earl ier. With that in mind, we've heard the presentation by the applicant. Any there any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I have some. Mr. Murray, go ahead. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Out of curiosity, I can't resist. You folks do an AUIR: do you not? Maybe you call it something else: Annual Update and Inventory Report. MR. ASHER: No. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: You don't meet with the county and talk about your capital expenditures and the parks you're going to need for the future? Page 76 16/1 85 , , October 20. 2009 MR. ASHER: Only within the department COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Oh, interesting, MR. COHEN: Mr. Murray? COMMlSSIONER MURRAY: Okay, thank you. My question is moot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. COHEN: Let me go ahead and I'll answer for him. The Annual Update and Inventory Report is a requirement of our Land Development Code. They are required to do an annual update of their Capital Improvements Element, which would include a parks component MR. ASHER: Oh, okay, yeah. MR. COHEN: So they do do that. MR. ASHER: We update our Capital Improvement Element COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. MR. ASHER: So I'm just reacting to -- your synonyms confused me. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well -- and I apologize. MR. ASHER: Certainly. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: My question really would be out of curiosity, and it's not pertinent to this but it's something related. When you count parks, do you count your community parks as being with your neighborhood parks and being with your regional parks? All of those are counted in? MR. ASHER: Miami-Dade County is a two-tear type of government. We provide local type of services for unincorporated, as in nonmunicipal, areas, and we provide county-wide or area-wide parks for all cities, and county included. We have only an approved level of service for our UMSA, as in our local services. So we have a 2.75 acre per 1,000 for our unincorporated areas, but we do not have a level of service for our area-wide. Were we to calculate it, it's somewhere around 7.1 aeres. So in total, we're almost at 10 acres per 1,000 residents. And the county is relatively aggressive in both acquisition of land, as in we are beginning to buy local land. But oflate, we've been -- the county has been buying more preserve and conservation lands because it's more -- it's better funded. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I want to thank you. I appreciate your answer. MR. ASHER: Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. You gave an acreage figure in Big Cypress that H -- OHVs are allowed. What was that figure again? MR. ASHER: In excess of 300,000 acres for the-- COMMISSIONER CARON: 300,000. MR. ASHER: And I guess -- and Big Cypress is going through an amendment now for an additional -- I think it's 75,000 acres. Now, I would -- I won't tell you that I know the exact amount of acres on which the OHVs are permitted, but when you look at the Big Cypress National Preserve and the areas on which there are trails designated for motorized access -- one area of which is immediately adjacent. So there is on exception that -- and I think probably an obligation that we'll manage our property no less rigidly than they manage theirs, and we'll allow a level of use for motorized recreation that may even be below what theirs is. COMMISSIONER CARON: All right But you don't know the exact number of acres? MR. ASHER: Not the exact number of acres that they permit for motorized access. COMMISSIONER CARON: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else before we go to staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, I've got a question for you. Are those -- the lands that you're talking about using for this park and all the purposes that you're going to use in those lands, are they consistent with the purposes of the Big Cypress National Preserve? MR. ASHER: I would believe so since they're -- many of them are the same, meaning that they're the type of passive recreational activities that are nonconsumptive. So, yes, I would think that they're very Page 77 '..'__m_.""..,.._..,____,___,,~._,.,~,.._, _+"..".._"'__.~._~~,,"".,'; .+.~,",..-"'__o'..~__..._""___...___,,~...___ '-."0'. 16 I lctober 20, 2~ ti .. similar, if not wholly consistent, with Big Cyprcss recreational activities. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, I asked that direct question of some of those people, and numerous times I can't get an answer to that. I keep getting all these convoluted answers, but never just a yes or no. MR. ASHER: I hope mine was a yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. I understand it to be. I just was wondering why they wouldn't do that. MR. ASHER: And honestly, I mean, there is nothing -- and you know, we've worked with staff very closely that certainly -- the property has pennission already to offer camping and fishing and hiking and wildlife viewing. So, you know, absent the transition from OHV as transportation to OHV as recreation and a -- even a more microscopic permission of going from a small nature center -- and the nature center is like 2,400 square feet or less. I mean, you're talking about an interior square footage that probably approximates the size of this room. So we see it as a fairly minor change. although it is an important one for your county. But I think the more important issue for us is, we would like to see a transition from an aviation property to a park and recreation property. We'd like to see uses that restrict what wc believe are sometimes contrary to park and recreation; hunting, swamp buggies, even private use of publie property in the way of eampsites. And the last is, I think that we would like to see if there isn't a way within our own house of Miami-Dade County to preclude mineral exploration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You may have said this before. What do you do for Miami-Dade County? Are you employed by them? MR. ASHER: Yes, I am. I manage special projects with the park and recreation department, of which just -- my first 20 years was in charge of planning for the department: land acquisitions site planning, compo plan. My next five years was property management: acquisitions, leases, licenses. interlocaI agreements, interdepartmental agreements. And now I manage more of Compo Plans and DRls and large development projects. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is this property going to be included in your Capital Improvements Element? MR. ASHER: It will go as a capital improvement item in our updated Capital Improvement Element, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then I have a question of our staff. Why aren't we including this in our AUIR for parks and recreation if it's in Collier County') I mean, it's 1.600 acres that if Marla were to put that under her parks and rec., we wouldn't need any more parks and rec. land for 20 years. But like everything else, I'm sure they'll have an excuse why this can't be connted, just like the national -- or the state parks can't be counted. MR. COHEN: I think thc answer to your question, Commissioner Strain, is that the item has not been approved at this point in time and it needs to be vetted through the appropriate agencies. And if it does get approved at that point in time, it would be considered for inclusion in the CIE. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that means we've double counted it because they're going to count it. So I'd likc to know how you're going to do that. MR. COHEN: We're going to-- MR. ASHER: I don't -- I mean, I don't think that double counting is an issue. I mean, for example, we will count a park property wherein we may own 12 acres, and we might lease six acres from a school. We will count -- and the six acres is for public recreation use. We'll count the entire 12 plus six acres, they will count the same six acres for school level of service. I don't think the double counting does a disservice to the community, rather it provides a broader understanding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm fine with it, as long as you don't use -- as long as our parks and rec. doesn't say, well, we can't count that because they did, because then all of a sudden they'll start looking for another 1,600 acres to buy, which is where I'm trying to stop. We've already got enough acreage. But at the same time. it's interesting that your county can go outside your county boundaries and quality parklands yet we're not capable of qualitying the park lands within our county as part of our AUIR. MR. COHEN: And Commissioner Strain. I might add, there's some other issues associated with Paoe 78 '" 16/1 85 October 20, 2009 4 ownership and use and some of those things that we're going to have to explore at that point in time, so it's just not an easy question to answer right on the spot. MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chair-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's going to lead to some other questions here in a few minutes. MR. ASHER: One other -- there is a premise that should this item be transmitted to DCA and corne back as an approved item, that somewhere during the next -- during the next year, there is an expectation -- and there is already a draft produced of an interlocal agreement between Miami-Dade and Collier County that provides for much of what you're talking about, a legitimized way for the -- Collier County to work with us to make certain that what it's demonstrated needs are may be put in here, matches ours, and it may be as a product of that item going to the board, may be the opportune time to consider how it might be incorporated into your Capital Improvement Element. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I think we need to hear from staff at that point. Thank you, sir. Staff report, please. MR. GREENWOOD: For the record, Torn Greenwood, with Comprehensive Planning. I was listening to some of the discussion and thinking about some of my previous experience in park planning. One of the things that I noticed about this application -- and I think staff, as you can see from the report, is recommending not to transmit. Effectively if this is transmitted and approved, what the county will be approving is a motorized active recreation park, so to speak, in the middle of a federal preserve on which hundreds of millions of dollars have been expended, okay. I'm not -- and I don't think staff is opposed to parks. Being opposed to parks is like being opposed to motherhood and apple pie. But again, this is a very unusual situation. The applicant, I think, has very well represented their proposal. In the staff' report you have their language for text amendment, you also have counter-language for text amendment from staff. The primary reason for this amendment -- and again, is to allow OHVs, which will in this case, consist of off-highway vehicles and motor-cross off-highway motorcycles. There will be, if this proceeds, a management plan. The history -- and I don't know if it's in the application. I know it's not in the report. The history of why the federal government acquired the acreage for the federal preserve, the Big Cypress National Preserve, is because of the fact that Miami-Dade County back in the late '50s, early '60s, was proposing, as Mr. Asher has stated, to construct a major airport, an international airport, for international flights. There is a -- an existing I 0,500-foot runway, which is significant. There is activity on that runway. It's, again, primarily for training. The environmentalists back in the late '60s, early '60s, I should say, got very upset about the concept of plaeing an airport there in the middle ofthe Everglades. Again, that whole area is essentially marshland most of the year. They intervened and, again, the federal government stepped in -- I think it was during Richard Nixon's presidency -- to purchase the first acquisition for the Big Cypress National Preserve at many millions of dollars, public dollars. And I emphasize tile word preserve. It's exactly what it's called, and that was the intent of the acquisition, is to preserve area. Now, when the federal government acquired the property, there were opposing interests to that acquisition, and there were certain stipulations that were provided and agreed to, among which is the continued use of swamp buggies, continued usc of hunting, continued use of drilling in the area, but nevertheless, it was purchased speeifically for a preserve. The location has really been talked about. Again, it's 1,600 acres: -- 1,608 aeres to be exact. Interestingly enough, it's an active recreation park that's being proposed in the middle of the preserve that's approximately one hour driving time from both urban areas, that is Miami and from Collier County urban area. I've driven it a few times myself. In fact, I've driven by there so many times I didn't realize there was an airport there because you can't see it from the highway. It sets back a bit. But the 93 percent ofthe land is wetlands, and accessibility during most ofthe year is very limited and much of the year probably limited to swamp buggies, which the applicant has proposed to prohibit from that use -- for that use. Page 79 ; ~ 11_ Oct~'I1er 10. ~9 q; The area is a conservation designation. It's also in the area of critical state concern. The zoning is conservation with an area of critical state concern/special treatment overlay. A little bit about the staff report, and then lu I've got some brief videos that statftook on October 2nd. And Kevin and the staff from Miami-Dade were very generous enough to arrange for two swamp buggies and myself and a couple of people from environmental, toured the site. I thought, since it's so isolated -- once you get there, you don't want to get tllrough it because it's all wet -- that you might be interested in seeing those videos. In the staff report there's an attachment, and it refers to 17 emails in opposition to the project. And I'll just summarize those emails. There's two or three pages. Concerns were inereased disturbance of the site from people and OHV usage, not to mention the other vehicles, the campers and trailers. et ceter", and other vehicles to pull those recreational vehicles. Loss of wildlife habitat. Somebody said the soils are shallow and sensitive to disturbance. Impact on panther habitat. Somebody said we already have enough areas for OHV usage. I might mention at this point that in the Big Cypress National Preserve, there's 400 miles of approved trails. In the addition I believe there's another 140 or 120 miles of additional trails that are being proposed, and that hasn't been decided yet. COMMISSIONER CARON: Say that again, Tom. I'm sorry. MR. GREENWOOD: In the existing, in the original NCP purchase, there's 400 miles of trails that are existing. In the addition, which I believe was purchased in the mid '70s, there's infonnation in the staff report there's another 120 miles or so 01' proposed trails. Somebody said, you know, I go to the Everglades to escape the noise of the urban environment. And when I went to the neighborhood infonnation meeting somebody said, they were sitting in the audience, thcy said, you know, we're not at all opposed to these other passive uses, but I'm not in favor of, you know, motorized vehicles. Somebody also said to me in an email that I own an OHV, but I wouldn't use it there. Going to the staff report also, two areas of insufficicncy. And I might also mention that the applicant and their consultants have been very responsive to statf. The application you have, I think, is the third iteration, and I think it's tairly complete. Two areas that are insutlicient -- and again, one is what we've talked about and you have heard about, is House Bill 697. They wrote a memo which I think is right at the front end of the application, which does not quantity greenhouse gas. More importantly, and I think this is extremely important, that the applicant has ehosen not to submit desktop analysis comparing the subject site and the modifications that have been done, such as the so-called permanent hardened trails that werc used to haul the dirt from that site to the runways and to the acccss road to create the runways and access road, with an analysis -- surrounding properties, to show that this site is, in fact, different than surrounding propertics. And I have a feeling that if that is not part of the public record before, if this gets transmitted, that that eould corne back to the county as a DCA ORC report item. It also could very well haunt the county in the future ifthere are similar applications in the tuture perhaps from private landowners that want to do something similar where the record does not clearly show an analysis ofthis site versus the surrounding area. So those are the two areas that we thought we should mention. I'll see if I can get up the -- Mr. Asher has shown the existing site, but I'll show it again. They're talking about reducing some of the trails. Some of the trails that are shown here, if you get in the field, are actually not visible. They're somewhat grown over. But there are showing on this the six lakes that wcre created. The straight lines, more or less north/south lines, and the lines right around the lakes are areas that were filled not only for construction of hardened roadways to haul the dirt from the lakes, but also the areas around the lakes were developed and filled as pad sites. I assume they used clam shells or something like that to get the dirt and create the lakes and the till. And again, the preliminary site plan, which Kevin Asher has mentioned. Most of their development is proposed on the west end ofthe site nearest the three lakes that arc clustered at the wcst end of the site elosest to the access road. Page 80 16 11 October959 'I , That wasn't supposed to be on. This is one ofthe north/south roadways. And this was built in the '60s, so you can see it's still there. And that would be one of the trails that they would actually use. This is the -- one of the west lakes, and you can see the areas around the lakes. And again, these are the fill areas around the lakes that have been disturbed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the way, Torn, we're going to probably need to take a break around 3:30 or so. Will you be wrapped up by then; do you think? MR. GREENWOOD: I think so, I think so. This is an example of one of the trails. And again, there's somewhere between six inches and a foot, foot and a half of water. We're going to swamp buggy here. This is a -- this is a second lake, similarly filled around the lake. I'm going to let -- when I'm finished with this, I think Laura would like to make some comments as well. MS. GIBSON: Ijust wanted -- Laura Gibson, environmental serviees. The first view you saw-- which one is this? Well, we don't have -- we don't really have to. l1's kind of all of the -- around all the lakes. You can see there's still wetland plants corning back on filled -- on the filled areas. In the trail, one of the trail videos, you could see that the water level was about six inches below the normal high, according to where the liken lines were on the trees that -- it could still go higher. And that's all my comments on the videos. It was actually less disturbed than I had expected it to be, especially with exotic vegetation. And around the trails it would be where you would see most of the exotic vegetation from those trail impacts, too. It was -- hoping it would have been more degraded, but it was -- it was pretty pristine. And the trails themselves, it's hard to know how long they've been there. It's -- because of -- the soil site is -- the soil that -- is very shallow, and those impacts can -- can remain for many years, and take a long time to build back up, and the use is definitely going to be different. MR. COHEN: Mr. Chairman, could I add something before we finish here? I'd like the applicant-- they have the opportunity to differentiate this particular site from neighboring sites and also to explain what he had proposed early in his development scheme, how it actually affects what was just shown on the video, because I think, after seeing that, it probably warrants a little bit more explanation on how his site plan will actually address some of the concerns, as he mentioned, fill, with respect to some of the trails, eliminating some, and I think it warrants a little more discussion from his perspective. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're going to proceed as we always have in these cases. We are going to listen -- finish the staff report. We are going to ask our questions. I need answers to certain concerns I have from staff that haven't even been addressed. I'm a little shocked that you haven't addressed some of the most important issues here today, but we will get into that. And then if the applicant wants to address further after that, they're more than welcome to. I want to get staff past their presentation first. MS. GIBSON: And this was the campsite that's remaining that was referred to earlier. It's in an oak hammock area, which is -- which is naturally a little higher, so this was one of the only areas that was not wet when we went out. It does have an ID number given by Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Use for hunting, we understood -- most weekends from September to December they go out there. MR. GREENWOOD: In conclusion, we have some findings -- some findings and eonclusions, and they're shown -- I don't know if you care to go through those. They're shown on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Tom, the most important part about this, I think, is the impacts on Collier County from this facility and -- I mean, I know EAC dealt with the environmental. We've had -- the environmental issues are probably more obvious from on site, but I sure would like to explore our level of service problems and standards that are impacted by this, because that's what's going to cost the Collier County taxpayers/residents to the benefit of a Miami facility. But I need to take a break for the court reporter. We've gone another hour and a half; and we normally take a break every hour and a half. So at 3:45 we will come back here and get into questions and specifics on, hopefully, level of services and other more critical issues. Thank you. 3:45. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're going to resume with the staff report, but why don't we focus on the issues of cost to Collier County level of service standards, items like that, as a wrap-up, Torn, if you Page 81 .~. '-, -."'-."' ._--~.~'.>_'_"'-""""~""--"""-^"'-""-='~''"''-''~"'''''~'~'--~--''~~..~---._---,<->"....-~.",."._~. ... ...-- 1 if (;> fr ,-', , . _, ~' .... I f-.n I,j Li ~ .J f. -, ' I . "'~, i' ," , Oclober"'20. 2009 ....~ '.' ." , I could, before we have our questions. MR. GREENWOOD: All right. And, again. for the record, Tom Greenwood. On Page 17, if you will -- I think there's a couple of other pages in the staff report. We talk about consistency with level of service standards for Collier County as it's laid our in the Annual Update and Inventory Report. At the neighborhood information meeting -- and it was held at the Oasis Center, very close. I think about five miles east of the subject site -- a representative from the Ochopee fire district was present, and he indicated that the response time would be about 30 minutcs, which would be expected. I don't believe there's any anticipation of any additional fire departments or EMS facilities to service that site. The typical urban response time for fire protection is about four minutes. This would be about a 50-minute run. And, again, EMS typical responsc time is about 12 minutes. It's the loss specified in the AUIR. And, again, the response time would be 50 minutes. So the other public facilities or public types offacilities would be basically provided on site, the water, the solid waste. That's been addressed in the application. But the emergency response time was the major concern and issue. And one thing I found out, and it was almost by accident when I drove that way on Easter weekend to go to Miami to visit a child of mine, I stopped at the site becausc I wanted to see what it looked like and tried to use a cell phone there and found my cell didn't work in that location. So cell service may be marginal for some cell users in that location. But, again, we're dealing with OHV s. Motorized accidents do happen. When I was on site on October 2nd in the swamp buggies, the only persons in vehicles I saw were the ones that were in the swamp buggies. I don't know if that's addressed to the extent that you wish -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's close enough. We'll have specific questions, I'm sure. MR. GREENWOOD: The findings and conclusions, very briclly, are before you. And, again, we've talked about the impact on the environmentally sensitive areas. the Big Cypress area of critical -- and the area of critical state concern. Impacts of alternative sites for OHV usage. We've cited in the staff report there's 400 miles of existing OHV trails in the original Big Cypress National Preserve, another 120 miles are being proposed in the additional. Inconsistency with the existing eonservation designation prohibit prohibition of recreational uses involving motorized vehicles. The Land Development Code delines passive recreation as recreational uses not involving the use of motorized vehicles. House Bill 697, greenhouse gases. We've talked about it. Staff has found that tbis GMP amendment would be inconsistent with policy 1.1.4 of the recreation of over -- open space element of the GMP, and it can be found inconsistent with the policy in that it is remote, it is located an area where major population growth is neither expected nor permitted. Policy 1.1.4 specifically says, the policy of the county is not to place parks -- and again, this is not a county park. This is a park proposed by the Miami-Dade -- in areas where population growth is neither excepted nor permitted. Inconsistency with policy 1.8 of the economic element of the GMP. This project may be found inconsistent with this policy in that this project will have a negative impact on the environment. Number seven, inconsistency with Dover, Kohl & Parttlers' publication Toward Better Places. This study was done in, I believe, about 19 -- I'm sorry -- about 2004. Essentially 66 percent of Collier County is set aside for conservation and preservation purposes through public ownership or pennitted land use limitations. And they talk about parks and wildlife refuges that are designated to restore the Everglades ecosystem, protect water quality and aquifer recharge. and protect listed species such as Florida panther, Florida black bear. and other species which utilize this region for their migrations and home ranges. Number eight, inconsistency with estahlished emergency response times, levels of service. We've talked about that already. And last but not least -- and again. this is not unlike other applications. Perhaps they'd be completely Page 8" 16 J 1 'octoB52009 ~ different than this -- but there really needs to be a good documenta&n of differentiation between this site and surrounding sites, and that was not provided at -- you know, at the J;oice of the applicant to staff. So in conclusion, our staff recommends not to transmit this application to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Hi, Mr. Greenwood. You just said something that fascinated me. I'll have questions, but this one fascinated me -- that there needs to be a comparison of surrounding sites. MR. GREENWOOD: Yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: For what purpose? MR. GREENWOOD: If, as part of the public record, there's not document that this site should be treated differently, in other words, in this case preferentially with surrounding property -- for example, documentation that there's more disruption change to this site than tile surrounding property, then it gets to be a very difficult to, A, number one, justity this amendment but, B, more importantly, if the amendment goes through and is approved, to fend off future similar applications. For example, there are private properties that still remain out in this area where they may wish to eome in and do something similar with motorized vehicles. And again, conservation designation and the Land Development Code define passive recreation as recreational uses without motorized vehicles, not involving motorized vehicles. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: How would it -- ifthere was a parcel 640 acres or larger adjacent or abutting even this partieular park, would-be park, would they be looking to the park for verification ofthe use, comparison of use? Wouldn't that -- the park is currently being used in some form, in a number of forms actually. What I'm trying to understand is -- and I appreeiate where you want to go. I understand you've said no. I appreciate that. But I'm just --I'mjust, I guess, a little shocked. It seemed to be a place that your focus of emphasis was on, it's water inundated most of the time. There's really no true application in your minds other than swamp buggy, but swamp buggy's going to go if they have their opportunity. Camping's going to go, the legacy camping, which will go. So, in other words, I'm gathering that this -- the staff believes that this property should just basically become just environmental use only and passive. MR. GREENWOOD: Well, the property essentially, with the exception of the disruptions that were done in the '60s, is marshland. It's marsh most of the year. I don't refer to this as a park because the land is owned by Miami-Dade County, but it's under the administration of the airport authority. Effectively the airport authority manages this and is responsible for it, so to speak, for the county. If this project gets transmitted and if it's approved, then my understanding is is that it would become under the management of parks and recreation, become a park. But right now it's essentially aviation land, and I assume that there have been legal and illegal use of those -- of those trails over the years. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: So do they. MR. GREENWOOD: Yeah. And so -- it is what it is. And I was -- I think it was very worthwhile to see the site, you know, in a swamp buggy. And quite frankly, that was the only way to see it that day. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, I guess the key word here you've used is, it's already been disrupted. MR. GREENWOOD: Parts of it, yes. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, we know -- some know what it's uses (sic) for, and there have been -- I heard the word legacy campers. That means that there are people who are using it under some statutory arrangement from Miami-Dade. MR. GREENWOOD: There is one legacy camp that we're aware of, and that was in one of the slides that you saw. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. But my point is is that the property has already been subject to use. And as you may know, the county is looking for a place to allow people with off-road vehicles to pleasure. And I'm just -- I don't want to be arbitrary in any way and I don't want to be hostile in any way, but can we not find anyplace for these folks? I mean, the property's already been in a state of disruption. So I I Page 83 .l" 0 ,off' fJ - ~") ~ '<.-^, _.' ....., .--- 1 O;tober 20, Uo~ ':'''' ~ guess -- it's a general question certainly, but go ahead. MR. WEEKS: Let me make a couple of remarks. First of all, I just want to make sure we're absolutely clear what the county was asking for. We were encouraging the applicant to make their case. If-- at first blush, and I guess I'd say substantiated by the site visit, this -- from our perspective, this is not an appropriate site for off-highway vehicles. There has been some impact to the property without question. But the vast majority of the site has not been disturbed or significantly so, that -- to the extent that restoration, either on its own over a long period oftime or man-created restoration could fully restore the habitat of value of the property. So what we're asking for, for the applicant to do, is compare your site with other sites, show us how you're different. Because we look at our Future Land Use Map. You're designated conservation. The intent is for that land not to be developed. not to be disturbed, and yet that's what you're asking to do, to some degree. And so we were inviting them to show us, how are you different? Go back to one of the prior petitions, the Filmore property. They're in the sending lands near the landfill. That's exaetly what they did. You look at the Future Land Use Map. Their designation was sending lands. The Future Land Use Element would tell us that is not an appropriate place for development. The purpose was, for that -- I mean, that's just a different name really for conservation but in a context of our TDR program. But they could demonstrate that, well. our site does not have the habitat value and, furthermore, that they had an agricultural-type use that was lawfully permitted on the property. So to put it in context, they were able to demonstratc, we don't want sending designation. Well, that's, in essence, what we're asking them to do here, show us why you deserve a different desib'llation, how there's something different about your property than the tcns or hundreds of thousands of other acres of land designated conservation. To your second point about. is there no place for tbese') It's difficult, I think, to find a location because so much ofthe county that has -- that is outside of the urban area is environmentally sensitive. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: I know. MR. WEEKS: And that does make it difficult, but there are lands available, certainly privately owned, and then it's a matter of~ does either a private entity come in and develop an ATV park such as the Red Deck Yacht Club we reference in the staff report up on Charlotte County, which is admittedly a very different type environment? And the applicant certainly pointed that out to us. That's your yahoo riding and drinking and so forth, and they're talking about a family-type atmosphere. So we certainly acknowledge there's a difference. But the point being that potentially the privatc sector could step in and meet this need; otherwise, it would be, ifthe local government's going to do it, then we may need to acquire lands from a private landowner, forming ago fields, for example, or some other type of either less or not environmentally sensitive land. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I appreciate your reply. From my way of thinking, it would appear that there wouldn't be anyplace, because we are subject to inundation by water and because we are flat, and even with those properties that are private, if they wanted to come and offer development of that type to satisty that particular need, my guess is the staff would take the same position. So it's a no, no, no, no. Ijust -- and maybe that's correct. And by the way, one thing; I've always understood there's -- between 80 and 81 percent of the lands in Collicr County are held in conservation. We have 66 percent. Maybe there's a differentiation I should know about, because I've been going around foolishly saying 80, 8 I percent. MR. GREENWOOD: Well. let me rcspond to that. Ahout 66 percent is in conservation and is owned publicly. There's about another 20 percent which is in the Rural Land Stewardship Area, all right. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: So I was not wrong. MR. GREENWOOD: Yes, so you're in the ballpark. And if you put those two numbers together, you're pretty close to 80 percent, which potentially eould be eonsidered. MR. SCHMITT: For clarification. If you take Conservation Collier, all the other federal and state and local conservation areas, it comes out to about 78, 79 percent. Page 84 16 I loctober 2~2~9 COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Okay. So I certainly was right. MR. SCHMITT: Sixty-six percent public. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: And I guess that adds to the flavor of this thing. Maybe there's no place in Collier County, but I know that there are an awful lot of people who own those vehicles and would like to be able to use them. It seems this is property they own, it's been utilized, it's a park, they'll -- I presume it will be managed as a park. MR. SCHMITT: Let me clarity. It's not a park now. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No. It would become a park. I know, yes. MR. SCHMITT: You know. And certainly, ifthat's your opinion, then -- COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Well, it's an opinion, but I guess I'm speaking out offrustration more than I am out of -- I mean, this looks overwhelming when you look at the statements. But then again, when I think about all of the other lands that are in conservation and then the residual, whatever remaining lands are also subject to the same conditions here. So we might as well tell all those people, there is no place. MR. COHEN: Mr. Murray? And I think maybe this will help some. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to carry on. MR. COHEN: Yeah. What we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would like to get to otller questions, Randy, so just -- we drag this staff report out for longer than the presentation, which is a little unusual, so let's just get to our questions. MR. COHEN: Yeah. I more or less just want to cut to the chase. What we asked for was data and analysis from the applicant to support the request, okay. Is the property scarified, you know? What's going on on the property. Differentiate your property from the surrounding properties. And that's what we had hoped to get from them. So when you ask, is this property different than others, that's what we're asking them to do to move forward with this, if they can do that. And we haven't -- we haven't seen any. They just haven't addressed the Issue. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now let's get back-- COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I'm ready to make a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to questions. Pardon me? COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: I'm ready for a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know, Mr. Kolflat, but we do have to -- I would like to have some questions answered that were on -- more or less focused on the problems rather than the aesthetics. And I'm just going to start asking them. David, Joe, whoever's in charge of determining level of service standards in the A UIR, can you tell me, by a reduction in response time, a substantial reduction in response time into our -- let's start with the fire department. They also have ISO ratings that they base on, I believe, response times. How does the response times that are diluted by a condition without -- that's 50 miles out on the outskirts of our county affect the response -- the ratings for our level of service and our ISO ratings for our local fire department that would have to respond to this? MR SCHMITT: Well, it's going to adversely impact. I can't tell you how because I've not gotten that specific information from the chief of Ochopee, but it's no different than responding to any type of accident on U.S. 41. It has a signiticant impact on response time. The Ochopee Fire District faces that problem with 41 now. This would certainly add a burden to that fire distrietto respond to any type of activity down in this part ofU.s. 41. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm assuming you'd have a similar response when I would ask you about the EMS and about the Sheriffs Office? MR. SCHMITT: Absolutely, same response. None of that data and analysis has been provided. We didn't do the analysis from staff, but we've not -- we've not analyzed the adverse impacts from a standpoint of level of service response time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You know, we have an AUIR. The AUIR sets nur level of service Page 85 ",_.~......_~-~".__....." ..._..""'..----..."'---,,--_.~.,,..."~ . .- ....,~----~.- ~,-,~.,-"._~._..-._,---,--- .--- it:, 'ii!- '\~ ': ~r~" October 20,"2069 ~ , standards for the various elements, including fire, EMS. and SO. If we are required by our AUIR to keep and sustain those standards, how do we rea- -- what does it mean to us when the standard is, let's say, impinged or threatened by much longer times and a lowering of the standard based on a facility such as this. Will the taxpayers have to make up a sufficient loss to bring the level of standard back into compliance with the AUlR? MR. SCHMITT: The only way it would be done is if the board approved, yes, we would have to probably locate another station or some other type of temporary service out there to reduce the response time. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And I know a little about ISO ratings. First of all, they're with residential and stuff. This is a unique situation. I mean. we're not getting bad ratings because we have guys out in boats three miles in the water. The people that go to this are going to a frontier. Everybody's wide awake of where they're going. Things have to be done to mitigate. I mean, Torn says the cell phone doesn't work, so I guess we'll have one ofthose good, old-fashioned payphones sitting out there. I mean, there's ways to mitigate it. Everybody's going out for a frontier experience. They're not expecting urban services, nor is it going to, I'm sure, affect our urban ratings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So how many people do you think are -- what was the studies that were submitted under data and analysis of Collier County residents. who would be primarily paying for this, going 50 miles out to enjoy a ride in the swamps? MR. SCHMITT: I do not have that data. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Mark. I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. sir. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I mean, essentially. this is, the City of Miami owns a piece of property, or Miami-Dade County. Thcy want to use that for a park. That's the application. I mean, they're letting us come play in their park. We have an agreement there. but essentially they want (0 build a park. Isn't that right? I mean, we're not the applicant. It's going to be, their guy's are going to go there. They are going to be nice and let us go out and play, but isn't that -- is that what's happening? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. But my point is, Brad, that we have to cover the costs to cover the park with our services. Unless I hear differently, we've got to provide the fire, the EMS, the SO. It's in our territory. And if they want to do it so bad, why don't they annex that part of our county and get it out of the our county') COMMISS10NER SCHIFFER: If some of these -- you know, like out in the boat, out in their park, get hurt, they're going to pull in our EMS and stuff. But how do we know that's not going to be charged back to the incident? I mean, the issue here is this a good -- at this point -- because it's the GMP -- is this a good place for a park? And you know, I kind of know the site a little bit, is, you know, it's borrow pits and roads where they dragged fill to make this airport a long time ago. Everybody got mad at them for that. It's really ruined land to the south of that. The water flow doesn't go through the runway and get to that, I don't even think. So I mean, this is a piece of really environmentally messed up land that might make a good place for a park like this, in my opInIOn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. SCHMITT: Well, in response to Commissioner Strain, when this comes back either through adoption or through subsequent zoning process -- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Right. MR. SCHMJTT: -- there would have to be interlocal agrcements, they would have to spell out and speeity support requirements, all the other type ofthings associated with this facility. So those type ofthings would have to be done between the two govemments in order to describe who's going to supply the services, will there he any associated financial support, those type of things? Page 86 . l6 I 1 j D \ October ~ . .~ Primarily EMS. EMS, of course, the sheriff that patrol in that part of the county would require more s eriff-- may require more patrol, but it certainly is going to require some change in response times. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: But Joe, we're out in the middle of the swamp. I mean, the pie that are going there are going out to go to the middle of the swamp. They know they leave the urban, you know, amenities behind. MR. SCHMITT: Well, we live in a litigious society as well. So if somebody gets hurt -- I don't know if the applicant even has addressed that. That's-- COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, they own the property. MR. SCHMITT: I have to defer to the applicant to address that issue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Caron? COMMISSIONER CARON: Yes. Right now, under the conservation designation that the city of -- this property that the city of -- the county of Miami-Dade owns, they have multiple uses for this piece of property already that they can do today without anything happening. The big change here is to convert it to OHV. And we have heard from staff that there's already 400 miles of OHV trails and the potential for 120 miles more in the Big Cypress already. Why we need more is beyond me. I think we should be very concerned about the safety issues that staff has brought forward. Our response times should be of great concern to everybody on this board, I would think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any other questions of staff? Mr. Wolfley? COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Quick one. How -- how much response was to -- I just noticed the neighborhood information meeting had a handful of people, a dozen or so. Has there been much support for this thing, or has there been more opposition than support? Does anybody -- I mean, I can only go by what I've got here. MR. WEEKS: I'll let Tom give more spccifics. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: I saw the emails and all that. MR. GREENWOOD: My recollection, without looking at the staff report, is there are about 12 or 14 people that attended, and the majority of the people there were in support, but they were also representing Miami-Dade County, the applicant. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Right. Not just that, but have you received anything else we haven't seen? MR. GREENWOOD: Other than the email -- I received a barrage of emails, which you have as part of the staff report, and I think those were stimulated by an organization, and they all came in about the same time to my department. I might also point out -- and again, in the report there's also some letters of support, and one of them happens to come from Collier County Sheriffs Department. But again, those are letters of support as well there. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Okay, thank you. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: I had a thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Murray. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Now I have to try to remember what that thought was, Mr. Greenwood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, no, no. I got it. I'm slow, but I'm not that bad. Do -- it's a rhetorical question really, because I think I know the answer. It's a park, or will be a park, or it's currently being used by the people of Miami-Dade as whatever. If it becomes a park, will we not see people from other counties using this park? Will we not have people from Miami-Dade using this park if it becomes a park? MR. ASHER: Is that a question for the applicant? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Yes. And the answer is, of course. MR. ASHER: The answer is yes. The traffic analysis that we did detailed the percentage that -- the proportionate percentage that respected counties would have. In fact, Dade County is only expected to Page 87 ,. "...._.,.<.<_......"_..,._u"~~,>"_._,_,_.....~___,,~'",...,'"......""""'_""...,........"""'"',"........_.."""',_..,',.,.,<..~.,.",...,~",.~".."."-~-- ~, 5 It '.. bc~er 20, 200B ..... provide about 35 to 40 percent. Collier County is expected to provide 35 or 40 percent, but other -- all the way to Palm Beach. The deliciency in OHV -accessible areas, as in safe, secure, licensed, educated, and enforced areas is so sevcre that now most people who want to ride legally go to Ocala as in Croom, which is a five-hour, thereabout, live-hour trip from Miami or Broward or four hours from here. Now, having said that, you can ride illegally anywhere else. I've seen it on your right-of-ways, I've seen it on our right-ol~ways, ago areas. So there is every exception that this property is uniquely positioned, meaning it's smack dab between two metropolitan areas, but it's only less than one mi- -- less than onc hour from the -- from the MSS -- MSA area ofa multitude. We're talking over five million persons have access to this site as a wilderness park on -- only using I perccnt of the area in a safe, secure, permissible use. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: And apparently you do not have a restriction as we do, as he cited the rows (sic), which said that we cannot put a park out in the boondocks because we can't support it. Apparently you can do that? MR. ASHER: That's correct. I mean, we have -- in our system we have another motorcycle park on the far northern -- northwestern edge of Miami-Dade County. The nearest fire station is about, I would say, 27 miles. As other members have said, people go there to have a wilderness or distant experience. On-site staff functions as first providers, as in they do CPR. they have, you know, electric equipment. They do-- they have, you know, initial rescue services. There is no expectation that they're going to supplant fire or police. But I'll tell you in the last three years that I most know at that property, yes, there may have been some accidents, none of which -- nonc of which mcrited emergency rescue not being able to come in a timely fashion. So when I see or hear that emergency rescue has evidence of 30-minute call time yet in the application they did respond. Emcrgency rescue providcd that this was not outside oftheir area. Yes, it may be a little longer than urban area. Of course it is. Is it longer than going to Oasis, as in the visitor's center down the road? It may be a little bit longer. Is it longer than to the Indian settlement that is the Miceosukee Trail who reside along the traijO No. It's exactly in that same area. Sheriffs Department commented on it, and the Sheriff's Department has provided a letter attesting to their support because they contend -- and this is an important distinction -- that what minor issues may be for a longer service period are more than overcome by the number of lives that this property can save. A safe, secure, supervised area for off-roaders will rclieve. in many cases, people having accidents and loss of life on your very same roads in town. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. And I will make one final comment regarding availability of services. If anyone visits a national park. especially Out West. one knows that you could be in the wilderness in a very short time, and your expectation is not that you will see serviccs immediately; that you know you take risk. And I recognize there is some kind of a balancing act, but, you know, sometimes we can overaccentuate, too. We used to be a land of personal responsibility. MR. ASHER: And, you know, Tom mentioned cell service. Well, on site is Intcrnet service, electricity, hard lines. If you have Verizon. you have three bars. if you have Metro PCS, you may have zero bars: when we were out there, all of the airboat -- all of the swamp buggy guys have their own eell service. It works fine. Yes, there are certain pockets, as is everywhere, that may be compromised. But in no way, shape, or form are you very far from being able to make a call for emergency services of any type. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Thank you. sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you tell me how mueh of the improvements ofthis facility will be paid fix by Miami-Dade? MR. ASHER: Well, at this point ifCollicr does not come to the table, then Miami-Dade would pay 100 percent: however, Collier, has evidenced both an interest in the joint development, meaning the developmcnt fees, and the development as in construction costs. Now, at this point Collier has -- at thc same time, because I want to be fair. Collier, your Board of Page 88 ~ 1 6 I 1 'ctober 20, 200~ 5 County Commissioners, has evidenced that their preferred scenario is to find their own site. But as Mark and as Tom have said in here, the alternative sites that were evaluated in here -- and people have said that, why didn't we do it? Well, we didn't do it because our partner, the Collier County Park and Recreation Department, did the evaluation and provided the information to planning staff. They did the evaluation of the alternate areas. None of them have been found acceptable. The only one that's proximate was considered to be contaminated. The county has chosen not to buy a site. They're now in litigation with the South Florida Water Management District to figure out a way to offset the loss of the Picayune Strand. We're very supportive of that. If they are successful in them, we're more than happy that they go alone and we will go our lonesome. Absent that, we have offered them the opportunity to join with us on this project because it's halfWay between our properties. So either way, Collier will be well served. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is Miami-Dade going to pick up the cost for Collier's emergency services to respond to the site? MR. ASHER: No, because at this point the Sheriffs Department has evidenced that the -- that enforcement for police is under their purview, and fire is also under their purview. So our county services do not go outside of our county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I know they don't, but are you going to reimburse Collier County for our cost to service this area? MR. ASHER: I think that's an issue that can be addressed in a joint use agreement when it becomes a discussion item for your board and ours. So, yes, those are things that can be discussed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You already had the discussion though because you have a resolution, right? MR. ASHER: We have a resolution that the -- both boards are injoint support of the development and operation of this and that both will support the development approvals to make it so. But no, there has not been a resolution, only that they would like to see ajoint use agreement and one has -- and an initial one has been proffered. And certainly, I think the appropriate staff at the various levels can determine what are the items that should go in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MR. ASHER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions of the applicant or of staff or anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And David, ean you give me the list of public speakers that are here? MR. WEEKS: It's zero. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody in the public wishing to speak? Since nobody is here, I think that is obvious, but I want to get it on for the record. Okay. With that, we will -- is there any fmal comments from anybody, including the applicant? MR. ASHER: Just a small comment. Torn, who has been very kind and very helpful as a planning liaison for this application, was evidencing that although everything in the project is of a passive nature, as determined by your Compo Plan, the transition ofOHV use from transportation to recreation would make the property active. It wouldn't. There may be -- if you want to define that one use of OHV s as active, the rest of all activities are passive. So it is very much -- remember we are very proud to seek to make this property a park and recreation property that strives to be a conservation or preservation area by eliminating certain undesirable uses, and we would very much like to see it abide by a management plan closer to that of Big Cypress and hope that your approval today will allow us. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. With that, we'll look for discussion. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Well, one thing we never did is run through the staffs-- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there were such minor changes, but that's fine; 26, 27, and 28. Let's take them all at once. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I have a question. Page 89 _ _"_'___n~."_,~'>___"__"'" ~_~.~.,.____<_.N_"'~_~' , --, , , ~-'--"-~~~~--~-'-'-' ....--. :- i ..,. I~ ~ ! , r.' .' ._'. f J,' 'I ,.-, ' . " .~. 1 1 ""~o r 20; 2009 B5 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Mr. Schiffer. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: And it's G. It's, why don't you want the wildlife viewing platforms and overlooks? The good thing about that is that might make -- a destination might make this more fun for the users. MR. GREENWOOD: What I actually did there -- what these changes reflect are they pretty much mirror a couple pages; Page 3 in appendix of the application. So what I did is I eliminated G, which is crossed out and just simply brought that forward into F. It's not -- it's included, but it's not a separate line. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Okay. Sorry. I didn't see that. MR. GREENWOOD: Yeah. And that's the reason that was done. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: All right, thanks. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any other questions on the language on those pages? Did the applicant have any concerns with the language on Pages 26, 27. 28. which is the actual GMP language proposed by staff? MR. ASHER: If you'll give us a moment. There are just a few minor areas, and we've actually had this discussion with staff. For example, Page 27. under the drainage and stonnwater management system, the last paragraph, where it says lake edges, crossed out may and put shall be improved with shallow littoral edges. Well, shallow littoral edges are not pernlissible on that site. The site -- the overall site is managed as an airport. Littoral edges attract wading shore birds. Shore birds and planes are incompatible. So while we said may -- because there are certain areas that we want to make very sll1alllittoral edges that you can either launch a boat, you can have some wading birds -- we are federally prohibited from attracting wading shore birds and, therefore, we have discussed multiple times that --that creating littoral edges along all of the areas would simply be impermissible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Isn't that an area pretty swampy? I mean, aren't you going to have birds in the swamp like we normally do? MR. ASHER: No. As a matter of fact. in this area -- and Laura or Tom can attest -- the lakes do not attraet your nonnal wading birds because they're very deep. The other shallow areas don't attraet -- absent the cypress domes and the hammocks, don't attract regular shore birds. Shore birds don't wade in a cypress -- in a cypress wetland. So oddly enough, there isn't the same array of herons and egrets and other endemic species on this property that there are, like, along the trail or in larger lake systems that have littnral edges. So it is a little different in that regard, and it has been since the mid '60s. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have any other issues with the language besides that one sentence? MR. ASHER: The only one is the number 10. Again, it address the same issue. If we're asked to do restoration plans essentially for all lakes, and the restoration plans are governed by the creation of littoral edges, then we would be -- we're essentially not going to be able to respond to that because we're going to be prohibited. So where we say where deemed appropriate -- because there are going to be certain areas that are going to work, and we've talked with Laura about this. There are wonderful opportunities. I mean, our department has crafted hundreds of acres of mitigation land and wetland restoration in Miami-Dade County. We look forward to doing it here with you. But I do not want to misguide you that we're going to be able to do it 100 percent when, in fact, we cannot attract the same type of shore bird that we might at another hollow littoral-edge water body. Other than that, we are fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Laura. do you want to explain to us about your thoughts on the shore birds? MS. GIBSON: Yes, thank you. I would say that 1l10st of the site would pro- -- would be good habitat for foraging for wading birds. There's -- there are rockeries a half mile from the site. They tend not to -- it is true they don't forage in deep lakes. But most of the site is wet for most of the year, and that's where they would fish. Fish would be in there for them to forage on no matter where they are in cypress swamps. There are wood storks and various wading birds that forage in lots of different f(lrested areas, not just lakes. I would say that littoral zones would be the last place that they would. Page 90 .: 6 11 B October 2 , 2009 .,., So that part doesn't really matter to environmental staff if that's in there or not I still think that they would be utilizing most of the site, and I think that we probably didn't see any that day because the swamp buggies were just really loud and probably scared them off. MR. ASHER: And we're very supportive of every area -- we're very supportive of enhancing additional wildlife in all of the areas, wood storks in the cypress heads, the domes, because we are a eonservation organization. So I'm certain that absent that one small consideration, I think that it opens up a wonderful opportunity to restore natural populations to what had been managed as both an aviation area or mineral exploration area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Based on our environmental staff report, should this be transmitted, then the word shall would be struck and it would be may as originally inserted. And under number 10, where deemed appropriate would be placed back in, and that would then work for your -- MR. ASHER: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- review of the language, and that -- staff doesn't seem to have an objection at this point to that then? MR. ASHER: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any other issues we have? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let's -- Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Make the motion that we transmit based on the corrections to the language that have just been accepted by the petitioner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schiffer seconded. Is there discussion? COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: I had a question. What is the motion tor? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The motion is made for -- to transmit for approval. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: For approval. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: For approval? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. It would be to transmit, is what it's officially called. COMMISSIONER KOLFLA T: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have -- I'll offer some discussion. Number one, I support staffs findings one through nine. I also am concerned that there's not been any data or -- supplied that offsets the potential negative costs to Collier County citizens for impacts to our level of service through fire, EMS, and sheriff. I also have not seen any data that supports the fact that this is practical for a site of this nature to be 50 miles out and its usage ability by the citizens of Collier County. I believe that the use of the A TV s is inconsistent and incompatible with the passive uses of conservation land. I see no public benefit to Collier County from this, but I do see public detriment because it hasn't been proven otherwise, and I certainly have not -- I notice that there's a lack of financial commitment for cost involved in this. And I understand there's an agreement that could be up -- forthcoming, but it should have been provided by now if it was seriously considered, at least a draft of it. So I will be not supporting the motion. Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: People have boats. They keep their boats on their property. They look to have a place to go to take their boat, put it in the water. We spend a lot of money. The number of boats in the county may be large, but it is not the entire county. So in that sense, we facilitate and spend money for a segment. We do likewise for any number of other segments. And this is a segment of population. Some people don't care for the A TVs. I personally don't like them. But in terms of -- they are a part of our population. And while we could say that because it's 50 miles away, it doesn't serve the population, as long as it supports a sufficient number of population, and more -- to me, more importantly, environmentally, Page 91 -_.,-,..~.~- , ,. .".,,'____.__'...","'--.N..~_"_~_~...^'~~.._,.~.... '.,.~ "'..."__........___"._.__.<"".~"_,,."'~.-___~"'..'_~ .. r 7! , - 85 I " October 20. 2009 it keeps these A TV people from going and trespassing and ruining lands that would otherwise stay pristine, and it also prevents accidents. Anybody who lives in the Estates has a story about ATVs running up and down their streets. And that may not stop entirely, but it may help to provide it. So that's why I favor it. I understand the arguments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Murray, was that in response to my statements? COMMISSIONER MURRAY: No, it was my statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I didn't say anything about whether I favor or don't favor ATVs. COMMISSIONER MURRA Y: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other comments before we call for the vote? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The motion is to recommend transmittal, which is recommend approval more or less. All those in favor, signity by raising their hand and saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Ave. - COMMISSIONER VIGLIOTTI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two, three, four in favor. All those opposed, same sign. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER CARON: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One, two. three, four. That will give the commission something to think about. So that goes forward, again, as a tie vote. David, you'll have fun with this one as well. Okay. With that, we have finished up today's agenda, and we need a motion to continue. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: I make a motion we continue to October 29th. CIIAIRMAN STRAIN: At 8:30 in the morning in this room. COMMISSIONER SCHIFfER: In this room. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER VIGLlOlTJ: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Mr. Vigliotti. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER SCHIFFER: Aye. COMMISSIONER KOLFLAT: Aye. COMMISSIONER CARON: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER VIGLlOTfI: Aye. COMMISSIONER MURRAY: Aye. COMMISSIONER WOLFLEY: Ayc. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Avc. o CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposcd? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 8-0. David, you had something you wanted to -- MR. WEEKS: ljust wanted to know if you wanted to put on the record specifically -- I realize you're continuing the hearing, but specifically what petition will be heard that day, just part ofthe record. CHAJRMAN STRAIN: I'll be glad to mention it now. I mcntioned it in the beginning oftoday's meeting. It will be CP2007-5. It's the Logan/lmmokalee mixed-use subdistrict, and that will be on October Page 92 16 I 1 OctoberS, 509 29th as we just voted for continuance. MR. WEEKS: Okay. And Mr. Chair, Ijust want to verity that it did happen either earlier today or yesterday that the petition CP2008-3 was continued to November 19th at your regular Planning Commission hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I had said that this morning when we opened, but thanks for the reminder. MR. WEEKS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're out of here. ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 4:31 p.m. COL It MAR , ER COUNJ ..~ ING COMMISSIONERS c,v..L ( / .t~ STRAIN, Chairman These minutes approved by the Board on or as corrected ,/ . jl JLJ I q ~1 ':';;5 presented -' TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM AND TERRI LEWIS. Page 93 . -, '^-~-"'~~~~---' .'''-'-"~-",''~",--,._'. "....~""""'.~.,..,...~_.... -,.""~,-~,, ,. ..... . """"~..,."_.._._,._,.~~,. ,-', ,~ Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta 16/1 a6 COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ~ POLICY ADVISORY BOARD RECEIVED DEe 0 12009 AGENDA Board .fCounty ~ MEETING TO BE HELD: DATE: APRIL 17, 2009 TIME: 3:00 P.M. Call to Order Establish Quorum Agenda Additions/Deletions Adoption of Agenda "-- Housekeeping Mission Statement Election ofChainnan & Vice Chainnan Establish Tenn Expirations Establish Frequency of Meetings New Business Review of Last Quarter Stats Board Member Discussion Establish Next Meeting Date & Location Adjournment '- MiSC. vJrres: Date2W ~ I'D Item #_ili lil C"'''i'JS!c 16 1 1 86 J, '- COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES Fiala ~yt6. POLICY ADVISORY BOARD RECE/V Halas ~- ED Henning . . SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA DEe 0 1 2009 Coyle V fr.n.-.- Boa", 0' Counly C . Coletta +c,f-lL- MEETING TO BE HELD: .o,"",'s'"me", NEIGHBORHOOD HEALTH CLINlC 120 Goodle1te Road N. Naples, FL 34102 Second Floor Education Room DATE AND TIME: FRIDAY, MAY 22, 2009 4:00-5:00 P.M. Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance Agenda Additions/Deletions Adoption of Agenda New Business · Review of drug and protocol testing of fire fighter paramedics by OMD · Review of Dr. Gordon Ewy's Circulation Editorial for May 2009 re: CPR . Review of OPAL SINew England Journal Study · Review of the following drugs: (Drugs currently carried by transport and non-transport medics) . ASA K . Nitroglycerin . D50 . Epinephrine · Benadryl . A1buterol . Atrovent . Narcan . Amiodarone . Atropine . Review of Time to Treatment of drugs · Review of Utilization of Drugs by ALS Engines and EMS · Review of Amendments to ALS Engine Drug Inventory Public Comment Board Member Discussion rvL::."....;:...:es Establish Next Meeting Date ,__ Regular Meeting: July 10,2009 Date Item~ --..---."-----.-.-- Adjournment ,', ~''-, <-"" . 16 11 86 COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES POLICY ADVISORY BOARD '-- Friday April!7, 2009 3:00 P.M. Collier County EMS Headquarters 8075 Lely Cultural Parkway, Suite 267 Naples, FL 34113 Conference Room B Members: Physician Representative - Dr. James Talano; Present Pharmacist Representative - Steve Shafor; Present Nurse Representative - Linda Mitchell; Present EMS Representative - Walter Kopka; Present Fire Representative - Robert Metzger; Present Staff Present: Dr. Robert Tober Dr. Douglas Lee Jennifer Florin Jeff Page Les Williams Tabatha Butcher '- Audience Present: Diana Watson, ENFD The regular meeting was called to order by Jennifer Florin. A quorum was present at this time. As this is the first meeting of this board, each person was asked to introduce themselves and give their background, Agenda Motion to adopt today's agenda; passed unanimously Housekeeping Bylaws & Mission Statement It was discussed if the board should have a mission statement. Dr. Tober had one prepared prior to the meeting as a sample that read: "The mission of the EMS Policy Advisory Board is to serve as a review and advisory council to the medical directors of Collier County EMS reference the application and privileging of medical protocols for EMS and Fire." Bylaws written up by the County Attorney were passed out as a sample. It was expressed that the Board has the authority to vote to have or not have bylaws. Bylaws are not mandatory. Chief Metzger stated concern that the mission statement represents what the BCC tasked this board to accomplish. Walter added that the ordinance that created the board has specific objectives listed. Dr. Tober read the objectives from the ordinance for the group. Chief Metzger suggested that the mission statement be altered to reflect this board as being an advisory council to the BCC. The group all agreed and the final mission 16 I 1 86 CC EMS Policy Advisory Board 04/17/2009 Page 2 statement will read: "The mission of the EMS Policy Advisory Board is to serve as a review and advisory council to the Board of County Commissioners reference the application and privileging of medical protocols - for EMS and Fire." Steve moved to accept the by-laws...hearing no second the motion failed, The question was raised whether we had to have by-laws, and Walter stated that the ordinance states we do. It was decided that the group wanted a little mOTe time to review the bylaws and would vote on them at the next meeting. Motion to accept the mission statement as modified; seconded; passed unanimously Election of Chairman & Vice Chairman There were no volunteers for chairman or vice-chairman. Chief Page stated that he thought we should work on the bylaws and decide who can be chairman, and how long the terms are before we elect someone. With the group agreeing, we will vote on the positions at the next meeting. Establish Term Expirations The idea of staggering the term expirations was discussed, and all members said that they didn't mind being a two year term or a four year term. They would allow the staff to decide for them. Establish Frequency of Meetings In the bylaws it is designated that the board meet on a quarterly basis. The members were asked what they thought of quarterly meeting. Linda stated that she felt it depended on the amount of work that needed to be done. Walter asked if we decide on quarterly meetings if we could meet more often than that if there was a need. It was explained that the Chairman can call meetings more often than quarterly if need be. Dr. Talano joined the group at this point and he was introduced to all members, and was briefly caught _ up to speed. He was asked his opinion on term expirations, and he stated that he feels you can do more and be more effective the longer you are on a board. He also agreed that quarterly meetings are appropriate. ' New Business Review of Last Quarter Stats Dr. Tober asked Les Williams from EMS' training department to put together information from the first quarter of 2009 on call types run by the different fire departments; medications carried and administered by both EMS and Fire, and ALS procedures done by both EMS and Fire. Before going through the charts some members had general questions regarding the difference between EMS and the fire departments, the types of calls each responds to, who decides which vehicles respond, and if there is a paramedic on board each apparatus. After the general discussion, Dr. Tober went through the charts and explained all the data to the group. The group had several questions along the way, where Dr. Tober and Les were able to answer. The group also had several suggestions on how to present the data differently next time, and those suggestions were noted by Les and Tabatha for use next quarter. Medications & Protocols Any new medications brought into the pre-hospital medical protocols along with supporting literature will be reviewed by the board. Board Member Discussion "'-' Location of meetings discussed, and it was decided to try and hold meetings at the Neighborhood Health Clinic. It is much closer for all the members. 16 , 1 86 CC EMS Policy Advisory 80ard 04/17/2009 Page 3 Additionally, the sunshine law was discussed and if there is an email sent out by a staff member, the board members are welcome to reply back, but do not hit "reply all." There is no communicating allowed between the '~five members, but communication between board members and staff liaison's are ok. Establish Next Meeting Date The next meeting will be held on July 10, 2009 at 2:30 p.m. Staff will check with the Neighborhood Health Clinic to see if their meeting room will be available, Adjournment Respectfully Submitted, Jennifer Florin Date Adopted: Cl/(}S-/O<1 , '- ~. 16 /1 86 COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES POLICY ADVISORY BOARD I '-' Friday May 22, 2009 4:00 P.M. Neighborhood Health Clinic 120 Goodlette Road N. Naples, FL 34102 2nd Floor Education Center Members: Physician Representative - Dr. James Talano; Present Pharmacist Representative - Steve Shafor; Present Nurse Representative - Linda Mitchell; Present EMS Representative - Walter Kopka; Present Fire Representative - Robert Metzger; Present Staff Present: Dr. Robert Tober Dr. Douglas Lee Jennifer Florin Les Williams J efl' Page Dan Summers Numerous EMS Staff Audience Present / Soeakers Numerous staff from various fire districts Jim Burke Eloy Ricardo The regular meeting was called to order by Dr. Douglas Lee. All people present stood for the Pledge of Allegiance. A quorum was present at this time. Agenda Dr. Lee started off by asking that we take all the agenda items except the first one and move them to a future meeting. Chief Metzger added that he was ok with moving all the other items to another meeting as long as the rest of the group was. Everyone else agreed. Motion to adopt agenda with revisions; passed unanimously. Minutes from Previous Meeting Minutes from previous meeting are not currently available, but would be available at the next regular meeting in July. '~ Old Business No Old Business 1611 86 CC EMS Policy Advisory Board OS/22/09 Special Meeting Page 2 , '-' New Business Review of drug and protocol testing of fire fighter paramedics by OMD This topic is the reason for this meeting. Dr. Tober stated that he recently administered a test to all the fire fighter paramedics on the current drugs and protocols. During one of the testings a group of papers was obtained by one of our training captains from a paramedic of one of the fire departments. These papers were further determined to be a study guide that was very specific to this test. These study guides were handed out to all the members. The EMS department has decided to report these findings to the State Department of Health, and the fire districts involved in the testing's have determined to conduct their own internal investigation. Dr. Tober had a power point presentation to highlight some of the findings. There was much discussion of the topic amongst members and Dr. Tober. The board discussion was based around working together and somehow finding a better way of testing; possibly not stretching it out so many days, or having a large question bank. Public Comment There were no registered speakers; however two people asked and were allowed to speak. Jim Burke from North Naples Fire Control & Rescue District Commission spoke first. He had some discussion with Dr. Tober on why he did not first go to the Fire Chiefs instead of going straight to the State, Next to speak was Eloy Ricardo representing the local fire fighters union. His discussion with Dr. Tober was on the broad allegations of cheating by all fire fighter paramedics. Dr. Tober re-iterated that there was no allegation by him of cheating; however the integrity of the test has been compromised and there is no way of knowing by how many. Board Member Discussion There was no further board member discussion. Establish Next Meeting Date '-- The next meeting will be held on Friday July 10, 2009. Adjournment Respectfully Submitted, Jennifer Florin Date Adopted: Cj Ja$-/Oq , ^ Chainnan I Boar .~ '--- . 16/1 / 86 September 25, 2009 Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY !ci EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES RECEIVED . f /{;.l POLICY ADVISORY BOARD DEe 0 1 2009 Naples, Florida, September 25, 2009 Board of County Commissioners LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Emergency Medical Services Policy Advisory Board, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 4:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION at the Administrative Building "F," 3rd floor, Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: CHAIRMAN: Vice Chair: James Talano, M.D. Chief Robert Metzger Chief Walter Kopka Linda Mitchell Steve Shafar ALSO PRESENT: Jeffery A. Klatzkow, County Attorney Dr. Robert Tober, Collier County Medical I:Ws@,CC6lIes: Wayne Watson, Deputy Chief, Bureau of Emergency Services Michael Sheffield, Assistant to County ManR~r Item # 1 r' "'~ . I... -.-...---- " . _ __,.._w......_"...., ,",,__.. .-,-,..,.....,....._,.., l6 J 1 I 86 September 25, 2009 ,.. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ESTABLISH QUORUM The Meeting was called to order at 4:01PM by Commissioner Donna Fiala and a quorum was established. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. AGENDA Additional/Deletions Adoption of Agenda Chief Robert Metzger proposed: . To add a review of Ordinance #2009-01 . To hear Item E under "New Business," Review of OPALS Study, as the fIrst item in that category Linda Mitchell moved to adopt the Agenda as amended. Second by Steve Shafor. Carried unanimously, 4~O. ADDED TOPIC: Review of Ordinance #2009-01 Chief Metzger called the Committee's attention to the second WHEREAS clause of the Ordinance: "" the purpose of this Advisory Board is to review and advise the Board of County Commissions on all issues concerning emergency medical services within Collier County"." He also referred to Item #2 under Section Two: Functions, Powers and Duties of the Advisory Board: "To hear all disputes arising out of the ALS Engine Interlocal Agreements between Collier County and the various Fire Districts, and make written recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for resolution of such disputes." and to Item #4: "To review and make written recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners of all changes to established protocol and practices recommended by the Medical Director's Quality Assurance Committee," Commissioner Fiala explained if a member of the public wanted to discuss an item on the Agenda, a Speaker Slip must be completed and presented to the County Attorney, Speakers will be allowed three rninutes. '(;0', .,1, 2 16/1 September 25, 2009 B 6 MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Additions/Deletions/Corrections Adoption of Minutes Aprill7'h Minutes May 22nd Minutes Linda Mitchell moved to approve the Minutes as submitted. Second by Chief Metzger. Chief Metzger stated the Minutes of the former Emergency Medical Services Advisory Committee ("EMSAC") had been very detailed. He expressed his dissatisfaction with the two sets of Minutes previously presented as "extraordinarily brief." Chief Walter Kopka rerninded the Members the meetings are recorded, videotaped, and available for individual review and/or verbatim transcription. He stated summary Minutes were sufficient. (Dr. James Talano arrived at 4:11 PM) Chief Metzger's concern was that the Board of County Commissioners would not be able to understand the significance of an issue discussed during a meeting if the Minutes were not detailed. Commissioner Fiala mentioned a Committee Member could email the Commissioners, if necessary, to review the recording for a specific issue. Chief Kopka stated Roberts Rules of Order permits Meeting Minutes to be amended at the next meeting prior to voting on approval of the content. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. OLD BUSINESS Adoption of Bylaws There was consensus for the Chairman and Vice-Chairman to continue to hold office through 2010. Chief Metzger referred to Article IV: Officers and objected to the inclusion of the phrase, "from the membership recommended by the Collier County Medical Society, " which he stated restricted the positions of Chairman and Vice Chairman to only three of the five Board members. Chief Metzger moved to strike the phrase, "from the membership recommended by the Collier County Medical Sodety, "from the first sentence of 'Article IV: Officers' of the Bylaws for the Emergency Medical Services Policy Advisory Board. Discussion ensued concerning the intent and interpretation of the phrase. County Attorney Klatzkow stated Board members elect their own Officers from their membership rather than accept a recommendation from an outside entity. . Second by Linda Mitchell Motion carried, 3-"Yes''12-''No.'' Opposed by Dr. James Talano and Chief Walter Kopka. 3 . '-.-..- - ------.-<<.-..."....-......"..,... ... 1611 ' 86 '~ September 25, 2009 Election of Chairman & Vice-Chairman Chief Metzger nominated Steve Shafor to serve as Chairman. Mr. Shafor declined. Chief Walter Kopka nominated Dr. James Talano to serve as Chairman. The nomination was accepted. Second by Steve Shafor. As there were no other nominations from thejloor, the motion carried, 4-"Yes"/I- "Abstention." Dr. Talano abstained. Steve Shafor nominated Chief Robert Metzger to serve as Vice-Chairman. The nomination was accepted. Second by Chairman Talano. As there were no other nominations from thejloor, the motion carried, 4-"Yes"/I- "Absention." Chief Metzger abstained. Review of Term Expirations Commissioner Fiala noted two members will serve for two years and the remaining members will serve for four years. It was suggested the members volunteer for specific terms. · Steve Shafor and Linda Mitchell volunteered to accept the two-year terms, · Dr. Talano, Chief Metzger and Chief Kopka will serve for four years, County Attorney Klatzkow stated the Board of County Commissioners assigned the terms of office when the members were appointed. He will review the Board's Resolution. He confirmed terms will begin with their first meeting. Chairman Ta1ano stated since the officers were elected at this meeting, it will be considered their "first" meeting. Chief Kopka nominated Linda Mitchell and Steve Shafor to serve two-year terms with the remaining members serving four-year terms. Second by Vice-Chairman Metzger. Carried unanimously, 5-0. NEW BUSINESS e) Review of OPALS Study/New England Journal of Medicine Dr. Robert Tober, Collier County Medical Director, gave a slide presentation and outlined the following: . The Study encompassed seventeen cities · Study Subject: the impact of various modalities at interceptions of cardiac arrest patients o The provision of rapid Basic Life Support ("BLS") is the primary determining factor in the outcome of cardiac arrest patients' survival . Study Results cited: ",.. There was no improvement in the rate of survival with the use of Advanced Life Support ('ALS") in any subgroup, " Dr. Tober concurred with the Study's results as it mirrored the same experience noted in Collier County statistics for cardiac arrest/sudden deaths. 4 . 1611 a6 September 25, 2009 · Are-orientation of the County's Cardiac Arrest Protocols was initiated in 2004 for all providers to give essentially Compression-only CPR. · The use of Compression CPR encouraged the public to also apply the same CPR in an emergency while avoiding mouth-to-mouth contact. He cited MedScape 's published [mdings, "The largest determinate of survival to hospital discharge was how early and how continuous the cardiac compressions were ... " Dr. Tober stated the revised Protocol has been in use for the past five years and is one of the reasons why Collier County has had an impact on the survival rate of cardiac arrest patients. Chairman Talano asked if the Study results will change how cardiac patients are approached. Dr. Tober stated the County's response rate to all types of emergency calls is approximately 8 to 9 minutes. He is developing a reco=endation for better utilization of all emergency personnel within Collier County to bring the BLS response time to a goal of four minutes. Questions: · What is the percentage of patients already undergoing BLS when the County's emergency personnel arrive? Dr. Tober estimated approximately 10 to 20 percent. A video was produced and aired on the County's cable channel encouraging the general public to only perform Compression CPR. He further stated the County's system, including flight medics, is oriented to faster response times. . . What was the number of Certified Paramedics employed by the County three months ago versus the number presently employed? Dr. Tober stated there are approximately 45 less ALS-engine Certified Paramedics. He noted the OPALS study results were not dependent on the number of Certified Paramedics but on whomever first provided BLS, i.e., a member of the public, a police officer, a fireman, or an EMT. . The OPALS study was conducted in 2004 within Canada, Was Canada operating in 2004 under different standards of CPR and BLS than are used presently? Dr. Tober stated most of the country still operates under the standards utilized during the OPALS Study, i.e., standard American Heart Association CPR. He stated most of the cardiac arrest survivals in Collier County were due to BLS intervention within the first five minutes. He further stated there is agreement [within the medical co=unity] that the new approaches to cardiac arrest are more successful and more effective than the methods used in 2004 and are a BLS function. 5 - ._u".__.._<< ....,...,. ...'__ _",.~ .._..__.,_ ItS' - .. 86 September 25, 2009 ,. · The OPALS Study also concluded, in cardiac arrest, the typical ALS field procedures are not making a difference in out-of-hospital patient survival rates, Has the impact of improved BLS been studied in conjunction with ALS procedures? Dr. Tober stated Collier County has been tracking data for approximately 10 to 12 years and the majority of the "saves" resulted from BLS. He further stated ALS is not being changed or withdrawn from the field. · When did the American Heart Association begin to teach "Chest Compression-only CPR" to the public? Dr. Tober stated the AHA has not completely moved to Compression-only CPR, but has a "permissive attitude" allowing Compression-only CPR if a provider (public) was opposed to giving mouth-to-mouth CPR. Dr. Tober discussed the concept of "gasping" which many patients have exhibited during cardiac arrest (usually referred to "pre-death respiration"). He stated a recent study conducted in Arizona which cited "gasping" as evidence of central nervous system brain life. Discussion ensued regarding survival rate data and factors such as seasonal influx along with data collection/tabulation Dr. Tober noted the difficulty of finding a patient who meets the criteria: (1) witnessed cardiac arrest; (2) application of good CPR, and (3) good gasping. He stated an advantage of the Compression-only CPR is that it is much easier to teach the procedures than the American Heart Association standard CPR. Public Speaker: James Cunningham, Operations Assistant Chief, North Naples Fire Control and Rescue District, agreed with Dr. Tober that BLS is extremely important and ifBLS is not begun prior to ALS, the outcome for the patient may not be positive. He asked Dr. Tober if statistics were available for the percentage cardiac arrest calls. The answer was one percent of the total call volume. In follow-up to another question, he noted there have been documented cases where ALS engines arrived on scene and performed ALS procedures prior to EMS arrival where patients survived due to the actions taken in the field. Dr. Tober outlined changes made in Rapid Sequence Intubation System, including the cuff used by Flight Medics. The new cuff helps to reduce the incidence of ventilator-acquired pneumonia. The difference is not in size, but in the design of the cuff. He mentioned the "Glidescope video intubation device," a new intubation device, will be tested. A loaner has been requested for use in the helicopter, and described the difficulty of intubation in the restricted confmes of a helicopter. He stated the goal is to reduce the on-scene time to 10 minutes before flight to a trauma center, He also stated the County must comply with both State and Federal standards regarding acquisition of data for analysis. The software currently used by Collier County is no longer available and he is searching for a program that is EMStar compliant. He noted mobile computers are yet available on all ambulances to provide real time reports. Voice activated systems are not reliable enough to be used in the field. 6 16/1 86 September 25, 2009 Commissioner Fiala asked if the Members had been briefed on the restrictions of the Sunshine Law. Attorney Klatzkow verified a presentation of the Sunshine Law and restrictions had been presented to the Members. Commissioner Fiala stated the Board of County Commissioners had voted on term limits for Committee members which were opposite of the members' preferences. Chief Kopka moved to approve sending a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners concerning the agreed-upon term limits for the EMS Policy Advisory Board members. Second by Vice-Chairman Metzger. Carried unanimously, 5-0. Commissioner Fiala noted the next meeting for the Advisory Board is scheduled for January 2010. She suggested the members consider adjusting the schedule to allow for more meetings. Vice-Chairman Metzger moved to adjust the meeting schedule to hold Advisory Board meetings every two months. Second by Chief Kopka. Carried unanimously, 5-0. ** Chairman Ta1ano arrnounced the next Board meeting will be held in November. Attorney Klatzkow stated Staffwill consult the schedule to ascertain when the BCC Chambers will be available and the members will be notified. ***** There being no further business for the good ofthe County, the Meeting concluded by order ofthe Chair at 5:15 PM. COLLIER COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES POLl Y ~RY BOARD James T la 0, M.D., Chairman The Minutes were approved by the Board/Committee Chair on as presented or as amended , . 7 ,.. '__T'~. ,. --'_""......,~...'"._~~"....,.___ ~----- - l611 / I::) v ~fl.vL~: l-/ - -:nfrP . Fiala October 7, 2009 Halas Henning NOV 1 9 2009 Coyle Coletta Board of County c~UTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL RECEIVED Naples, Florida, October 7, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Environmental Advisory Council in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in a REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Dr, Judith Hushon VICE CHAIRMAN: Andrew Dickman Noah Standridge Michael V, Sorrell Patrick Peck ALSO PRESENT: Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Stan Chrzanowski, PE, Engineering Manager Summer Araque, Sr. Environmentalist Specialist Chris D'Arco, Principal Environmental Specialist Stephen Lenberger, Sr. Environmental Specialist Catherine Fabacher, LDC Manager Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney 1 Misc. Cotres: Date: 0 I 0 Item #: Ik -h .....-.-.- - - ~ ,~..,~~.._.~---_..,~ '-,-"-"_. . q ""._~---~_.-.....__.,"_...._.---_.-~-_..,"---'--", ~_... . , ........ ~ - ~_..__.~--..,- COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL AGENDA October 7, 2009 9:00 A,M. Commission Boardroom W. Hannon Turner Building (Building UFU) - Third Floor I. Call to Order II. RollCall 111. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of September 2, 2009 and August 25. 2009 meeting minute. V. Upcoming Environmental Advl.ory Council Absences VI. Land Use Petitions A. Planned Unit Development PUOZ.2007-AR.12294 "Immokalee Regional Airport PUD" Section 25, 28. 27, 34, 35, and 38. Township 46 South, Range 29 East and Sections 2 and 3, Township 47 South, Range 29 East. (Item VlI.A. to be heard before land use petition) VII. New Buslnesa A. LOC Amendments 1. Moving of governing advisory board, to the Code of Law. and Ordinances and deleting the contents of Chapter 8 from the LDC 2. Notice requirements for Vanderbilt Seach Residential Tourist Overtay Zoning District 3. Interim process allowing for deviations from exllting LDe provisions for properties located within the lmmokalee Urban Area 4. Wellfleld risk management zon.. 5. Listed plants and other listed specie. 6. Manatee Protection Plan Ihoreline calculations 7. Vehlcle-on-the.Beach Permits VIII. Old Buslne.. A. Update members on project. IX Subcommittee Reports X, Council Member Comments XI. Public Comments XII. Adjournment ................................................................... Council Members: Ple..e n~tJ!y Summer Ar'ljIl,lt.. Envlronm\!!!!t Service.. Senior EnvlrolLmental SDtcl!U!.l no later tbJ!! 1:09 D.m. on SeDtember 30. 2008 If YQld.Sf!lnot attend th~ me,tlna or If vou have a conflict and ~In from v~na on t....R!tW2nJ28Z-8Z&01 General Public: Any person who decides to appeal a decision of this Board will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto; and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based, - . '.'. ... october7,200916 I 1 B 7 I. Call to Order Chairman Hushon called the meeting to order at 9:00 AM. II. Roll Call Roll call was taken and a quorum was established. III. Approval or Agenda Mr. Sorrell moved to approve the Agenda subject to the following changes: Items VIl.A.5-7 to be heard before items VII.A.1-4. Second by Mr. Dickman. Carried unanimously 5-0. IV. Approval of the September 2, 2009 and August 25, 2009 meeting minutes Mr. Dickman moved to approve the minutes o/the August 25,2008 meeting. Second by Mr. Standridge. Carried unanimously 5-0. Mr. Sorrell moved to approve the minutes of the September 2, 1009 meeting subject to the following addition: Page 9, paragraph 3, last line ",. ,Recreation Act. to ",. . Recreation Act. (See expanded explanation, "Exhibit B attached")." Second by Mr. Peck. Carried unanimously 5-0. V. Upcoming Environmental Advisory Council Absences None Summer Araque informed the Council that the next 3 meetings (November '09 ~ January' 1 0) will be held at CDES on Horseshoe Drive, VII. New Business A. LDC Amendments (amendment requests 5-7 were beard first) S. Listed plants and otber listed species LDC Pa~: LDC 3:14 & LDC 3:23 LDC Sections: 3.04.01 Generally; 3.04.02 Species Specific Requirements; 3.04.03 Requirements for Protected Plants; 3.04.04 Penalties for Violations: Resort to Other Remedies Stepben Lenberger, Sr. Environmental Specialist introduced the proposed amendment noting the reason is for the evaluation for protection ofEsted plants required as part of the EAR-based (Evaluation and Appraisal Report), GMP (Growth Management Plan) amendment to the CCME (Conservation and Coastal Zone Management Element) Policy 7.1.6. Mr. Standridge moved to recommend approval of the proposed amendment. Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously 5-0. 6. Manatee Protection Plan shoreline calculations LDC Pall!: LDC 5:28 - 5:30 LDC Sections: 5,02,02, 2 "--'-"--" "r_.'__. _.- -"~. --~~~ ,,--~._... October 7, 2009 16 t 1 87 'l\jlO , Stephen Lenberger, Sr. Environmental Specialist introduced the proposed amendment noting the amendment is to clarify how the County will treat the length of shoreline within a conservation easement when calculating the amount of wet slips according to the Manatee Protection Plan. The amendment will allow lands in all shorelines to be included in the density calculations for wet slips including the shoreline located in "conservation t .. easemen s. Dr. Husbon continued to recommend any shorelines within conservation area/easements not be counted in the density calculations for wet slips (due to possible negative impacts on Manatees.) When the Environmental Advisory Council approved the concept in July 2008, she voted "no." ~eaker Bob Mulhere noted the Collier County Manatee Protection Plan provides for density calculation levels based on a ranked sensitivity of Manatee habitat. He expressed concern not allowing the inclusion of lands in conservation easements in the density calculations may create a disincentive for landowners to place lands in conservation easements. Mr. Dickman moved to recommend approval o/the proposed amendment. Second by Mr. Standridge. Motion carried 4 ''yes'' -1 "no." Dr. Hushon voted nno. " 7. Vehicle-on-the-Beach Permits LDC P.~: LDClO,104 - LDCI0,109 LDC Sections: 10.02.06: Submittal Requirements for Permits Stephen Len berger, Sr. Environmental Specialist introduced the proposed amendment noting it is to change the requirement for annual vehicle on the beach permits to a one time permit (vehicle registration) for vehicles associated with construction, beach re~nourishment and inlet maintenance, which will continue to expire on April 30 of each year to coincide with the beginning of sea turtle nesting season. Mr. Peck moved to recommend approval olthe proposed amendment. Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously 5-0. 1. Moving governing advisory boards to the Code of Laws and Ordinances and deleting the contents of Chapter 8 from the LDC LDC P.~: LDC 8:1 :20 LDC Sections: 8,03,00" 8,07,05 Jeff Wright., Assistant County Attorney introduced. the proposed amendment noting it was to re~locate the portion (Environmental Advisory 3 , October 7, 200~ 6 87 Council/Collier County Planning Commission Powers and Duties and Rules of Procedures. etc) of the Land Development Code into the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. The change will provide the County with a more practical method of future revisions to the language in these sections. Chairman HusbuB requested staff to make a presentation to the Council on any changes in the section applicable to the Environmental Advisory Council. Mr. Dickman moved to recommend approval of the proposed amendment. Second by Mr. Peck. Carried unanimously 5.0. 2. Notice requirements for Vanderbilt Beach Residential Tourist Overlay Zoning District LDC PaU: LDC 2:69 through 2:73 LOr Sections: 2.03.07 Overlay Zoning Districts Patrick Wright, Attorney, Porter and Wright authored the amendment and introduced it noting the major revision from his proposal is on page 4, Section 2.03.07.L.5.d where the requirement to "notifY all property owners (by mail) within 500 feet of the lands comprising the boundary of such an application" has been stricken. The most recent version of the amendment is dated September 21, 2009, Discussion occurred on the ramifications of, and reason for striking the language. Patrick White noted after the language was proposed for Site Development Plan (SDP) and Site Improvement Plan (SIP) applications, DSAC (Development Services Advisory Committee) recommended it be stricken as it was overly costly for the applicant to meet the requirement and provides a different standard of notice than that required in other areas of County regulations. Catherine Fabacher, LDC Manager noted Site Development Plan (SDP) and Site Improvement Plan (SIP) applications are administrative applications after a PUD's etc. has been approved. During POO hearings, etc., major issues associated with the proposal have been vetted at a properly noticed public forum. She expressed concern the requirement will create an unnecessary burden on staff when processing the administrative applications. !peaker Kathleen Robbins, Secretary, Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association, noted the residents association is comprised of numerous condominium associations with email blast as a primary mode of communication. She expressed concerns previous "administrative decisions" have been made without knowledge to the various associations. They are opposed to striking the language and recommend the language remain in the code and in addition requested the Vanderbilt Beach Residents Association be notified. 4 --.--_.- '~__H , ,_____ --......-.- .... ..~,..._._-_.-."...-~. _Cl .. '-11 .-," , 87 -, , .' f! , , " , , '!.!!;.. '. ) :-" , October 7, 2009 , . Discussion occurred whether or not this is an environmental issue, and should it be addressed by the Environmental Advisory Council? Staff noted the amendment was fOlWarded to the EAC for review for environmental issues within the proposed amendment (Section 2,03,07,L.5,b.c, etc,), not the warning language per se, Jeff Wright noted staff is concerned other homeowners association's within an overlay district may come forward requesting a similar notice procedure. The language may set a "precedent." Patrick White noted the purpose of regulatory change at times, is to set "precedents" and they should be evaluated whether they request "appropriate The council requested clarification if any applications relevant to this section may be heard by the EAC, Stephen Lenberger noted an Environmental Impact Statement associated with an SOP, SIP or other application, is subject to EAC review. Committee discussion occurred on the merits of noticing adjacent property owners for these applications. Some members expressed concern on not notifying the adjacent property owners as the application may potentially have a negative effect on these properties (within 500 feet). Mr. Standridge moved to recommend approval of the proposed amendment as written. Second by Mr. Peck. Motion/ailed 2 "yes"-3 "no." Chairman Hushon, Mr. Dickman and Mr. Sorrell voted "no. " Mr. Sorrell moved to recommend approval of the proposed amendment subject to the wording in Section 2.03.07.L.5.d (Page 4, paragraph 4, lines 5-6) shown deleted ("by mail to all properly owners within 500feet of the lands comprising the boundary of such application and") be included in the section. Second by Mr. Dickman. Carried unanimously 5-0. Break -10:24am Reconvened -10:35am 3. Interim process allowing for deviations from existing LDC provisions for properties located within the Immokalee Urban Area LDC Pa~: LDC 2:40,3 LDC Sections: 2.03.07 G lmmokalee Overlay Robert Mulhere, RW A, Inc. representing the Immokalee Community Redevelopment Agency and the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee introduced the proposed amendment noting it is to create the Immokalee Overlay District, with distinct sub-districts for establishing development criteria suitable for the unique land use needs of the Immokalee community. The term of the interim amendments are for 24 months, or until the permanent amendments have been adopted. The intent is to provide 5 October 7,16 lIB 7 development flexibility for the area. The major reason for EAC review of the proposed amendment is the requested deviation of the preservation standards (item b,j on Page 7 of the Proposed Amendment), fuJeakers . Fred Thomas, Chairman, Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee addressed the council stressing the urgency of approving the amendment due to the current economic climate as it will increase the areas competitive stance with adjacent counties. Bradley Muckel, Immokalee eRA Project Manager stressed the immediate need for the amendment as proposed developers have found the existing standards too restrictive, not applicable to the parcels and too costly for specific land uses to be proposed in the area. The area needs a different set of provisions (deviations of architectural reviews, etc.) than those found in other areas of the County based on its characteristics (a more pedestrian oriented community). Jim Wall, Southwest Florida Workforce Development Board noted there is an untapped resource of labor talent found in the area and urged the council support the amendment so the region may move forward in the area of economic development. Kerry Williams, landowner provided an example of the need for the amendment where landscaping could not be improved on a parcel due to the current regulations. Peony S. Phillippi, Executive Director, Immokalee eRA concurred with the previous speakers and noted the area wishes to re.develop into a "Green Community' and the amendment would facilitate the effort. Chairman Uushon noted there is a recent study on "pervious paving" and requested county staff to provide the document to the Immokalee CRA for distribution to its members. Discussion occurred on how a permit issued under the "interim regulations," will be "vested," (especially if the approved use is deemed "non-conforming" and hasn't been constructed before adoption of the pennanent regulations.) Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney stated "vesting" language should be considered for the proposed amendment. Chairman Hushon requested on Page 8 C., line #228 should include the language "...denied, by the cepe and the EAC subject to...." Bob Mulhere noted he would review the document and ensure it addresses "deviations that are subject to EAC review" as applicable Mr. Standridge moved to recommend approval of the proposed amendment subject to language being added addressing "vesting of permits" and uEAC 6 " .-.-.... ~."',_....^,.,~.'''_.._--,~,',-_.~~',.."'--.',.' ",-- , l6, 1 October 7, 2009 review for applicable deviations." Second by Mr. Peck. Carried unanimously 5-0. 4. Well field risk management zones LDC Pa~: LDC 3:51; 3:48-52; LDC 3:54 LDC Seetlons: LDC 3,06,06 - Regulated Well Fields; Ray Smith, Pollntlon Control Department introduced the amendment noting the changes are: . A language change to allow the rule to recognize a new public water supply well field serving Ave Maria community, . A new well field Illustration for Ave Maria Utility Company. . Replace existing illustration for the Orange Tree Well Field. . Replace existing illustration for the Florida Governmental Utility Authority Golden Gate City Well Field, . Replace existing illustration well field Collier County Utilities Golden Gate Well Field Illustration. Mr. Dickman stated he teaches at Ave Maria Law School and requested clarification ifhe had a conflict of interest with the item. Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney stated Mr. Dickman does not have a conflict of interest. Under council discussions, Ray Smith clarified any wells associated with the county land fill area east of 951 and North of 175, (that recently had a petition for an expansion approved by the EAC) are located in the Hawthorne Aquifer System. Mr. Dickman moved to recommend approval of the proposed amendment. Second by Mr. Standridge. Carried unanimously 5-0. VI. Land Use Petitions A. Planned Unit Development PUDZ-2007-AR-12294 ~~Immokalee Regional Airport PUD" Section 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, and 36, Townsbip 46 Soutb, Range 29 East and Sections 2 and 3, Township 47 South, Range 29 East. (Item VILA. to be beard before land use petition) The Presenters were sworn in. Wayne Arnold of Q Grady Minor and Assoc. introduced the petition noting it is for the rezone of the Immokalee Airport to a PUD. Shane JobnsoD, Passarella and Assoc. provided an overview of the Environmental Characteristics of the project and highlighted the following: 7 87 ,,' \ October 7, 2009 . There are 11.14 acres ofwetlaods impacts . 1.15 acres of wetland impact is within Phase I, as approved by South Florida Water Management District Permit #11-0099-F. . Listed species surveys were conducted in 2006 and 2008 in which Florida Scrub Jays, Gopher Tortoises and Burrows, Wood Storks, Burrowing Owls, etc. were observed on site. . The Preserve is comprised of two separate tracts on the western portion of the property, where the majority of the listed species were identified. . Staff requested, and the applicant has agreed to remove the acreage within the ditch from total preserve acreage calculation. . The separation of the preserve tracts is due to FAA regulations and the associated runway. . The Preserve area in total is 134.04 acres, 133.27 acres of uplands. .77 acres wetland and meets the counties requirements for retention of native vegetation. The council noted they have established a directive in which all data provided by applicants should be the most "up to date as possible" and the Florida Black Bear Map provided is from 1999. Newer data is available and requested future petitions, incorporate the most recent data available. The council requested the applicant contact the author's of the "Interim process allowingfor deviations from existing LDe provisions for properties located within the Immokalee Urban Area" (Item VII.A.3 heard herein) to ensure consistency with the application and the proposed amendments (including comments by county staff generated with the application.) Wayne Arnold noted they have been in communication with Robert Mulhere regarding the issues. Stan Chrzanowski, PE, Engineering Manager provided an overview of the LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) for the area. Chairman Hoshon reviewed recommendations for approval in the EAC Staff Report Environmental 1. Provide an updated listed species survey as part of the next development order, 2. Provide Florida Black Bear, Big Cypress Fox Squirrel, and Burrowing Owl Management Plans as part of the next development order. 3. Provide a Gopher Tortoise Relocation Management Plan as part of the next development order. 4. Provide a report to the Envirorunental Services Staff on the results of the relocation of the Gopher Tortoises within thirty days ofrelocation. The report must contain the following infonnation: the number of burrows excavated, the 8 _. - ._,_._~~--- --,,_._-- ~.",..._-._. ---- 16 11 87 1611 October 7,2009 87 , , number of tortoises relocated, and the final relocation site. 5. At the next Development Order, the PUD document and legal description shall exclude the wetland ditch acreage as part of the preservation requirement. Chris D' Areo, Environmental Specialist, noted any future listed species updates required by the applicants for proposed development orders will be conducted in the area proposed for development (not the entire airport parcel) Dr. Hushon moved to recommend approval of Petition (PUDZ.2007~AR-12294 "lmmokalee Regional Airporl PUD" Section 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, and 36, Township 46 South, Range 29 East and Sections 2 and 3, Township 47 South. Range 29 East.) subject to the stipulations provided by Staff (above) and the year dates on the collared animals (live and deceased) be updated to the most recent data available. Second by Mr. Standridge. Carried unanimously 5-0. VIII. Old Business A. Update members on projects None IX. Subcommittee Reports Chairman Husbon noted the Habitat Conservation Plan Advisory Committee, (which was required to sunset in September of2009,) will continue its business based on a directive from the Board of County Commissioners. X. Council Member Comments Chairman Hoshon noted the agenda for the next EAC Meeting will be comprised solely of Land Development Code Amendments. XI. Public Comments None "''''''''''''' There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 11 :59 AM. COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL . G. --'" I .-""'1 . i. (',) ~. --ii:(~ 111 j' wA l . )..-- /'thairman, r. Judith Hushon , . - 0/<1/07 . These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on as presented / . or as amended 9 16 JC~I~~ COLLIER COUNTY DIVISON OF PUBIC S~IG1f~J9 Parks and Recreation Department , 0'<'-",,"'" cmrunisstone", 15000 Livingston Road - Naples Florida 34109 - Phone (239) 252.4000 - Fa~39) 514,8657 Website: cOlllergov,net I AGENDA November 2, 2009 I. Call to Order II. Attendance - Establish a Quorum III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes - October 5, 2009 V. Old Business A. Recreation Highlights - Vickie Wilson B, Band Stand - Vickie Wilson VI. New Business A. Monthly Budget - Annie Alvarez B, Advisory Board Vacancy VII. Member Comments VIII. Public Comments IX. Adjournment The next meeting will be on December 7,2009 at 6:00 PM Collier County Golden Gate Community Center 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Conference Room "C" Naples, Florida '-. ,~~ c " " I ~ Copies to: 161188) OClober 5. 2009 Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ;(, LDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD Naples, Florida, October 5, 2009 RECEIVED NOV 1 6 2009 BoArd of count)' ('.(lIlll1lI5Iioo LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Golden Gate Community Center Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:00 PM in a REGULAR SESSION in Conference Room "C" of the Golden Gate Community Center, 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: VICE CHAIR: Jim Klug Ellen Shaw (Excused) Kaydee Tuff Bill Arthur Darrin Brooks ALSO PRESENT: Annie Alvarez, Regional Manager/Region III Vickie Wilson, Community Center Supervisor Misc. Correa; Dale: tteml: .. "''')!es to: 16 11 B8 October 5, 2009 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 6:01 PM by Chairman Jim Klug Ill. II. Attendance - Establish a Quorum A quorum was established, III. Approval of Agenda Add: V B. Bandvland Jim Klug moved to approve the Agenda as amended. Second by Bill Arthur. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IV. Approval of August 31, 2009 Meeting Minutes Bill Arthur moved to approve the August 31, 2009 Minutes as submitted. Second by Darrin Brooks. Motion carried 3 "Yes" -1 "Abstention." Jim Klug abstained. V. Old Busincss A. Recrcation Highlights Vickie Wilson reportcd · "Rock the Park" a Latin Music Festival has becn schedulcd on Deccmber 10, 2009 which will featurc scveral bands, · Scheduled from 10:00 am to 6:00 pm with no admission charge, · Scholarship Program has becn frozen due to economy, · Somc instructors are willing to provide a personal 75% Scholarship to help those in need, · Class Rcgistration has been slow with classes half-tilll. · A new counter top has been installed in the reception area. . Indoor blcachers have been rcmoved, · 2010 Bandstand Evcnts scheduled are April - Tropical Fest January - Cool Cruiscrs February - Senior Expo March - Family Fun Fest. Staff purchased large inflatablc screen to show movics, Kaydee Tutfleti al 6, 12 pm Vickie Wilson asked the Advisory Board for direction on the purchasing the Christmas trces t()[ the Christmas Walk. Kaydee Tuttrelurned al 6: f -I pm 2 .,-" 1 t. 11 'V October 5. 2009 S8' It was noted last year 13 trees were displayed and later donated to less I()rtunate families. ^ttendance was low at the "Open House," The cost for was $35 per tree and cach tree was sponsorcd with a thcme. Discussion ensucd on sponsors and possibilities of combining the "Opcn House" event with the "Rock the Park" evcnt to help draw more participation. Suggestions were made to incorporate hosting a "Sponsor Thank You Night" and invitc the sponsors with their mcmbers to a potluck dcssert Christmas Party, Further diswssion ensued on downsizing the number of trees and it was dccided to wait until all plans were finalized prior to making any decisions. Vickie Wilson suggestcd having thc Sponsors pay in advance for the trees prior to December 4th and make checks payable to Collier County Golden Gate Community Center. Trces arc purchased at a discounted price. Discussion ensued on datcs for scheduling the event and setting up and removal of trees, The ^dvisory Board will complete plans at their next scheduled meeting. B. Band Stand - Discussed VI A, VI. New Business A. Monthly Budget - Annie Alvarez reported a Countywide "Spending Freeze" ordered by Jim Mudd. County Manager prior to his stepping down for the months of October and November. Thc spending freeze will not al1cct cssential itcms required for schedulcd events, Staff cannot spend money but could encumber fees, She stated Tony Alberto, Senior Project Manager. will do research on lighting for a company to provide compatible lighting, It was noted the company who provided the current lighting is now out of business. Staff could not promise lighting would be installed before March 20 10. Jim K1ug suggested the Stafl provide receptacles on the poles for events being held during the interim. Annie Alvarez reviewed the Capital Outlay Budget Projccts · Replace cemcnt pad at Wheels start gate . Partial funding I(lr outside lights . Toro Riding Blower Machine · Replace sound and light system in auditorium Kaydee Tuff suggested purchasing a Portable Sound System to be used at the Center. , J 16 I 1818 [j October 5. 2009 ' Discussion ensued on planting shade trees on the front half of the football field and/or dividing the park in half. Staff advised Board trees are expensive. The Advisory Board is not opposed to planting smaller trees. B. Bleacher Information - Vickie Wilson suggested the new 3-tier bleachers be movable to allow for: . Cleaning purposes. . Different layouts/f(lfmats . To have safety wheels . To tip Forward · Will need approval by Risk Management. Annie Alvarez stated the County should get better pricing because both Golden Gate and lmmokalee Centers are both purchasing bleachers. A consensus was formed and Staff was directed to proceed to request quotes for the bleacher project. C. Golden Gate Community Center 5 Year Plan - Annie Alvarez recommended the Advisory Board and Staff work on the 5 Year Plan at the next meeting. VII. Member Comments . Darrin Brooks suggested getting trees donated by sponsors. . Kaydee Tuff requested Staff provide a Monthly Program Comparison Report. She stated the Staff provided this report previously and it was inf'ormative. . Bill Arthur suggested the air vents at the Center be cleaned or repainted, . Jim Klug expressed appreciation to Jim Mudd f()r his Community responsiveness and f()r all the Community improvements he was responsible fur. I Ie suggested the Advisory Board write a letter to express appreciation and send to the County. Kaydee Tuff will submit "A letter to the Editor" to be printed in the newspaper, VIII. Public Comments - None. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was moved and seconded to adjourn. The meeting adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:07 PM. 4 Octohe~56oJ9 1 88 r COLLIER COUNTY GOLDEN GATE COMMUNITY CENTER ADVISORY BOARD These Minutes wer<;APproved hy the Board/Committee on ,~/ /2 / () r __" as presented ~__ or as amended ___,_' rr 5 ~~ f:'<Si(') ,!-Zm -"". f i~ I ~ ~ a ~~ II '\ * I;) "'H CU en~ 0 ~-..i::J 'U <-.JP- 01 <M~ ~ trJZ08 ZC 0 >-3 CM rT H 01 ())~ Z Cf> H Gl I C Ii) I tYt:rj 01 8Cl X t-cJJ--3tz:j........ 'U 010 0 01 ~rt('JH Z "'0 Cf> ~~i 01 Z Gl 0 01 Z >-3 1.--" W 1--'1--' Ol lJ1l!100\NO\I--'O'lcn "' .t:>.--J I--'~ I--' 1--'(Jl---J.t:>(J1CP (0 WlJ1f-' DUl0J mN NN I--' I--' I--' I--'NONmO'\I--'.GNNQI--'ON lAHJl U1l11U1 mmO'lO'lO'l 1..O-J--JU1U1 en W 00 "' WNI--'~j W-JO['...) OOI--'W.GI--'0lJ10NCD--JI--'.GmlJ101--'.Gl--'illW 0000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000 ..I:::> OUl 01 mNUlN O.G>f:>O O--JmN0lJ1000.GWCDlJ1--Jl--'ml--'l--'l--'~ 00000000000000000000 ONOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 0"'"' omw acoN 0000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000 00000000000000000000 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 000 0000 000 0000 ~ W 1---'1---' m Ul(JlOmNCJ)I--'OlQ) (Jl "' .G-J !--'J::,. !-'Ul--'] J::>(Jl co wen~ OUlCu CDN NNI--'f-....ll--' 1--'l'-..)ONO\O'lI----'.GNNOI--'ON W UH.Jl U1 U1 mmmO'lO'l lD-J-JU1U'1 w ~ 00 00 "' WNI--'--J W--JQN OOl---'illJ::>I---'0lJ10NCD--JI---'J::>0\lJ1QI---'.GI---'WlD 0000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000 0"'", omw omN O--JCON0lJ1000J::,.WCOlJ1--Jl---'ml---'l--'l---'~ 00000000000000000000 ONOOOOOOooooooooooao ..,.OlJlO'l CONUIN 0""""0 0000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000 000 0000 000 0000 00000000000000000000 00000000000000000000 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I "' Ln u, en en ~ 0 '" '" "'''' N ~ ~ c" "'.... 0 Ln W W ww 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 -- ------- --- 0> 0> ~~ ~'" ~ ~ "'w'" "'''' w~m "'w --J~'" "'''' oow "'0 Nf-'--.lUl en en --J", Ln CO--.l--Joc))cnl..{l "'''' "'--Jo> CO'DUlOCO'DN N'" "'w~ 0"" 00 NO'l--.l --J-.J I --J 00 W --J 00 w--J w ~ WLn ~o I ~ W 1---'1---' O'l lJlUlOO'lN..,.I---'O'lI---' W --J ~m 1---'..,.--.l..,.UlN NLnO 'DWUl CDN NNI---'f-'I---' N--.lWO'lO'lI---'..,.NNOI---'ON WlJlUl>bll:>o O'lO'lO'lCO<Xl W--.l--.lO'lO'l ~ 00 w "' WNf-'--.l NO'lOI---' en w OOI---''D'''''DOlJlNNCD--.lI---'..,.mlJlOW>bI---''DW O'DpWWl---'lJlI---'W WWO'lI---'OlJlOOO""WCOlJl--.lI---'COI---'I---'OO OOOOOOOOI---'OOOOOOOOlJlOOOCO OCOWO--.lCOUlNO COCONI---'OOOOOOOOOOOOOOI---'~ oooooooomoooooooooooom--JOCON--.lUlCO~I---'--.l--.lOUl""OOOOOoooooooooooo oooooooomoooooooooooomlJlOOOWNWONWlJlOI---'O--JOOOOOOOOOOOOOO--.l~ OOOOOOOOWOOOOOOOOOOOO'DOOOO~--.lwoo""ooco""WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOWW I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --J ~ o 00 '", ~, NWN--J ~ "' ww "lOf"lC/l'<l"l s:: 0 s:: it lD 1-'- :>a :>~HIn p-a P-P-rT~'O lD 1-'. 1-'.0 g, P-rTO InP-H a ro rT tt:I(() ~ 1-'. I< H:>rT 0 ro DrTro ~ ~ l.Q 11 t-' 11 HH ~rT m tii o Cl 'Ill IS ... ,0 ':>- o ... ~ H :> P- 'Hj} I---' I---' CLnW 3:--J0 $;::; CUO '" N o O~ o rT o CUGlGl (DOO ~rr (DOO ~ MOl CZZ (D GlGl "'"'"' ~>-3>-3 aMM MOO XOO "03:3: (D3:3: ~C wzn (DHZ >-3>-3 Cf>'" C t10 1M >-3Z 0>-3 rtM "'CD ~ w rT rT o 0 Gl o r o 01 Z Gl "' >-3 01 o o 3: 3: o Z H ~ W III ~ .g- ro rT rT 0 :>- 0 rTO ~O ~H HH ~, oro DH a 'Uo ~O ~S InrT 0'< :>- Ill"l OH 000 H O~, ~g. H H P- o ~ :>;l ~ 0 H rT ...0 ~,~ arT roro ~ a a ~~ ",0 .." eno ~Ln .." ON 000 o '" n Z >-3 C" t'0CDNW UlI---'Ulr--'t'0N C" C" C" I---'NN.t::.ffiOlI-'NWNUl 1---'1---' WU1\.OVJ!---'OJCDWI---'N UlN.t:>N.c,.,s!---' OQO(JlUlWO'\.t:>OUlUlUlOO(Jl.GWOOl'0UlVlOUlOlN.GONONOlJlO.G\.OOOOOOUlO 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 C" I'0mNW Ull---'Ull---'NN I---'I-'f-' I---'NN.GOlO'd--'NWNUl 1---'1---' WlJl\.OVJI--'COaJWI---'N U1N..t::.N.t::.,.L::,.1--' OOOUlUlwm..t::.OUlUlUlOOlJl..t::.mOONUlUlOlJlmN..t::.QNONOlJlO.G\.OOOOOOUlO 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 ,,'" C" " --' C" '" " OW --' CO 00 0 00 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 00 0 00 0 -------- C" NCOf'."lW UlI---'Cnl---'l'...)1---' C" C" fo-'NNO\.OO'II---'NWNlJl 1---'1---' W.GUlWI---'OJ--JWI---'N lJlN.GN.G.t:>1---' OOOUlUllJlm..t::.OUlUl..t::.UlOUl..t::.mOON~~o~mN~ONO~O~O~WOOOOO~O OOOOONOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0.0 0.0 N.r:. COO ", '" r-~~ ill U; CO 16 11 RECEIVED Account Major Revenue Detail Item Budget grouped by Business Unit. Org codMOV 1 6 2009 :ollier County Government Jb..~ Fiscal Year 2010 If &..,,,. U>mm".~--- Service FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 . FY 2013 ~ Revenue Detail Item Description Level Issue Budget Budget Budget 3udget Budget 88 0807 Parks & Recreation Department' 157710-130 Golden Gate Community Center 30 Revenues 157710-130 311100 Current Ad Valorem Taxes 2010 Estimate 00000 323,600 0 0 0 0 Restore full budget 00000 46,200 0 0 0 0 157710-130 311100 369,800 0 0 0 0 157710" 130 341446 SALES OF XEROX COPIES - TAXABLE Xerox copies 00000 100 0 0 0 0 15771 0-130 347230 PERMIT MEMBERSHIP SALES PARKS AND REC Wheels Memberships - 400 x $25 1 00000 10,000 0 0 0 0 NBL Memberships - 60 x $45 1 00000 2,700 0 0 0 0 157710-130 347230 12,700 0 0 0 0 15771 0-130 347270 ATIlLET1C PROGRAMS PARKS AND REC Adult Basketball League - 6 teams x $300 00000 1,800 0 0 0 0 Volleyball play _ $1/player x 50players x 6wks x 4 sessions 00000 1,200 0 0 0 0 Indoor Soccer -75 players x $1 x 6wks x 8 sessions 00000 3,600 0 0 0 0 Basketball Toumaments - 8 teams x $150 x 2 sessions 00000 2.400 0 0 0 0 Youth Basketball league - 50 kids x $30 00000 1,500 0 0 0 0 157710-130 347270 10,500 0 0 0 0 157710-130 347290 RECREATION CAMPS PARKS AND RbC Holiday Camp - 20 kids x $85 x 1 wk 00000 1,700 0 0 0 0 Spring Fling Camp - 20 x $85 00000 1,700 0 0 0 0 BMX!Skate Camps - 12 campers x 7 wks x $100 00000 8,400 0 0 0 0 157710-130 347290 11,800 0 0 0 0 157710-130 347400 SPEClAL EVENTS Halloween Howl - 700 x $2 00000 1,400 0 0 0 0 BMX races - 26 x 20 racers x $12 00000 6,000 0 0 0 0 Senior Expo 00000 4,500 0 0 0 0 Latin Festival 00000 5,000 0 0 0 0 Frontier Days 00000 3,000 0 0 0 0 Spring Wing Ding - 200 x $2 00000 400 0 0 0 0 15i710-130 347400 20,300 0 0 0 0 157710-130 347903 Merchandise Sales Taxable Wheels resale merchandise - $16,000 + 40% 00000 22,400 0 0 0 0 NoteS' 40% markup 157710-130 347905 ADMISSION Daily Admission to Wheels- 400 walkins x $5 00000 2,000 0 0 0 0 15771 0-130 347908 CONCESSION FEES Vending Machines 00000 4,000 0 0 0 0 157710-130 347940 FAClL1TY RENTALS CULTlJRE RbC Senior Food Program 00000 4,200 0 0 0 0 Facility Rental 00000 16,800 0 0 0 0 157710-130 347940 21,000 0 0 0 0 Va'riance Total split between taxable and non taxable GovM." 1 0/2f2009 -;;' i 6 /1 18 Account Major Revenue Detail Item Budget grouped by Business Unit. Org Code :Jollier County Government Fiscal Year 2010 Revenue Detail Item Oescription SeIVice Level Issue FY 2010 Budget FY 2011 BlJdget FY 2012 Budget FY 2013 Budget FY 2014 Budget 0807 Parks & Recreation Department I 30 Revenues 15771 0- 130 347990 INSTRUCTIONAl, SERVICES CULTURE REC Cheerleading 1 00000 21,000 0 0 0 0 Karate 1 00000 21,000 0 0 0 0 Zumba/Folklore Dance/Latin Ballroom dance 1 00000 10,000 0 0 0 0 Adj per Shari/Annie 1 00000 -15,000 0 0 0 0 Preschool _ 4 sessions x 19 kids x $200 1 00000 15,200 0 0 0 0 Pee Wee Sports 1 00000 3,000 0 0 0 0 Yoga/Aerobics 1 00000 1,200 0 0 0 0 Patricia Hill Dance 1 00000 6,000 0 0 0 0 ASA - 20 x $500 x 2 sessions 1 00000 20,000 0 0 0 0 BMX clinics 1 00000 3,000 0 0 0 0 No School Days - 15 kids x $15 x 5 days 1 00000 1,100 0 0 0 0 157710-130 :}47990 86,500 0 0 0 . VOlriance FY09 Forecast: Lower than anticipated attendance in instructional programs !\JOt9s Introduction of new popular classes resulting in increased revenues for FY10 157710-130 366900 Contributions Private Source Cool Cruisers Annual Donation 00000 6,000 . 0 0 0 3' Revenues 567,100 . . . . 157710-130 Golden Gate Community Center 567,100 . . . . 0807 Parks & Recreation Department 10,878,500 . . . . Report Grand Total 10,878.500 . . . . _.. 2 10/2f2009 Account Major Expenditure Detail Item Budget grouped by Business Unit, Org Code L S I 1 DB RECEIVED ~ Expenditure Detail Item Description 0807 Parks & Recreation Department , Service Level Issue # FY2010 Budget FY 2011 Budget FY 2012 Budget FY2013 [~f 157710-130 Golden Gate Community Center 50 Personal Services lS7710-130 512100 Regular Salaries Adj - rounding 136 0 0 0 0 Salary - 50001347 Wilson Vickie 64,694 0 0 0 0 Salary - 50001564 alia Rogelio 28,406 0 0 0 0 Salary - 50001735 Vacant-Funded 10,659 0 0 0 0 Salary. 50001736 Vacant-Funded 10,659 0 0 0 0 Salary - 50001740 Vacant-Funded 23,504 0 0 0 0 Salary _ 50001741 Pasquier Marie 25,193 0 0 0 0 Salary ~ 50001743 Allen Julie 43,645 0 0 0 0 Salary _ 50001744 Gregg Torres 30,300 0 0 0 0 Salary - 50001745 Apkarian Christina 32,753 0 0 0 0 Salary - 50001746 Carlano Ramon 32,753 0 0 0 0 157710-130 512100 Regular Salaries 302,702 0 0 0 0 157710-130 512600 Er 457 Deferred Comp Deferred Camp $ 500 match - 50001347 Wilson Vickie 500 0 0 0 0 Deferred Camp $ 500 match - 50001743 Allen Julie 500 0 0 0 0 ]57710-130 512600 Er 457 DefelTed Comp 1,000 0 0 0 0 157710-130 513100 Other Salaries And Wal!es Afterschool adjustment for 25% cut 5,000 0 0 0 0 ASA counselors - 1 x $9.77 x 40hrs x 38 wks (347990) 24,300 0 0 0 0 Holiday Camp. 2 x $10.13 x 40hr x 1 wk (347290) 810 0 0 0 0 No School Days - 2 x 5days x 11hrs x $10.37 1,200 0 0 0 0 Preschool Counseior - 1 x $10.31 x 30hr x 21 wk (347990) 6,300 0 0 0 0 Spring Camp - 2 x $10.13 x 40hr (347290) 810 0 0 0 0 Wheels _ 1 x $11.30 x 58hrs x 26 pay periods (347990) 17,100 0 0 0 0 Wheels -1 x $11 ,30 x 58hrs x 26 pay periods (347990) 17,100 0 0 0 0 1577]0-130 513100 QtherSalaries And Wages 72,620 0 0 0 0 NClte~. Child Care positIons are frozen resulting in higher job bank hours 157710.130 518200 Voluntary Separation Incentive Program Insurance for Janice Elliot 10,554 0 0 0 0 157710-130 521100 Social Security Matcbine: Addt S5 on OT and Other Wages 3,800 0 0 0 0 FICA - 50001347 Wilson Vickie 4,042 0 0 0 0 FICA- 50001564 Orta Rogelio 1,761 0 0 0 0 F\CA- 50001735 Vacant~Funded 661 0 0 0 0 FICA- 50001736 Vacant-Funded 661 0 0 0 0 FICA ~ 50001740 Vacant-Funded 1,457 0 0 0 0 FICA - 50001741 Pasquier Marie 1,562 0 0 0 0 FICA - 50001743 Allen Julie 2,737 0 0 0 0 FICA - 50001744 Gregg Torres 1,879 0 0 0 0 FICA _ 50001745 Apkarian Christina 2,031 0 0 0 0 FICA - 50001746 Corlano Ramon 2,031 0 0 0 0 Medicare _ 50001347 Wilson Vickie 945 0 0 0 0 Medicare _ 50001564 Orta Rogelia 412 0 0 0 0 Medicare - 50001735 Vacant-Funded 155 0 0 0 0 Medicare - 50001736 Vacant-Funded 1S5 0 0 0 0 Medicare - 50001740 Vacant-Funded 341 0 0 0 0 Medicare _ 50001741 Pasquier Marie 365 0 0 0 0 Medlcare- 50001743 Allen JulIe 640 0 0 0 0 Medicare - 50001744 Gregg Torres 439 0 0 0 0 Medicare ~ 50001745 Apkarian Christina 475 0 0 0 0 Medicare - 50001746 Corlano Ramon 475 0 0 0 0 157710-130 521100 Social Security Malc!Ung 27,024 0 0 0 0 157710-130 522100 Retirement Regular Addtl Retirement on aT and Other Wages 2,800 0 0 0 0 Retirement- 50001347 Wilson Vickie 6,578 0 0 0 0 Retirement - 50001564 Orta Rogelio 2,866 0 0 0 0 OovMu 10f212009 16 /1 88 Account Major Expenditure Detail Item Budget grouped by Business Unit, Org Code Service FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 Expenditure Oetail ttem Description Level Issue # Budget Budget Budget Budget Budget 0807 Parks & Recreation Department , 157710~130 Golden Gate Community Center 50 Personal Services 157710.130 522100 Retirement Regular Retirement - 50001735 Vacant-Funded 1,075 0 0 0 0 Retirement - 50001736 Vacant-Funded 1,075 0 0 0 0 Retirement - 50001740 Vacant-Funded 2,372 0 0 0 0 Retirement - 50001741 Pasquier Marie 2,542 0 0 0 0 Retirement _ 50001743 Allen Julie 4,454 0 0 0 0 Retirement - 50001744 Gregg Torres 3,057 0 0 0 0 Retirement - 50001745 Apkarian Christina 3,305 0 0 0 0 Retirement- 50001746 Coriano Ramon 3,305 0 0 0 0 rounding 51 0 0 0 0 157710-130 522100 Retirement Regular 33,480 0 0 0 0 157710-130 523150 Health Insurance Health Insurance - 50001347 Wilson Vickie 10,554 0 0 0 0 Health Insurance - 50001564 Orta Rogello 10,554 0 0 0 0 Health Insurance - 50001740 Vacant-Funded 10,554 0 0 0 0 Health Insurance - 50001741 Pasquler Marie 10,554 0 0 0 0 Health Insurance - 50001743 Allen Julie 10,554 0 0 0 0 Health Insurance - 50001744 Gregg Torres 10,554 0 0 0 0 Health Insurance - 50001745 Apkarian Christina 10,554 0 0 0 0 Health Insurance - 50001746 Coriano Ramon 10,554 0 0 0 0 157710-\30 523150 Hcalthlnsurance 84,432 0 0 0 0 157710-130 523160 Life Insurance Short And LODe: Term Life Insurance - 50001347 Wilson Vickie 228 0 0 0 0 Life Insurance ~ 50001564 Orta Rogelio 99 0 0 0 0 Life Insurance - 50001740 Vacant-Funded 82 0 0 0 0 Life Insurance - 50001741 Pasquier Marie 88 0 0 0 0 Life Insurance ~ 50001743 Allen Julie 155 0 0 0 0 Life Insurance - 50001744 Gregg Torres 106 0 0 0 0 Life Insurance - 50001745 Apkarian Christina 115 0 0 0 0 Life Insurance - 50001746 Coriano Ramon 115 0 0 0 0 157710-130 523160 Life Insurance Sbort And Long Term 988 0 0 0 0 IS7710-130 524100 Workers Compensation Ree:ular Per Risk Management Allocation 18,000 0 0 0 0 50 Personal Services 550,800 0 0 0 0 60 Ooeratina Exoense 157710-130 634210 Info Technolo!!V Automation Allocation IT Allocation per Schedule 20,000 0 0 0 0 Move to new object code 634211 -4,100 0 0 0 0 157710-]30 634210 Info Technology Automation Allocation 15,900 0 0 0 0 157710-130 634211 IT Bmin!! Hours Allocation Moved from 634210 4,100 0 0 0 0 157710-130 634970 Indirect Cost Reimbursement Indirect Cost Plan - Millage Neutral 67,800 0 0 0 0 Tax Neutral addition 9,600 0 0 0 0 157710-130 634970 Indirect Cost Reimbursement 77,400 0 0 0 0 IS7710-130 634999 Other Contractual Services Adjustment for 25% cut 4,800 0 0 0 0 Cheerleading (347990) 13,700 0 0 0 0 Dehart Alarm 1,000 0 0 0 0 Entertainment Skate/BMX events (OJ, bands, etc) (347990) 4,000 0 0 0 0 Folk Dance (347990) 2,000 0 0 0 0 Karate (347990) 9,000 0 0 0 0 Latin Dance (347990) 2,600 0 0 0 0 Patricia Hill Dance Class (347990) 4,000 0 0 0 0 Pee Wee Sports (347990) 2,000 0 0 0 0 Zumba (347990) 2,000 0 0 0 0 -. 2 10/212009 Account Major Expenditure Detail Item Budget grouped by Business Unit, Org Code 1611,B8 Expenditure Detail Item Description Service Level FY 2010 3udget FY 2011 Budget , FY 2012 Bvdg,e! FY 2013 Budget FY 2014 Budget Issue # 0807 Parks & Recreation Department 157710-130 Golden Gate Community Center 60 Ooeratina Exoense 45,100 o 157710-130 634999 Other Contractual Services Notes: All contractual instructors are calculated at 65% of revenues 157710-130 639965 Locksmiths Services And Supplics Locksmiths Services and Supplies 157710-130 639966 Pest Control Pest Control Nates: Recurring bee hive removal at Aaron Lutz Park 157710-130 640200 Mileage Reimbursement Regular Mileage 1,000 o 500 o 600 o Note~. Access to county vehicle resulting in decreased mileage costs 157710-130 640300 Out Of County Travel Professional Dcnl FRPA Conference x 2 NBL BMX Conference Other OOC Training 1,800 400 1,200 3,400 o o o o 157710-130 640300 Out Of County Travel Professional Devel 157710-130 640410 Motor Pool Rental Charge Per Fleet schedule 157710-130 641700 Cellular Telephonc Supervisor - $57/mth 157710-130 641900 Telcphone System Support Allocation Per budget instructions (see notes) Vari;:mrF.. FY09 Forecast: Based on 4 month of actuals 100 o 700 o 5,800 o 157710.130 641950 Postaee Frei2htAnd Ups GGCC Postage 200 o 157710-130 643100 Electricity GGCC Electricity Reduce to balance budget o o o 84,000 -16,000 157710-130 643100 Electricity 68,000 Variance: Monthly charges in summer may be slightly higher than during the winter months. 157710-130 643300 Trash And Garbaee Disposal GGCC Trash Pick ups Variance: FY09 Forecast: Based on 4 month of actuals 6,500 o 157710-130 643400 Water And Sewer Per budget instructions - FY08 actuals x 1.0523 157710.130 644600 Rent Equipment BMX Qualifier (347400) Halloween Howl (347400) Inflatable movie screen $2000 x 3 (347400) Latin Festival (tents & generators) (347400) Port a Potties for BMX events (347400) Senior Expo (347400) Spring Wing Ding (347400) 11,000 o 1,500 1,500 6,000 3,200 400 2,000 1,500 16,100 o o o o o o o o 157710-130 644600 Rent Equipment Variance: FY 10 Variance: New programs - Cultural Festival and Big Screen Movies 157710-130 644620 Leasc Equipment Copier Lease agreement Variance: FY10 Variance: Previously budgeted in 646710 157710-130 645100 Insurance General Collier County Self Insurance 157710-130 645200 Property Insurance Per Risk Management Allocation 157710-130 646110 Buildin2 RAnd M Outside Vendors Exterior Pressure Cleaning V~ri;:mc:p.. FY09 Forecast: Only pressure cleaning once this year 157710-130 646180 Buildin!!: RAnd M IsfBilliDl!S Special service repairs on skate park 2,400 o 6,900 o 30,100 o 5,000 o 5,000 o 10/212009 QovMa. 3 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 16 I 1 B8 Account Major Expenditure Detail Item Budget grouped by Business Unit, Org Code Expenditure Detail Item Description Service Level Issue # FY 2010 Budget FY 2011 Budget l FY2012 Budget FY 2013 Budget FY 2014 Budget 0807 Parks & Recreation Department 157710-130 Golden Gate Community Center 60 Ooeratina Exoense 157710~130 646311 Sprinkler System Maintenance Sprinkler Maintenance 1,000 0 0 0 0 157710-130 646315 Atbletic Court And Ball Field Maint Clay for BMX track 2,000 0 0 0 0 Skate park repairs 2,000 0 0 0 0 Soiltac for BMX Track 500 0 0 0 0 157710-130 646315 Athletic Court And Ball Field Maint 4,500 0 0 0 0 157710.130 646316 Maint Bleachers Picnic Tables Ete Adjustment for 25% cut 2,000 0 0 0 0 Picnic Tables 2,000 0 0 0 0 157710-130 646316 Maint Bleai;:hers Picnic Tables Etc 4,000 0 0 0 0 157710.130 646317 Fencine Maintenance Fence repairs and maintenance 2,000 0 0 0 0 IS7710-130 646318 Mulch Playground mulch 2,000 0 0 0 0 Red Mulch 2,000 0 0 0 0 ]57710-130 646318 Mulch 4,000 0 0 0 0 IS7710-130 646319 Tree Trimmine Tree Trimming 2,000 0 0 0 0 157710-130 646320 Landscape Materials Adjustment for 25% cut 3,000 0 0 0 0 Flowers, plants and ground covering 2,000 0 0 0 0 157710-130 646320 Landscape Materials 5,000 0 0 0 0 157710-130 646430 Fleet Maint Isf Labor And Overhead Per Fleet schedule 900 0 0 0 0 157710-130 646440 Fleet Maint Isf Parts And Sublet Per Fleet schedule 400 0 0 0 0 157710-130 646452 PlaY2round Eauipment Maintenance Playground parts 2,000 0 0 0 0 Notes' Purchasing a adaptive swing for playground. IS7710-130 646510 Machine Tools RAnd M Outside Vendors BMX starter gate repairs 1 1,500 0 0 0 0 157710-130 646970 Other Eauin Repairs And Maintenance Replace canvas on Wheels tower 3,000 0 0 0 0 157710-130 647110 Printine And Or Siodine: Outside Vendors Printing and or Binding Outside Vendors 1 8,200 0 0 0 0 Note!';' Creation of a Golden Gate Community Center Brochure 157710-130 648170 Marketiue: And Promotional Adjustment for 25% cut 2,000 0 0 0 0 Marketing 8,000 0 0 0 0 Reduce to balance budget -2,000 0 0 0 0 157710-130 648170 Marketing And Promotional 8,000 0 0 0 0 157710-130 649010 Licenses And Permits DCF License (347990) 100 0 0 0 0 Frontier days (347400) 400 0 0 0 0 Health Oept.(347990) 150 0 0 0 0 Right of Way for special events (347400) 150 0 0 0 0 Sound permit for special events (347400) 50 0 0 0 0 Special events (347400) 350 0 0 0 0 157710-130 649010 Licenses And Permits 1,200 0 0 0 0 V!'lri!'lnr.R" FY09 Forecast Fewer special events 157710-130 649930 Credit Card Discount Fee Credit Card Fees 3,000 0 0 0 0 VArIance' FY09 Forecast: Based on 4 month of actuals 157710-130 649990 Other Miscellaneous Services Miscellaneous NBL Services (347230) 50 0 0 0 0 -.. 4 10f212009 16 I 188 . r' Account Major Expenditure Detail Item Budget grouped by Business Unit. Org Code Expenditure Detail Item Description Service Level Issue # FY 2010 Budget FY 2011 BlJdge1: ~ FY 2012 Budget FY 2013 Budget FY 2014 Budget 0807 Parks & Recreation Department 1157710-130 Golden Gate Community Center I 60 Qoeratina Exoense 157710.130 649990 Other l\1isceUaneous Services Movie privileges for outdoor movies (347400) 3,100 0 0 0 0 NBL Insurance (347230) 2,000 0 0 0 0 NBL Memberships (347230) 1,800 0 0 0 0 NBL Race Report Fees (347230) 1,250 0 0 0 0 Reaccreditation Costs - Visitation Team Flights - 3 x: $400 1,200 0 0 0 0 157710-130 649990 Other Miscellaneous Services 9,400 0 0 0 0 V::.ri::.nr.p." FY09 Forecast: Credit card charges no longer coming from this line IS7710-130 651110 Office Supplies General Office supplies 5,200 0 0 0 0 IS7710-130 651210 Copvine: Chare:es ASA flyers 50 0 0 0 0 Program flyers 3,550 0 0 0 0 ]57710-130 651210CopyingCba:rges 3,600 0 0 0 0 Notes: Flyers for new programs and open houses. 157710-130 651910 Minor Office EQuipment Scanner 500 0 0 0 0 157710-130 651930 Minor Office Furniture Office Fumiture 1,000 0 0 0 0 IS7710-130 652110 Clothine: And Uniform Purchases ASA counselors shirts - 2 x $5 x 5 100 0 0 0 0 BMX camp shirts - 15 kids x 6 camps x $5 500 0 0 0 0 Nametags - 15 staff x 1 nametag x $12 200 0 0 0 0 Pre School Shirts - 20 x $5 x 4 sessions 400 0 0 0 0 Safety Boots - 2 x $150 300 0 0 0 0 157710-130 652110 Clothing And Uniform purchases 1,500 0 0 0 0 Variant'.p.. FY09 Forecast: No staff shirts purchased this year 157710-130 652130 Clothine:And L'niform Rental Maintenance Unifonns - 1 x $405.60 500 0 0 0 0 IS7710-130 652140 Personal Safetv EQuipment Personal Safety Equipment 200 0 0 0 0 157710-130 652210 Food Opera tine: Supplies 5th Grade Dances - 3 x $300 (347400) 1,000 0 0 0 0 ASA Food 100 0 0 0 0 Late Skate Nights (347230) 1,000 0 0 0 0 Latin Festival (347400) 1,000 0 0 0 0 Preschool (347990) 400 0 0 0 0 Programs and Special Events Food (347400) 1,500 0 0 0 0 1577\0-130 652210 Food Operating Supplies 5,000 0 0 0 0 157710-130 652310 Fertilizer Herbicides And Chemicals Fertilizer for common grounds 2,000 0 0 0 0 157710-130 652490 Fuel And Lubricants IsfBilline:s Per Fleet schedule @$3.50/gal 3,800 0 0 0 0 157710-130 652510 Household And Institutional Supplies Paper & Cleaning Supplies 2,400 0 0 0 0 157710.130 652720 Medical Supplies AED for wheels 1,000 0 0 0 0 First Aid Kits 500 0 0 0 0 157710-130 652720 Medical Supplies 1,500 0 0 0 0 157710.130 652910 "Minor Operating Equipment Game Room Equipment 6,000 0 0 0 0 Tables & chairs 10,000 0 0 0 0 157710-130 652910 Minor Operating Equipment 16,000 0 0 0 0 Vari;mcp.. Gymnasium wall mats 157710-130 652940 Merchandise Resale BMX Merchandise (347903) 11,000 0 0 0 0 -. 5 10/2/2009 Account Major Expenditure Detail Item Budget grouped by Business Unit, Org !o~ 1 1 F' FY 2012 Budget ExpendltUl'e Detail Item Description Service Level FY 2010 Budget IS$ue# 0807 Parks & Recreation Department ~ 157710~130 Golden Gate Community Center 60 Qoeratina Exoense 157710-130 652940 Merchandise Resale Skate Merchandise (347903) 157710-130 652940 Merchandise Resale 5,000 16,000 157710-130 652990 Other Ooeratioe Supplies Art Supplies (347990) Art Supplies (347990) ASA crafts and sports equipment (347990) BMXfSkate (347400) Lumber, building supplies Preschool supplies (347990) 1,500 1,500 4,000 3,000 2,500 2,000 14,500 1577]0-130 652990 Other Operating Supplies 157710-130 652991 Electrical Supplier Repair and replacement of electrical parts 157710.130 652992 Electrical Contractors Electrical Contractors 2,500 2,500 157710-130 652999 Paintine: Supplies Painting Suppiies 157710-130 654110 Books Publications And Subscriptions CPR book.s 157710-130 654210 Dues And Memberships FRPA - 3 x $200 1,000 400 600 157710-130 654360 Other Training: Educational Expenses CPRP certifications DCF mandated 4Q..hr training and in-service trainings FRPA annual conference x 2 FRPA district meetings FY 2011 Budget o o o o o o o o o o o o o o FY 2:012 Budget o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 300 0 0 1,200 0 0 400 0 0 400 0 0 157710-130 654360 Other Training Educational Expenses 2,300 0 0 In order to run childcare programs, DCF requires all staff to be certified and complete in-service training each year All new childcare staff must complete the 40-hr childcare training. Employees that have already compieted the 40-hr training are required to complete 10-hrs of in-service training Notes: 38 , 1 FY 2014 Budget o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 60 Operating Expense 448,900 0 0 0 0 70 Caoital Outlav 157710-130 763100 Improvements General Repair and relaminate front desk. area 13,500 0 0 0 0 Replace cement pad at Wheels start gate 8,000 0 0 0 0 157710-130 763100 Improvements General 21,500 0 0 0 0 IS7710-130 763501 Lil!htinl! Poles Outdoor Lights for amphitheater-balance 55,000 0 0 0 0 Partial Funding for Outside Lights 30,000 0 0 0 0 157710-130 763501 Lighting Poles 85,000 0 0 0 0 Variance: Budget Issue # PSPRGG03 Notes: Lighting on field and in front of Band Shell so that the area can be safely utilized after sunset. IS7710-130 764150 Heavv Equipment And Trailers Pressure Washer 6,000 0 0 0 0 Taro Riding Blower Machine 15,000 0 0 0 0 157710-130 764150 Heavy Equipment And Trailers 21,000 0 0 0 0 157710-130 764370 Audio Visual Eauipment Replace sound and light system in auditorium 5,000 0 0 0 0 70 Capital Outlay 132,500 0 0 0 0 157710-130 Golden Gate Community Center 1,132,200 0 0 0 0 -.. G 10/2f2009 16 , 1 BS~tember :7,2009 / Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD r:: lo'-Y..- / If/ill_ Naples, Florida, September 17, 2009 RECEIVED DEe 0 1 2009 Board of cOU"'Y Cn__' .,.....IISSjoners LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F," 3rd floor, of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Chairman: Valaree D. Maxwell David Correa Renato F. Fernandez F. William Forbes Manuel Gonzalez Zetty Rivera ALSO PRESENT: rYlrsc, Coffe[ Mi~e Sheffield, Assis:a.nt to the County Ma~, e:D.. I l~l D Tatlana Gust, Staff Liaison . l' ~lT.L A 'tem # _JLL: l 1/ ~; to 16 I 1 s~ager 17, 2009 I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Valaree Maxwell at 6:02 PM and a quorum was established. II. Welcome to New Member, F. William Forbes (Mr, Forbes was appointed by the Board of County Commissioners on June 9, 2009) III. Approval of Minutes from May 28, 2009 Meeting Chairman Maxwell asked Mike Sheffield for an update concerning Item VIII in the May 28th Minutes. Mr. Sheffield responded invitations to non-profit agencies and business leaders to attend the September HAAB meeting had been extended. The invitations were declined and the reasons cited were the Naples location and the meeting start time. Many stated if the meeting was held in Immokalee, they would attend. Mike mentioned several Immokalee locations, i.e., County Library, as well as the possibility of changing the meeting day to Saturday. Chairman Maxwell mentioned the Casino has space to accommodate meetings. She will contact the President of the 1mmokalee Chamber of Commerce, and also suggested the Members consider attending a Chamber Breakfast meeting. (A Point of Order was made asking to approve the Minutes before continuing the discussion.) Discussion continued. Mr. Forbes proposed drafting a questionnaire for the Chamber members to obtain feedback concerning the needs of the Immokalee community. Chairman Maxwell stated she will contact County Manager Jim Mudd. Mike Sheffield reminded the Committee the issues discussed must be under the purview of Board of County Commissioners, i.e., immigration issues cannot be addressed by the BCC. Discussion continued. Mr. Gonzalez referenced a meeting held at The Blueberry Farm in May, 2009, and the topics of immigration, profiling, discrimination, housing, were brought forward as major concerns for lmmokalee residents. Ms. Gust suggested topics for the Immokalee meeting be discussed under Item IV(C) on the Agenda. David Correa moved to approve the Minutes of May 28, 2009 as submitted. Second by Renato Fermindez. Motion carried, 5-"Yes''/1-''Abstention.'' William Forbes abstained because he had not been appointed to the HAAB in May. IV. Old Business A. Law Enforcement Report - Manny Gonzalez Minority Task Force Meeting: · The meeting was held in lmmokalee and the major topic of concern was immigration - participants objected to illegal aliens not receiving the same 2 16 I 1 89 .. September 17, 2009 benefits as U.S. citizens · The CCSO's program of stopping cars to check for valid drivers' licenses, current registration/insurance was cited as "profiling" because the majority of drivers were Hispanic or Haitian · Sheriff Rambosk's program will continue because of the high number of accidents in the Immokalee area. o The goal: to reduce the number of uninsured, unlicensed drivers and unsafe automobiles · If a driver is identified as an illegal alien, his/her name will be forwarded to ICE ("Immigration & Customs Enforcement") and the Alien Task Force · CCSO primary focus to protect the rights of U.S. citizens while removing alien criminals from the community · The R.E.A.L Identification Act will be implemented in 2010 - a birth certificate or a passport are the only valid types of identification accepted B. Education Report - Chairman Maxwell · The "Recovery High School Program" is on hold · Journey's Academy, a private high school in North Naples, was closed · The International Learning Academy on Marco Island will become a private school and encompass 3rd grade through high school · The International Learning Academy has been designated as special needs school since 2001 . A Life Skills Program will be offered to adults in the community - volunteers are necessary · Prior to June, 2008, verification of identification of educators by electronic fingerprinting was not mandated C. Discussion of Topics of Interest for Immoka1ee's Hispanic Community Chairman Maxwell supported Mr. Forbes suggestion to send a questionnaire to the Immokalee Chamber to determine topics of concern for Immokalee residents and ask the membership to complete and add more information. Discussion ensued. · Concern was expressed the HAAB would appear ineffective because it can not take any action regarding any of the issues which may be raised during the Immokalee meeting. . It was suggested a more effective approach is to target the Immokalee's community leaders and business owners rather than just the residents. . A member stated there are members within the Hispanic community who are not aware of the existence of the HAAB and the meeting would be an opportunity to make its presence known. A member stated HAAB's responsibility is to listen and observe trends/issues within the Hispanic community and to report the information to the BCC. Mike Sheffield suggested the issue of whether or not to hold a meeting in Immokalee be tabled until next month's meeting. It will be added to the Agenda for October. 3 16 I lpteft~ 7,2009 ' VI. New Business A. Introduction of HAAB applicants: Alejandro Balan, Mario Ortiz, Henna Ramos Mike Sheffield stated the applicants for the three vacancies had been invited to attend the meeting, and Mr. Balan cited a conflict with a previously scheduled meeting. Manuel Gonzalez outlined the duties, responsibilities, and limitations ofHAAB membership. Reference was made to a directive contained in Section 7 of the Ordinance that created the Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board: "The [Hispanic Affairs Advisory] Board shall identifY and evaluate problems within the Hispanic Community. " · HAAB's function is to identify potential problems that could affect the Board of County Commissioners' ability to administer or govern. · The HAAB is not an activist Board. · Members cannot state they represent the Board of County Commissioners at any function Mario Ortiz and Henna Ramos each briefly outlined their backgrounds. David Correa moved to recommend the applications of Alejandro Balan, Mario Ortiz, and Ilenna Ramos to the Board of County Commissioners for review and approval. Second by Renato Ferntindez. Carried unanimously, 6-0. Mike Sheffield stated the Board of County Commissioners will notify the applicants of their appointment. B. Selection of a new Vice-Chair for HAAB Chairman Maxwell nominated Manuel Gonzalez as Vice Chairman of the HAAB. Second by David Correa. Motion carried, 5-"Yes''/I-''Absention," Mr. Gonzalez abstainedfrom voting. VI. Member and Staff Comments Discussion ensued regarding formalizing assignment of Areas of Study/Interest for Committee members: · HealthlMental Health . Communications · Education - Chairman Maxwell · Law Enforcement - Manuel Gonzalez . JobslEconomy . Housing - Zetty Rivera . Safety · Elections/20 I 0 Census - David Correa The list of Areas of Study/Interest will be presented at the next meeting to allow the new members an opportunity to choose. Mike Sheffield stated the Areas of Study/Interest do not constitute a Subcommittee. 4 16/1 iB9 September 17, 2009 . The Naples Philharmonic will sponsor a "Latin Night" on October 2nd and 3'd . The Literacy Volunteers of Collier County need volunteers to teach English . Hispanic Heritage Festival will be held in 1mmokalee on September 19-20, 2009 . The CCSO has a number of civilian positions open . The CCSO will discuss the placement of cameras to observe red light runners and the tickets issued at its next meeting VII. Public Comments (None) VIII. Action Items(s) to the Board of County Commissioners (None) IX. Next Meetings: October 22, 2009 November 19, 2009 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order ofthe Chair at 7:38 P.M. COLLIER COUNTY HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY COMMITTEE ~Chai;~an The Minutes were app~d by the Board/Committee on l!)cAo~ ? 7. , ~ , as presented V or as amended 5 - 16 11 ao O~to r 12, 2009 ~ MINUm OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY Fiala YMtI" NIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY BOARD RECEIVED Halas- '<,' D Henning / Ee 0 1 2009 Coyle ~ Naples, Florida, October 22,2009 Boa",ofCountyComm/ssio Coletta 'd IIllfS LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Hispanic Affairs Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 6:00 PM in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F," 3rd floor, of the Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following Members present: Chairman: Valaree D. Maxwell Vice-Chair: Manuel Gonzalez David Correa Renato F. Fernandez Bill Forbes Ileana Ramos Mario Ortiz Alex Balan Excused: Zetty Rivera ALSO PRESENT: Mike Sheffield, Assistant to the County Manger I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order by Chairman Valaree Maxwell at 6:02 PM and a quorum was established. II. Welcome to New Members Alex Balan, Mario Ortiz, and IleaJ1l/"R~: (Appointed by the Board of County Commissioners on October 13~09) Item #:~.___~,__-- 16 I ltober 2ft29 III. Approval of Minutes from September 17, 2009 Meeting: Renato Fernandez made a motion to approve the Minutes of September 17, 2009 as submitted. Second by David Correa. Motion carried, 5-HYes"/3-HAbstention." Alex Balan, Mario Ortiz, and Ileana Ramos abstained because they were not members of the HAAB for the September 17, 2009 meeting. IV. Old Business A. Law Enforcement Report: Manny Gonzalez . In the wake of the recent tenible domestic murders of a mother and her five children, domestic violence is an important topic that everyone should be more aware of. Mr. Gonzalez gave the group the name/number of a counselor at the Women's Shelter, Natalie Quintero; 775-3862. The Shelter has about 60 beds and cribs. The Sheriff's Office has established a new proactive program called INVEST (Intimate Partner Violence Enhancement Services). This voluntary program allows the Shelter to share information with the Sheriff's Department. The INVEST program is intended to determine situations where continued domestic violence, perhaps of a more serious nature, is expected in the home. Incidents of domestic violence should be reported to the Sheriff's Department. The Sheriff's Department also has Special Victims Unit to assist victims of domestic VIolence and other crimes, It was also pointed out that the Shelter has some rooms reserved for male victims of domestic violence. · Mr. Gonzalez also discussed a recent article in the Naples Daily News authored by Albert Sabina. The author noted that by the year 2050, the Hispanic population in the United States is expected to double; and with that growth, comes certain responsibilities. Each member of the group was offered an opportunity to share their personal insight regarding the article. B. Education Report: Chairman Maxwell · Tomorrow night, at Edison State College, 18 people will be graduating from Valaree Maxwell's school. C. Census Report: David Correa Mr. Correa informed the group that he was asked by Mike Sheffield to represent the HAAB on the 2010 Census Complete Count Committee established by Commissioner Fiala, The first meeting was held on October 8, 2009 with Marcella Rice from the U,S. Census Bureau present. Mr. Correa stated that during the last census, the Collier County census return was 54%, statewide 63%, It's important that all people are counted because funding to communities is based 2 B9 1 I 6 , I October 22, 2009 on population numbers. Census workers will be sent-out to homes if returns are not filled-out. Census workers will all have identification, People will receive forms by March 15, Libraries and post offices will also have forms available. The next meeting will be held in November. Mr. Ortiz volunteered to assist Mr. Correa and attend meetings. Mike Sheffield stated that only one member of the HAAB should attend, because if two or more HAAB members participate on this committee, it may be considered a HAAB meeting, and therefore State Sunshine laws would apply, Mr. Correa suggested alternating attendance at the 2010 Complete Count meetings with Mr. Ortiz. D. Discussion of Topics of Interest for Immoka1ee's Hispanic Community Chairman Maxwell: It was decided to add "Immokalee" as an area of study/interest for a HAAB member with periodic reports regarding Immokalee. Mr. Forbes volunteered for this assignment. VI. New Business A. Areas of StudylInterest for HAAB Members: . Health/Mental Health-Alex Balan · Communications-Bill Forbes, Ileana Ramos, Mario Ortiz . Education - Chairman Maxwell · Law EnforcemenUSafety - Manuel Gonzalez, Renato Fernandez . JobslEconomy- Ileana Ramos . Housing - Zetty Rivera . Immokalee-Bill Forbes · E1ections/2010 Census - David Correa, Mario Ortiz Mike Sheffield reminded the group that these are areas of study/interest, not subcommittees. Members assigned to an area of study/interest should make periodic reports to the HAAB based on their personal study of the topic. It is okay for more than one member to be assigned the same topic of study. Members should inform Liaison Tatiana Gust when they would like to make a report to the HAAB on their assigned topic; Tatiana will place that topic on the meeting agenda. 3 16 , i 89 October 22, 2009 VI. Member and Staff Comments . The next meeting will be held a week early, on November 19th There will be no HAAB meeting in December due to the Holidays, · The HAAB will be selecting a new Chainnan and Vice Chainnan at their January 2010 meeting. · Mike Sheffield distributed CD's of the Sunshine Law training to the new members. VII. Public Comments (None) VIII. Action Items(s} to the Board of County Commissioners (None) IX. Next Meetings: November 19, 2009 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 7:25 P.M. COLLIER COUNTY HISPANIC AFFAIRS ADVISORY COMMITTEE c-~~_ Va1aree 1>. Maxwell, Chairman The Minutes wer~ved by the Board/Committee on Ne\JtvVL~ \ '1, 2CO'1, as presented or as amended 4 eRA Governint! Board Commissioner James N. Coletta Chair Commissioner Tom Henning Commissioner Donna Fiala Commissioner Fred W. Coyle Commissioner Frank Hala<; State Enterorise Zone Develooment Allencv Board IEZDAl Fred N. Thomas, Jr. Chairman Edward "Ski" Olesky Jeffrey Randall Michael Facundo Chief Tom Davis F. G. H. I. J, Robert Halman Ex-officio Julio Estremera Kitchell Snow Floyd Crews Ana Salazar Richard Rice James Wall Rick Heers Eva Deyo eRA Starr Penny Phillippi Executive Director 239,252,2310 Bradley Muckel Project Manager 239,252.5549 Christie Betancourt Administrative Assistant 239,252,2313 Collier County Cornrnunify RedevelopmerlA~nll 'B 1 OO:CEIVED ~V232009 SaanlfllCounly~ IMMOKALEE eRA i Tile Ploce to Coil Home' EZONE MEETING AGENDA State Enterprise Zone Development Agency November 18, 2009 - 9:30 to 9:45 AM Career and Service Center of Collier County-Immokalee 750 South 5th Street Immokalee, Florida 34142 A, B. C. D. E. Call to Order. Roll Call and Announcement of Ouorum. Adootion of Agenda. Communications, Consent Agenda. a. Enterprise Zone Reports. I. Enterprise Zone Activities Monthly Report (Enclosure I) II. Enterprise Zone Quarterly Report (Enclosure 2) Ill. Enterprise Zone Annual Report, 2009 (Enclosure 3) Old Business. New Business. Citizen Comments. Next Meeting, December 16,2009 at 9:30 A.M, Adiournment. t;~> l'D Date: Copies to eRA Governing: Board Commissioner James N. Coletta Chair Commissioner Tom f lenning Commissioner Donna Fiala Commissioner Fred W. Coyle Commissioner Frank Halas eRA Advisorv Board Fred N. Thomas, Jr Chairman Edward "Ski" Olesky Jeffrey Randall Michael Facundo Chief Tom Davis Robert Halman Ex-{}fficio Julio Estremera Kitchell Snow Floyd Crews Ana Salazar Richard Rice James Wall Rick Heers Eva Deyo eRA Staff Penny Phillippi Executive Director 239,252.2310 Bradley Muckel Project Manager 239.252,5549 Christie Betancourt Administrative Assistant 239,252,23] 3 Co 'eo Coun'y COrJ'nu'Illy '?edeveloomenl Agency 16/1 811 ~CE'VED ,\'JV 2 3 2OO!l IMMOKALEE eRA i The Place 10 Col: 'fome ] CRA MEETING AGENDA Community Redevelopment Agency Advisory Committee "'Coun\Y~"" November 18, 2009 - 8:30 A.M. Career and Service Center of Collier County-Immokalee 750 South 5th Street, Immokalee, Florida 34142 A. Call to Order. B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Ouorum. C. Introductions. D. Adoption of Agenda. E. Communications. F. Consent Agenda. a. RW A, Inc. i. October Report (Enclosure 1a) ii. October Invoice (Enclosure I b) b. Fa<;ade Improvement Program Monthly Report (Enclosure 2) G. Old Business. a. County Code Enforcement Monthly Highlights (Enclosure 3) b. Business Development Center Update H. New Business. a. CRA Advisory Board Announcement b. CRA Marketing Plan and Public Relations Presentation ~ Steve Hart c. Seasonal Campaign d. Executive Directors Evaluation (Enclosure 4) e. Land Purchase for Ninth Street Plaza 1. Citizen Comments. J. Next Meeting Date. Regular Meeting December 16,2009 at 8:30 A.M. K. Adjournment. * The next joint Advisory BoardlEZDAIIMPVC meeting will be held December 16, 2009, at 8:30 A.M. at the Career and Service Center located at 750 South 5th Street in Immokalee. All meetings will be publicly noticed in the W. Hannon Turner Building (Building F), posted at the Immokalee Public Library and provided to the County Public Information Department for distribution. Please contact Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at 239.252.2313 for additional infonnation. In accordance with the American with Disabilities Act, persons needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at least 48 hours before the meeting. The public should be advised that members of the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee and the CRA Advisory Board are also members of the other Boards and Committees, including, but not limited to: EZDA, Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board, Immokalee Fire Commission, and the Collier County Housing Authority; etc. In this regard, matters coming before the IMPVC and the Advisory Board may come before one or more of the referenced Board and Committees from time to time. L~~~ lS"~~ Misc, Corres: C"'!'lies to CRA Governioi! Board Commissioner James N. Coletta Chair Commissioner Tom Henning Commissioner Donna Fiala Commissioner Fred W. Coyle Commissioner Frank Halas CRA Advisorv Board ~ State Enternrise Zooe Af!eucv Board Fred N. Thomas, Jr. Chairman Edward "Ski" Olesky Jeffrey Randall Chief. Tom Davis Robert Halman Ex-officio Julio Estremera Michael Facundo Kitchell Snow Floyd Crews Richard Rice Ana Salazar Rick Heers James Wall Eva Deyo Master Plan & Visionini! Committee Fred N. Thomas, Jr. Chairman Edward (Ski) Olesky Clarence S. Tears, Jr. Pastor Jean C. Paul Carrie Williams Floyd Crews Pam Brown Rick Heers Dick Rice Estil Null eRA Stall Penny Phillippi Executive Director 239252,2310 Bradley Muckel Project Manager 239.252,5549 Christie Betancourt Administrative Assistant 239,252,2313 Co!l,er CounTy CommuniTy Redevelopment Ag' ~ 11f:EJiL2J 1 NOV 2 3 2009 IMMOKALEE eRA i The Place 10 Call Home I JOINT MEETING AGENDA - Revised 11-16-09 .lanlllfCaunlr Commisalone" The Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee and The Community Redevelopment Agency Advisory Committee November 18, 2009 - 8:30 A.M. Career and Service Center of Collier County 750 South 5th Street, 1mmokalee, Florida, 34142 A. Call to Order. B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum. C. Introductions. D. Adoption of Agenda. E. Announcements. F. Communications. a. October Public Notices b. October News Articles c. Letter of appointment G. Consent Agenda. a. Approval of Minutes. i. Regular Meeting October 21, 2009 (Enclosure 1) H. Old Business. a. Master Plan 1. Correspondence regarding Second Sufficiency Letter (Enclosure 2a &2b) 1. 11. Comprehensive Plan Hearing Dates (Enclosure 3) b. FRA Conference Report (Enclosure 4a & 4b) New Business. a. Stormwater Master Plan Update (Enclosure 5) b. IMPVC Sunset Executive Summary and Resolution (Enclosures 6a & 6b) c. Church of the Nazarene d. TCEA - Discussion J. K. 1. Citizen Comments. Next Meeting Date. Adiournment. {d-.- Mise, Corres: Regular Meeting December 16, 2009 at g~~o 1,.:rll'J- I D fs tf- L '<:;-- '0",-,/>"";' ':'-,r; h~/"',\(((li;;'/: ltem#: t [Q I. l @f~ Cop~sto "IMMOKALEE i::\ 6 lIB !cZure ; RECEIVED NOV 2 3 2lVJ v C RA Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency ;as rienning Coyle -.:: Coletta October Meetinl! Minutes 1~"'''i(>fC"untyCommllllllalQra Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee, Enterprise Zone Agency and Community Redevelopment Agency Advisory Committee October 21, 2001 A. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order by Fred N. Thomas, Jr. at 8:25 A.M. B. Roll Call and Announcement of a Quorum. Advisory BoardlEZDA Members Present: Fred N. Thomas, Floyd Crews, Richard Rice, Kitchell Snow, Eva Deyo, Chief Tom Davis, Jim Wall, and Edward "Ski" Olesky. Advisory BoardlEZDA Members Absent/Excused: Rick Heers, Ana Salazar, Robert Halman, and Michael Facundo. Action: A quorum was announced as being present. Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee Present: Edward "Ski" Olesky, Fred N. Thomas, Jr., Richard Rice, Carrie Williams, Jean Paul, Floyd Crews and Pam Brown. IMPVC Members AbsentlExcused: Clarence S. Tears, Jr., Rick Heers, Estil Null and Pam Brown. Action: A quorum was announced as being present, Others Present: Jeff Randall, Steve Hart, Birgit Pauli-Haack, Bob Mu1here, Paula McMichael, and Patrick Vanasse. Staff: Penny Phillippi, Brad Mucke1 and Christie Betancourt. C. Introductions. D. Adoption of Agenda. Addition to Agenda. Action: The Agenda was amended to include the addition of Hb - Update on the Master Plan and the removal of Gf - EZone Quarterly Report. Mr, Rice made a motion to approve the amended agenda, Ms. Deyo seconded the motion. The motion passed by unanimous vote. E. Announcements. Staff announced that the Interim LDC's was approved by the EAC on October 7, 2009. F. Communications. The Communications package included September Public Notices; various News Articles; the schedule for the second Round of Master Plan Sufficiency Reviews; the FEMA Letter Regarding State Farmers Market; and a Letter of Support for Hodges University, Rural Business Enterprise Grant. G. Consent Agenda. a. Approval of Minutes. i. Joint Committee Regular Meeting September 16,2009 11. Enterprise Zone Regular Meeting September 16, 2009 111. CRA Regular Meeting September 16, 2009 b. Amendment to the Director's Employment Contract c. RW A September Invoice & Monthly Report \liSC,vorres d. Fayade Program Monthly Report Dale: ~em# ~,,~:,:;s to. 16/1812 Enterprise Zone Program Monthly Report f. EZDA Board Application - Jeffrey Randall Action: All items on the Consent Agenda were approved unanimously after a motion by Mr. Olesky and a second by Mr. Rice, H. Old Business. a. Bob Mulhere provided a brief update on the status of the Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) proposal as discussed with Nick Casalanguida in the Collier County Transportation Department. RW A staff discussed the second Sufficiency Letter received from the Collier County Planning Department in reference to the review of the draft Immokalee Master Plan. Action: A motion was made by Mr, Wall to direct stajJto request a two week extension on the Oct, 30th deadline in the second Sujjiciency Letter. Chief Davis seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote, 1. New Business. Action: A motion was made by Ms, Deyo to add another item to the Agenda, Item Ie - A Report on the Business Development Center, Chief Davis seconded the motion and it was passed by unanimous vote, a. Immoka1ee Airport Park Expansion The Executive Director reported that a new partnership has been formed between the Park & Rec Department, the Airport Authority and the Immokalee CRA toward the expansion of the County Park and the 7 acres leased by Park and Rec. The project would provide for closing the road, fencing in the entire area, filling the low lying property, building a walkway around/within the park, providing pervious paving and landscaping to the specs of the CRA Public Realm design. Park and Rec has budgeted $90,000 for the project, the Airport Authority has committed the fill at no charge and the ED requested $100,000 to apply to the project. Action: A motion was made by Mr. Rice made a motion to recommend to the CRA tofund $100,000 toward the Airport Park expansion partnership, Ms Deyo seconded the motion and it was passed with one abstention by Mr. Olesky. c. The Executive Director provided an update on the progress toward the Business Development Center partnership at the Immokalee Airport. She stated that the Airport Authority Board voted unanimously to support the development of the business incubator, to provide space, a receptionist and maintenance for the facility. She reported that she has submitted the program documents to the County Attorney's office for review. Upon approval, she will submit the package to the CRA/BCC and request a total of $100,000 to support the incubator. She requested the advisory board approve an amount of $100,000 as opposed to the $90,000 previously requested. Action: A motion was made by Mr, Crews made a motion to recommend to the CRA to fund $100,000 toward the Business Development Center at the Airport, Mr. Olesky seconded the motion and it passed by unanimous vote, J. Citizen Comments. K. Next Meeting Date. 1. Adiournment. e. b. November 18,2009 at 8:30 A.M. This meeting was adjourned at 9: 12 A.M 2 IMMOKALEE eRA 16/1a12 . Collie' County Cornmuf1Ily Rede.eloprnent Agency i The Place to Cal! Harne r Certification of Minutes Approval Form pr~j by: l I lippi, Executive ector ee Community Re evelopment Agency Approved by:, s.::;;:.=:=~ ... '\ ,I"" "~". - .,/ -----=.;;.:tC\L,~:::r Fred N. Thomas, Jr., Chmrman These Minutes for the October 21, 2009, CRA Advisory BoardlEZDAlIMPVC Meeting were approved by the CRA Advisory BoardlEZDAlIMPVC Committee on November 18, 2009, as presented. · The next joint Advisory BoardlEZDAlIMPVC meeting will be held December 16, 2009 at 8:30A.M. at the Career and Service Center located at 750 South 5th Street in Immokalee. .. There is no scheduled IMPVC meeting at this time. Further meetings will be held at 5:30 P.M. at the Career and Service Center located at 750 South 5th Street in Immokalee and will be appropriately noticed and announced in advance of such meetings. All meetings will be publicly noticed in the W. Harmon Turner Building (Building F), posted at the Immokalee Public Library and provided to the County Public Information Department for distribution, Please call Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at 239-252-2313 for additional information. In accordance with the American with Disabilities Act, persons needing assistance to participate in any of these proceedings should contact Christie Betancourt, Administrative Assistant, at least 48 hours before the meeting, The public should be advised that members of the Immokalee Master Plan and Visioning Committee and the CRA Advisory Board are also members of the other Boards and Committees, including, but not limited to: EZDA, Immokalee Local Redevelopment Advisory Board, Immokalee Fire Commission, and the Collier County Housing Authority; etc. In this regard, matters coming before the IMPVC and the Advisory Board may come before one or more of the referenced Board and Committees from time to time, Fiala RECEIVED Halas Henning NOV 2 3 2lIl9 g~r~~a -\ ~1 u ! BoaroofCounty~ MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD 16 11 v October 21, 2009 81. - Naples, Florida, October 21,2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the County Collier Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 2:00 P.M., at the North Collier Regional Park in the Administration Building in Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: John P. Ribes (Excused) VICE CHAIRMAN: Edward "Ski" Olesky Barbara Buehler Phillip Brougham (Excused) Kerry Geroy David Saletko ALSO PRESENT: Barry Williams, Director, Parks & Recreation Tona Nelson, Sr. Administrative Assist. Nancy Olson, Senior Park Naturalist Peg Ruby, Marketing Specialist Amy Patterson, Impact Fee/Economic Development Mgr. I<IlIse c. "'l' t 'J.--~l t- Daten_-U1; 0 l rtem # LleJ-L~- I.:? - ~ ol6l49 a 1 3 ' I. Call to Order Vice Chairman Olesky called the meeting to order at 2:00pm and a quorum was established. II. Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and Invocation was given. III. Approval of Agenda Ms. Buehler moved to approve the Agenda subject to the following change: Item V. c to be heard before item V. a Second by Ms. Geroy. Carried unanimously 4-0. IV. Approval of September 16,2009 minntes Ms. Buehler moved to approve the minutes of the September 16,2009 meeting. Second by Ms. Geroy. Carried unanimously 4 - O. V. New Business c) Applicant Interviews The Board heard presentations by the following individuals: William C. Shafer . From Ohio, . A graduate of Princeton University. . Employed by Merrill Lynch in sales and Management . Volunteer at St. Monica's Episcopal Church . Founded "Princeton Project "55, a program to place Princeton students and graduates in non-profit organizations. David Newton Galloway . From Michigan . Experienced in law enforcement . Served on the Oakland (Michigan) County Commission. . Worked with various Parks and Recreation Bart Zino noted he previously . Served on the Parks and Recreations Advisory Board and interested in serving again. The Board cast ballots to rank the applicants; Mr. Zino received the most votes, followed by Mr, Schafer and Mr. Galloway. Ms. Buehler moved to recommend (to the BCC) Bart Zino for appointment to the Parks and Recreations Advisory Board. Second by Mr. Saletko. Carried unanimously 4-0. 2 16 L1er2~2!9 3 Barry Williams, Director of Parks and Recreation noted he will contact the County Attorney's Office to ensure proper procedures are followed when the Board recommends potential applicants to the Board of County Commissioners. a) Director's Highlights Barry Williams provided the following highlights: . The Exhibit Hall at North Collier Regional Park has been leased to the Health Department (October - December) for a Swine Flu Prevention Program. . He attended a National Recreation and Parks Association conference in Salt Lake City, UT. At a future meeting, he will provide a Report with recommendations based on the experience. . He attended the "Naples Zoo Retreat" on October 17, 2009. The Zoo leases property from the County. Due to the fact the bond the County borrowed to purchase the property has been paid off early, the Zoo would like the rent reduced to a "nominal amount" (from $235,000 to approximately $100 a year). . The Department is the recipient of Federal "Energy Dollars" and will be retrofitting the Gulf Coast Little League field and the Immokalee Community Center Field lights with Musco Lighting b) Employee of the Month for September The Board recognized Edwin Barosso as "Employee of the Month" for the Month of September 2009. c) Impact Fee Study - Paula Fleischman Amy Patterson, Impact Fee and Economic Development Manager provided the Executive Summary "Recommendations that the Board of County Commissioners adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 74 of the Collier Count Code of Laws and Ordinances (The Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance) by providingfor the incorporation by reference of the impact fee study entitled "Collier County Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Update Study, " dated June 26, 2009; amending schedule Three of Appendix A to reflect the revised rates set forth in the impact free study and providingfor an effective date of November 1,2009 for the Regional Parks Impact Fee rates and a delayed effective date of February J, 20W for the Community Parks Impact Fee rates in accordance with the notice period requirements of Section 163.31801 (3)(d) Florida Statutes; the cumulative results of the rate changes being an overall decrease in Parks Impact Fees" for review by the Board, She noted Staff (Parks and Recreation, Impact Fee, Budget Office and County Manager) have completed a study and recommend the Board of County Commissioners decreasing the impact fee rates charged for Parks and Recreation facilities. 3 16 I 1 B 13 October 21, 2009 Ms. Geroy moved to approve the revised impact fee schedule as provided in the Executive Summary. Second by Ms. Buehler. Carried unanimously 4-0. e) Annual Update Inventory Report - Barry Williams and Sidney Kittila Barry Williams provided a detailed overview of the 2009 Annual Update Inventory Report (AUlR). The Report provides an analysis of current and future County Park Facilities inventories. The analysis is used to ensure a specified level of service standard is provided for Community and Regional Parks over the next 10 years based on the County's population. Mr. Saletko moved to approve the Report. Second by Mr. Buehler. Carried unanimously 4-0. VI. Marketing Highlights - Peg Rnby . Annual Child Safety Fair - North Collier Regional Park - October 10,2009 . Halloween Happening - East Naples Community Park - October 24, 2009 . Fall Festival- Eagle Lakes Community Park - October 29 - November 1, 2009. . Market in the Park - North Collier Regional Park - every Friday, October 30, 2009 through April 2010. VII. Recreation Highlights - Freedom Park - Nancy Olsen . The Grand Opening for the Park was held on October 6, 2009. . The Parks and Recreation Department, Conservation Collier and Collier County Storm water Management developed the Park, VIII. Capital Project Highlight - Tony Ruberto Barry Williams provided the Capital Project Update noting the soccer fields under construction at East Naples Community Park is on schedule. IX. Adopt a Park -Kerry Geroy Continued Barry Williams noted he would contact Margaret Bishop for an update on the Gordon River Greenway Project. X. Informational Items Submitted XI. Public Comments None 4 '11 f,/: B1 ,if."j ! 1 3 October 21, 2009 Meetinz Attendance Chairman Ribes and Mr, Brougham were excused. There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:07 PM. COLLIER COUNTY PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD ,/ These Minutes approved by the Board/Committee on as presented e or as amended_ 5 1611814 " "'" Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 November 17,2009 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: October 20, 2009 V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report- Caroline Soto B, Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard VI. Landscape Maintenance Report - Hannula VII. Landscape Architect Report A. McGee & Assoc, B. Windham Studios VIII. Old Business A. December Public Informational Meeting I. Confirm date and time IX. New Business X. Committee Member Comments XI. Public Comments XII. Adjournment Public Informational Meeting - TBA The next meeting is December 15, 20093:30 p.m. CC Transportation Bldg. 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 ::#ltd-/\O 1tem.:llQTf \ )El~ Copies to " "" Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 16 I lFJ 1 4'1 October 20, 2009 Minutes I. The meeting was called to order by Dale Lewis at 3:31 PM. II. ATTENDANCE Members: Dale Lewis, Betty Schudel, Bill Jaeger (Excused), Helen Carella, John Weber County: Darryl Richard-Project Manager, Tessie Sillery-Operations Coordinator, Caroline Soto-Budget Analyst, Pam Lulich-Landscape Operations Manager Others: Mike McGee-McGee & Associates, James Stephens-Hannula Landscaping, Scott Windham-Windham Studios, Darlene Lafferty-Mancan, III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Change: Vll. B. Windham Studios was moved to V. B. V. B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard was moved to V. C Betty Schudel moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by John Weber. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 15, 2009 Change: Pg 3, Vll. A., first Bullet, should read: "Xanadu" VII. should read: "ARCHiTECT" John Weber moved to approve the September i5, 2009 minutes as amended. Second by Betty SchudeL Motion carried unanimously 4-0. V. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT: A. Budget Report-Caro1ine Soto reviewed the following: (See attached) Sevtember 30, 2009 Fiscal Year end Revort o Ad Valorem Tax shortage $11,516.21 o Investment Interest overage $13,285.60 o Remaining Open P.O.(s) Improvements General $42,040.31 for Windham Studios was rolled into FY10 October 20. 2009 Revort o Anticipated Ad Valorem Tax $305,800.00 o Operating Expense P.O.(s) were opened $50,302.29 o Available Improvements General $618,900.00 o Line Item 13 Actual Expenditures reflected negative $4,784.76 due to an incorrect invoice that was cancelled 1 o Fund 158 Report (See attached) o FYIO Millage Rate (Fund 158) (see attached) Fund (] 58) Carry forward Analvsis o Actual Report from previous Fiscal Years (2002 through 2009) o Line Item Rev - Exp (Yr Ending) 2008-2009 $931,700.00 o A Budget Amendment of$34l,589.00 to Capital Outlay is possible January 2010 to fund the Project 16 III 814 Darryl Richard noted the Available Capital Outlay will be $960,489.00 with the additional $341,589.00 from the January 2010 Budget Amendment. Pam Lulich noted Water and Sewer was paid from Fund 111 as the Line Item was dropped in 2009-2010 Budget. After Project completion Devonshire will need to pay for their water. B. Windham Studios Windham Studios Scott Windham reviewed the Status Report and Phase III Budget Reports. He reviewed the following: (See attached) ABB: Curbinl!. Desil!.n o Curb Construction Plans-IOO% complete o Engineer's Opinion of Cost (See attached) o Percolation and soil tests-in progress Jim Stephens reported soil samples are not back and expect results in 2-3 weeks. Windham Studios Opinion of Probable Cost IOO% Plans (See attached) o Section VI Curbing and Lane Construction - Item 1-$485,477.00 includes basic topsoil fill and is based on the assumption soil and percolation tests are clean - Item 2-Ester Street turn lanes construction-$32,018.00 Pam Lulich was requested to confer with TECM on a Funding commitment for Ester Street turn lanes construction. Scott Windham continued: - Total Base cost Sections I.-VI. (Livingston to Airport Pulling)- $801,402.70 o Section X Alternate Curbing E-xcavation/Fill (If existingfill quantity is below specifications) - Item 1-$206,740.00 For additional excavation and fill if needed o Section VII Alternate Plant Specifications List - Plant List utilizes a smaller size of original plants at $43,000.00 cost savings while preserving the same Design Concept - May Bid on both sizes 2 16 1!1 It was confirmed the current Project was approved by the BCC. Additionally Hannula Landscaping is under contract to begin construction from Tina Lane to Briarwood and Santa Barbara to Devonshire. Darryl Richard recommended a Public meeting be held to inform Residents of the Phase III Project. B14 Dale Lewis moved to set up a town hall (Public) meeting to discuss plan from (Phase III Project) from Livingston Rd. to Airport Pulling Rd. Second by Betty SchudeL Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Pam Lulich stated Windham Studios cost estimate included 15% contingency into the ABB base bid. She noted the BCC allows 10% and suggested removing the 15% contingency. The revised Total cost is $691,396.85 without contingency and utilizing the Alternate Plant List. It was agreed by Staff the Curbing, Construction and Striping Bid package will be independent from the Landscaping and Irrigation Bid package. After much discussion it was concluded the Informal Public meeting consisting of a rotating slide show will be held December 1,2009 at the Golden Gate Community Center. Staff will advise the Committee of confirmed time and date. C. Project Manager Report-Darryl Richard gave additional information: (See attached) (R-lI) Devonshire Svrav lrrif!ation Refurbishment o Hannula Invoice has not been paid due to cost adjustments (tentative $17,000.00) (R-15) Radio Road Phase 11-B & Phase I-A o Hannula Bid $172,810.70 will be taken from Capital Improvements o Reduces Available Capital Improvements $446,089.30 Discussions ensued concerning available monies for the Radio Rd. Phase III Project and additional deductions from Capital Improvements were noted: o Hannula payment for Devonshire cost adjustments $17,000.00 o Devonshire Irrigation Main Line Project $18,020.00 o Adjusted Capital Improvements Total Budget $752,589.00 Darryl Richard reviewed Bid Tabulation RFQ 006 Devonshire Blvd. Main Line Replacement. (See attached) o PBS (Professional Building Systems lowest qualified Bid-$18,020.00 o Hannula Landscaping is the Sub Contractor Dale Lewis moved to approve (Professional Building Systems) bid in the amount of $18,020.00. Second by Betty Schudel. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. VI. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE REPORT-Hannula-None 3 VII. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT REPORT A. McGee & Associates - Mike McGee reported: o Median 1-6, 8,14, & 15-Weeds require removal o Median 8-A1amanda in need of supplements o Median 9-Collapsed Paver requires repair o Magnolias (in front of reuse water tank)-Require mulch after weed removal in tree rings o Medians 23 & 21 (Phase ll-B)-2 areas of sunken Pavers o Median I-Accident damage to Bougainvillea and Juniper o Median 26,27, and 28-Grass removal required in curb joints o Median east end Devonshire and Santa Barbara-Recommend removal of (5) Ixora ,16'1 814 ~ VIII. OLD BUSINESS Darryl Richard recommended executing the Livingston Rd. to Airport Pulling Rd as one project to avoid additional Consulting cost. IX. NEW BUSINESS-None X. COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS-None XI. PUBLIC COMMENT-None There being no further business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned at 5:07 P.M. Radio Road Beautification MSTU Advisory Committee (){J~ t) tU1M . Dale Lewis, Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on If" I" 0 1 as presented (j' or amended . The next meeting is November 17,2009 at 3:30 p.m. ee Transportation Building 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 4 r ',. _,.-D;j:r /~i~ '-~j H. enn\og ',' CO"'1 *' C ,~~ , &'10,... .__ ___ " ; , ...... 16 ,I ~E/ijA;; DEe 0 2 2009 Radio Road Beautification M.S.T.U. Advisory Committee 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples FL 34104 Board of County Commissioners SUMMARY OF MINUTES & MOTIONS October 20, 2009 III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Change: VII B. Windham Studios was moved to V. B. V. B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard was moved to V. C. Betty Schudel moved to approve the agenda as amended. Second by John Weber. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 15, 2009 Change: Pg. 3, VII A",{lrst Bullet, should read: "Xanadu" VII should read: "ARCHITECT" John Weber moved to approve the September 15, 2009 minutes as amended. Second by Betty SchudeL Motion carried unanimously 4-0. V. TRANSPORTATION SERVICES REPORT B. Windham Studios Windham Studios It was confirmed the current Project was approved by the BeC. Additionally Hannula Landscaping is under contract to begin construction from Tina Lane to Briarwood and Santa Barbara to Devonshire. Darryl Richard recommended a Public meeting be held. Dale Lewis moved to set up a town hall (Public) meeting to discuss plan (Phase III) from Livingston Rd. to Airport Pulling Rd. Second by Betty SchudeL Motion carried unanimously 4-0. C. Project Manager Report-Darryl Richard reviewed Bid Tabulation for Devonshire Blvd, Main Line Replacement and noted Professional Building Systems was the lowest qualified Bid-$18,020.00 Dale Lewis moved to approve (Professional Building Systems) bid in the amount of$18,020.00. Second by Betty SchudeL Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Mise- Cones: 011I: lllIm .: Copies to, 16 I 1 '1~ ttt~t~~~~~~t~~~=~~~~~~~~~G~~~~.~N=O~m~m~~WN- ~;O;O-lmm-l-lo~oo~or-c"rs::s::"'m~::;;m"or~mm -lZ()()-l-l;o~~~O() ~mm;occ;o;o)>""-lm-lm();o)>c~"c,,,)>r-O-l)>ozz~m)>)>~~m-l<~mc ~~m~ao~>~~mI~I~m~~r~~~c~~OOI~-9~1 iQ~~ <mm~r~ ~~~~~~i~~O~~r~r~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~: ~~~~~~~~~~~~ j' <<~~~~~~~~ON~>m~~ zrmQz>~m~a>~mm ~Om~~~~Cm"'-l;:I<< mm ~~ oo~z~m-Ooo > az'l 0 ~~ oo~~ m > ~~~~~~~c~Qm~~~>~~ z~~mO~QZ~Ozz ~~~~~~~~~~5~0 ;oozz ~-lZ-lm~Im~;O-lZoOS:: ~~S::G>'" I~~~G>G> ~;O)><E;o;o;ox-o;o~ III oZoooo c~oo~~~rrn~O~-l oowmm ~> ~~~ om~$OOCaZzmm O"'-l)> z~ mzm)>wU S;-l~Z::;; c()Q;omm O<moo;:S::O-lom-l-;:~ ~o - Q -zzm~m zm m~m ~~Ommmm z ~ z ~ z mZQOm~~m~ o~ ~ wcz,oooo zz~o> Cr~-l-l-l ~ ov n z000- U/~-- ~ ~ ~ ~cm~~~~~mm>> z o~ 0 mmcOO _z~ ~~ r ~~m~ ~lDmZmoimo~~Xx ~ Fffi ~ ~ ~~~ ~~oo >z OOr~I mzo d m z ~~ 0 r cffi Q ~m~ ~ ffi~ ~gF ~ ~ () -l ;0 m;: G>z $ s:: ' s::m ~ 0 > 00 > 0 m mO ~ ~ Z m Z >~ o Q 00 ~ ~o n' , ;0 ~~~ffiffi~ffi_ffi_ffiffiffiffi~~ffi~~~ffiffi~ffiffiffi~ffiffi~ 'Efltflffi6"J{flf;96"J(fl6"J{ftfttffl ",,,,f~== O~NWWNNN ~N N woo ~m~~~NNN~~~mo~oo-80 ooooom~~oooooooo 0 ooooooo~~ooooooooo 0 ooooooo~mooooooooooo ooooooowwooooooooooo '" 0)'0...... 000 000 000 000 O>~ .... WOWO'I ~g~~ 0000 8888 m )> fI\Ii l: 3 W ... CD '" ::l ~ ~ 0 ... '" 0 !J' CD CD '" 0 '" - ... 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .8 .8 EB (:R .ffl (:R (:R .ffl .ffl ElfElf-EflEltfR 0 0 3 3 ::; 3 CD ;,. ::l liT ElfElff:ltfl)-Efl-Eflf:lt iflifliflEltifl EltEltEltEltEltEltElt_~Mffiffiffiffi~ffiffiffiffialfflfflffiffi~wmffiffi .... " '" N N ~ N en . ~ 0 w "m N a, CD 0 " " m N m " 0 0 '" m '" " <v m '" ... '""' '" '" " 0 ~ '" - ~ w '" "" '" ~ <n EltEltEltEltEltEltElt_Elt_EltEltiflf:ltEltEltEltElt-EflEltEltEltEltEltEltEltEltEltEltElt - ~ - NN.~N (DO'INWt.rJNNOI .tla.A 1d~~~~~~i......~mo w<>>-...JOO.........U)NNO)~ ~~~gg!::~t~~~~ .... Co <0 '" o '" ... .... "'....'" 00>" Co~:"" <0"'''' <0 '" ill a> ~ 00>'" 00 I\.>~""'" 8l&;8 :""'(,.)0 "'000 .... o a> eo 00 a> ~ N ~ ~(D W (.0) o I\.>.W(o U1.tla.CDWOCD WCDO'I......O'I('O) ~omN:.....~ W,f).SSS~ EltEltEltEltEltEltf:lt_Elt_EltEltEltiflEltEltEltEltEltEltEltElt.fflEltifl.fflEltEltEltElt ifliflEltf:lt.ffl.fflEltEltU'tEltEltElt -""~............ OO~O)"'" 00-...J......0) 00 0)(,,) N gg~~~ " -< en'" " -< "'a> en", -<-< CoCo en", <0 0'1 oU; N ~gggg~~g OOOOOO)NOA oo~8. 0:....,0,00 00'" S~<>>OA N en O'lf\) N W-,,"OOo,wo ~~1ll8!ll8 ;"0000000 ..........S..9-""o ~-:;; ~....,. N "'0 ....eo 0,<0 ..::!~ ....- "'.... ~~ oeo om o.!!! ~ ~ _'" w ...... O'l -", -"" (.0)0, O'l,f).(D(.o)O...... W(DO'l.....O'to) ~OmN:.....N WAOOO~ m )( "tl ~ ~ "'c e:!!. ~ CD co ~ 0- !!. ~~ iD B1.4 f ~ If"110 3c;u c:rZo ~c)> w"'c QUI - co 3: N CIl g ~ CD C 1611 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m~~~~~o~~~m~A~N ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~B~~~~~~~~~~~I~~~~~~~~ ji~ ~ (I) n (I)CJ) ~ 2 ~ ~?! ~ ~ ~ ~ 1;5 ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ 1;5 R: ~""!ft # ~ ~!l! "1 E; E; I~~~~~~arm~o~~~rn~~ i~~~8~~~.I'.i.~ma~~~~~ 0~>>~~~~g~Q~~OO()<m~~~ z~m~z~OZ0~~>>0Zrr on>> ~~ >>~ ZZ OOOQ~4_0 ~~~400 >>022 ~r~~>mm>>oo~ m~m >>Z~Q ~>>>>>>->>~ (") z C/') C/) c: ~ en ." -I ::tl 'r;:::! -00)>0 r (f) Z ):. () ;R,o' n ~;;U:D 5 ~ m m 00-1):. Z<~mzm ~m::tl-lm )>o-lm 05::tlm OmOo~m~~ Z-lo-o Z mZonZZ;;u Zm;;U -I moo ZilZOOC;:;tl-lS;.... ~ o~ (") z0mC/)amoQ~~~ o~> c~~o C~m~m):- Z 0):. 0 m erne ~~~ ~~r ~~ro-l -mmzmOO ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ looo C/)~C/) ~~ C/)mr~I m zm -I z mm 0 r II UJ ~-1 ;;U (f)m O~ (") ~::tl ~ m~ ~~ S~::tl ~r -< 0 -I (J'J :> () m CD :::tI m z m z )> o Q en -I s:; _oo~~~oo~~_~M~~~oooomooffiffi~ffiffi~ffiffiffi.ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi I.. !~ ~ ;;; 0.... "'''' .. 0 .. ,'" "'''' .. .. "'- '" <0 0 0 ,'" '" w- 0 0'" .. '........ H '"'" '0 0.0, 0'" 0 0 0 '" '" 0 '" ...0 0 00 00 ...0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 "'0 0 0 00 00 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0 =8 6 6 66 66 ~~ :"'6 6 6 6 66 6 6 60 6 6 6 0 0 00 00 .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 .9 .'00 YI '" "'''' "'''' _u> ,,> 1(1 'n '" '" (n '" '" '" ,n m u> '" ,n '" (I) "'WffiY:lffiffi "''''''' .. b '" e' N '" ~.J '" ~ ro ,,> ~ .', w 0, '" ro 0 " '" " '" 0 '" C) U N '" 0' 0 '" .' ~ ," " 0 .... c::' '" CJ ,or, "' 0 0 '" , ~~~~~~~_~_w~wwwww~www~wwww w = WWW{fl{fl{fl{fl{fl "' " .... ... w :;: '.... m N '" oo 0 '" .. oo <0 .. 0 .. "? "' 0 .... 0 .. 0 "' f!J 0 g "' "' "? {flW{fl{fl(A~~_~_{fl(A(AW~W{fl(A{flEA{fl{fl~W{flW W{fl W{fl {flEA(AEA II.. "''" .:: '" _0; "'''' ~- "'~ "' .... - "'"' .. 0 ....'" "'"' ..oo '" .. '" <0 '" 0 .."'.... '" ""010(0 0 0 0 0>>- ........ 58 fg: 6 '" '0 '" 0 '0 00 0> ~......om 0 o,Q)NID 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0<0 "'00 0 ......0......0 0 0 0 00 00 ~~ 0 0 00 0 0 00 00 "'00 o -0 -0 !tg 6 6 00 00 0.0 "'0 6 6 00 6 6 06 ow 666 g,t~g 60 0 0 00 00 00 ....0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0.... 000 2!.9 :;;s::s:: S::,; I ." ." ." ." 5.8.8 " c- " " 0 " " ~ [ ~ r il ~, ~, c-. . g ~ ~ ~ c- "'.. c " " ~""Qo ~ " " ~ < b' r '" 'i' . en"" ",' ~ ~ " . c- C g: g: ~ w ~ ~ 5- 15 15 '" c- o 6' w c . g ~ ~ Z " 3" 3 rr - w ~ . <0 it g J & ~ . 5 ~ . . ii ~ ~ . ~ ~ e ~ '~ a a ~ 0'" "0 '"0 ,"0 00 <00 Ii, .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. !i '" '" '" '" '" 0 '" '" '" 0 0 0 0 0 af 0 0 0 " ,. '" '" '" 0 Gl '" '" '" '" ~ 'I u " :~ ~ 0 'S: 0 () 0 0 0 0 .... '" '" " :;: :;: '" '" i t .... "' .... w " oo "' "' .... "' ~ '" '" "' :,'~<;L' <0 '" .. <0 "' <0 <0 ~ ')''1\ 0 ~ 'ill' ',elf., 0 0 0 '" 0 0 0 0 '" I J oo oo oo '" &,: '" oo '" .. 0, 0, 0, w z z W 0, W 0 0 0 .... 'j; 'j; ~ 0 oo 0: '" '" '" :j :: '" <0 " ,I 0 0 0 '" '" '" 0 f " "< -~'C:; ~~~rfb'~~S: 5.5.5.~s5.a~ wW~li\'''~~''' 0fJfJM~_Cf)m$ _j~ -g ~ 9!.. ~ i T' po ~ ~ 5 3"g.g. m ~ -- -:; to CD CD ffi g ~ ~ '&~~~ . en en '::;~' ~ ~ C'3: ,,~ =to N' !:."". . 0 , ~ &' 3 ~ < c, '0 " o " I," ", 0' u" 'r- ", on (n "', ~:i ~:, w c' J--.. r, ~.l C m (" o ;u 11 " m r;~ 1, C" ,--n e. _(R(AEAW(AW~~{fl{fl '" " '" ... " "' '" :;: '" oo '" 0 0> .. .. 0 <0 '" .. .... "? 0 6 "' '" f!J 0 "' '" " n ;; !!!. " " 0: 91i1 Ill> c 3 Q. ~ !.i' Q. o o 3 3 i " iii' ;;; "' "? m " i > " n e:2" 2'!!.. ~ .. ;;; o '" '" "'0 "'0 (00 -.9 ~ -t !. ~~ is' ~ ~ 0 ... - 0"0 crC:;:o !!1Z0 NO)> ~O ~ 0 NCOs: g en u> -l c: co L() ~ ~ '0 C ::J LL ::J f- CI) ::;; C o ~ u "" "" ::J '" OJ In '0 '" o 0:: o '6 '" 0:: U) '(ij >- C;; C <( '0 ~ '" 2: ~ ~ '" () a ~- a" N co , '0 co ~ gal N g;:~ o~ ~< a... a. NUJ ., a_ am N ~ ,,"13 g< N .... a_ am N ~ tht) g< N "' a_ am N ~ .113 g< N "' 8(ij N ~ ;j;13 a< N ... a a- N m ,3 M 0 a< a N M a a- N m , ~ N13 a< a N " m " >- ~ . u: a a .; M ., .. a a a 6 a M .. a a "' ci '" .... .. a a N .; "' ;;; a a a '" N ;;; a a N oj co .. a a a ci ~ ;;; a a "' .; ... N .. . ~ 3 'is o " "- ill a a ., .; a M .. a a a -.i co N .. a a "'- ;; M .. a a ., 6 :;: .. a a co :8 N .. a a M oj M N .. a a ., .; N ... .. a a a ci .... M .. . " ~ o " > " '" co :S E " "- o a a a .; .. a a ., -.i N .. a a "' M .. a a -.i .. a a "' ci "' .. a a .... ,.: ;;; a a "' oj ;;; a a M .; ;;; " ~ o " > " '" ~ '" o 6' a "' .; ~ a .. a .. a .. a .. a .. a .. a .. " ~ " . 8! " ~ o " > 8! a a co ci M "' .. a .. a a "'- N 0; .. a a ... ,.: '" N ;;; a a "' .; M '" ;;; a a .... ci M '" .. a a N -.i ., "' .. a a M .; "' M .. a a '"- ;:: N .. 'E m ~ ~ m U co o 'E o o '0> " al a a ., ~ '" M .. a a ....- ;;; '" .. '" a ' "O....:o~ ;;G~m ~ ~"- ~ o C)U Z" "5 ~ffi.!::<( ~ a:: .....;::"'0...."0 \'13 to c: (1)::1 0 O>WWCC Cl. a a ., oj ~ '" .. a a M .; ., N ;;; ;; '" M '" ;;; a a a oj ... '" .. a a .... .; .... "' .. a a a 6 N ... .. 0; o 'is o UJ ~ "- x UJ > " '" 16,1 I B14 N 6 "' .. '" '" "'- ~ .. '" o 0 ~:2 ~fB Q) t) 3: ~ ctI :E E 5.8 c"S: ~!{l fii3? go 1'0.... -::I "(; J(5~8~N 1611 B14 October 20, 2009 Prepared by: Darryl Richard, Project Manger, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Tessie Sillery, Operations Coordinator, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Radio Road MSTU Proiect Report (R-23) - COMPLETED - Painting the median bull-nose with numbers 8-25-09: Trutwin quote for $850,00 approved by Committee 9'-15-09: Work is not complete; Billy at Trutwin confirms work will be done week of Sept. 21_25'h 9-25-09: Work Complete (R-22) - ON BOLD - DEVONSHIRE sbrub REFURBISHMENT; 7-21-09: Proposal is submitted for Committee review to install new shrubs - now that new drip line has been installed: Total Project cost estimated per contract 09-5111R rates: $8,700.00; 8-25-09: Drip Irrigation is installed; Staff and Consultant to review new proposed plantings 8-25-09: Committee agrees with recommendation from Consultant (McGee) to hold off on planting shrubs for areas where we have known issues with tree roots. (This condition applies to many of the areas with shrubs dying back) (R-21) - COMPLETED - DEVONSHIRE (Belville to Santa Barbara) Spray Irrigation REFURBISHMENT: 7-21-09: Proposal is submitted for Committee review to install irrigation and shrubs (Clusia); Total project cost estimated based 09-5111R: $16,964,80 8-25-09: Adjusted home-owner's irrigation; McGee to inspect/approve locations for new irrigation; Irrigation parts in stock. 9-15-09: Project is 60% completed; many adjustments necessary due to homeowner's landscaping within the easement area has caused some delay in project activity. (R-18) - RADIO ROAD Phase 3 Project (Livingston Rd. to Airport Pulling; Windbam Studios (PO 4500105824) 8-25-09: 60% Submittal plans under review, 9-15-09: 90% Submittal plans under review, 10-20-09: Pubic Meeting coordination with Committee (R-15) - RADIO ROAD PHASE II-B & Phase I-A (Il-B is from Kings Way/Briarwood Entry to Tina Lane); (I-A is from Devonshire to Santa Barbara) 8-25-09: BCC approval on September 15,2009 for award to Hannula Landscape 9-15-09: BCC approval of Bid for Hannula Landscape, 10-7-09: Contract under review by County Legal (R-19) - New Maintenance Consulting Contract - McGee to June 30, 2009; PO 4500104739 8-25-09: Ongoing Maintenance Consulting Services from McGee & Associates; LA Services Contract to be reviewed in the fall for BVO or rotation per 'agreement letter' with Radio Road MSTU, (R-14) - MAINTENCE CONTRACT - BID# 09-5111R -- "Radio Road Beautification MSTD/MSTU Roadway Grounds Maintenance" 8-25-09: Hannula for maintenance - Ongoing, ,... Z W :!! W () j II. W II:: W Z ::i Z <C :!! ci > :J..J ....1lI IIlW :!!II:: o:I: <(Ill OZ a::~ OW 50 ~~ 0> '? '" o ... u E ... c o () () Cl it: e. '" o o a u.. a:: " .5 W ...I e UJ :t: o '" ~ < ii: UJ I- < :; e z < e iii !~ " ;:10 ~~ -;;,,, c,s g", '" c C.Q "m (t\ E" " c- .S! ~ rti.2 'E~ .~ 0 .!::: ; L: c '" ,- .. e- mg.!: UJ"m geE > ",,, ~ c ~ . ~~.8~ lL~Z.~ Om"ffiu w:5l5"(j) o..~13<1> 00<05 o tn.= "C cnC:"Cc Z "c..LU (IJ o Q.o... .... -~e~ I-......I::J 0..03:0) D2U;Q)>. U '0 c ~ U)cnlm W8OJ> e c" I-g=5 o .O'S C W....0Q) (3 ~~! O:::...cCQ) a..l--ro..c 16 / 1 Rl ~ , I I 00 0 00 00 0 00 do a dd ;e:;1; <0 <0 El <0. M .,; as ~ ~ 'Ui 0 u :ii "'''' .. '" .. 0 l- og 00 0 00 0 C!m dd a '<tUJ "'0 <0 N", '" <0. < m - ...I '" < 0 I- 0 0 - I- 'c .. .. ::> - ~>-= en u.: 'c uju) ..J ..J ::> <0<0 0 NN ~ a " ~ .,; -" -" c o 0 Q) C c:: 0 +=< E 'm 0..0 I.'! B E i:S-g ~ m W UJ -~~7ij~ ~ ~ ~~ LDc"'O-o "8 I =ocri _><-2lijg "C roc:::'E U')~lD-o .; Si Q)(l)~ ~ ~-oo ffi C & -g.s c - m 0 u"""S ~..EOQ) CD .... cOUl ._~c~ "C 0..(1).-(01-..... "OOl(l)..... I.'! t)~.9=t:tO~ ~cECJ) en ~o..Q)Q)OE ~EO"o~ 11j c....ocnL8 g3E'- oQ).o~Q)co ~I.-.~~~;E OO"1ij....:ao. ;;i~~~llf16di ci.-g58..~~ ~'iii~-o~~g; BcefljgR-g g:Q..~Offi~:g-,? oi5o~U)m(l) N ~a:::...J~:.g ~:a:a516-g ~CcQ)~f/JGiCIJ i:r:~1i'c"Cro OlQo5clD....OQ) Oclll ~Z~o5-gc-g ~g~u(IJ~ s<oO()0813 ~4::;=Q)~.... cazB~w.5C'J.E 0'IQ),,5E8C: C ., =Oc:o c <<lg.oE Q u ~ol-~t- .Q= E "g.1l3 cl--mctJouj'xx (tJ.5wJ!:Jmlh .2 <( r... a. Q) 'E Q) -~ "Em a.. ~ :I: ~ -a::"~L..I::m_ .- Qo.c _<><8.::"O~Q) roECIE.Q5 ....a..i:'o oCro-oU) 0 g,,'_ u W .:.::: m tn'- ..J c)+' T""" (i) rtl : 0:: Clm ~ US 0 I/) c( .5 ~n: .... a. 0> oa...5 3:c:ril- g.~ii:]i'EO.e ~:~ - .S~OO"6...w><._C/)VJ__ E~ tUE"fijcDO"'C g~ Q)~o g'c05m CD_ cLL c:: g-.'O lO;e C)lD e....~2o<DaI ::EQ)~'-l;::;C::"'C 'D~l1)Q):g25([): zC::~U)():a:::J --0>0 rJ>{OOcU)rn --13 ~ :& ~ 8 ~ :s. ~ ~ f= ~.~ c3 ~ ~.~ a ~ ~ '0 ffi g-~ E (J 0.9 ~.9 0...1- ..w - g t: ~ rnrn - ~N '<t M 16/1 814 (JbS . STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD . . 1940 NORTH MONROE STREET s TALLAHASSEE FL 32399-0783 REGULATION (850) 487-1395 BUDD, RUSSELL ALAN PBS CONSTR'O'CTIONINC 4395 CORPORATE SQUARE NAPLES FL 34104 Congratulationsl With this license you becC/l)e one of the nea~y one million Floridians licensed by the. Departmeni of Business and Professional RegUlation. Out professionals "nd ~Usinesse.. range frOm arcMeets to yacl1t brokors. from bo~,,", to barbeque restaurants. and they keep Florida's economy strong, Every day WI! work to Improve the wey "'" do business In Ofder to serve you gelfer. For Information about our servi<:8S. please log onto www.myfloridallcen...com. There you can find more h,(ormatlon. abOut our dlvlsfons and th,e regulations that Impact you, subscrib<! to department newslelt<lrS and learn mOfll about the Departmenfs Inftlallves. OUr mission. at the Dapartment Is: License Efficlentiy. RegUlate Fairly. We constantly strive to serve you better 5_0 that ,yqu can serve your customers. Thank you for doing business In Florida. and congretulations on yout new llcensel '~."J)~~~::i~~ \;~l:clsi~19S- '. 95/26109 080467297 CIlP'IlI';I~ caiU:llAL COllTRACTOR ~"B~...~&lISSIlL:!:t' ~: '1:11 ~STil!{~IO. ~C ;'Jiw "'--'. .' , \~!:'o:.;'- ~:';?~,.~:.',,' ,-", " ,,;. ACt If 11111 1133 B1;Jstil!lsS,AND RECJtJLATION XS,...~,~T~:rIBD.,~ t;h. p:oT.idON- ~f ~.~.89 .s '1i?h~~ti?;aF'P-..zoJ.Q [,0'0$2&00370 '~~( ~ 1:;';A.'" ~~y~" .-r. :,:!:' .- :' DETACH HERE Act 441.4 4 3~~ .' ".,."..'4".i.~M"--STM~,,QEFLQ~D~.~.\c, ...'...v ," . , ".:JI~AR.Nfi' 'j;ii's~~ ,.' ij~ ": " .g.ft5if~REcfui.AiION ,', . :~X/1~\11~~~( ::;1~~~S~~~1..,~_~~~I~R~, ~.'i:(~~~~;;B~~~:'- .::., $.~~ J:.O'~QS26~Q370 'L'ICENSB;;i R~>'f::":J'\Y~j~ '<tr~;".'." _~" :",,;"":-'c~,1l%:::.,:,':~:""/"-"',b; ,OS".262'(lD9 O.a 46/1297"., CG01S17'.lOS". :",~!.<t".! --,".0;;,', .:"~~e -tA.,. .'"i!i:~'!~Ji!i!:~f'!J!~';;i~~!~f~'r:;1?;"~~1~f~;~l!~;i1~i; ExPiration date, AUG 31, 2010 ;';"O]):c~'.;r\/!!,,-;'''''' \'~"'Y',;. ":' ~ -( ';~~;'! AJ!t} ~:t~~{,',,:~~'~,i ;::.,tJ:t~~:~?~1~~,< :~:';';~~:~~~~;:~::"~~':: j BUDD RUSSEtJL: llliMi;:: _ ~,:.: ,~~:';" <; ,r:~ -:~~N PSS CQNS'J.'RO'C'1'tON m~): '::f!~ :.1~,c, : -..,..!, ... ~~fE~ORPORA'I'E SQUAREFL j'4'fo4.'.L'....," .~ .,', '\{ }~}~'~1~~~i~-; t,. , ";; '.'. ~,,:; '~;\A~! DisPLA~AS':~E6uIRE'i)~i:? 6H1\:RLES W. DRAGO " SECRETARY ,- ".:;' ,..... ""\,> CHAR!.!!: ClUS.'l' GO~!U"ClR' ,..'" 16 /1 814 ~~- Ado. Ii! MdIWe SerlicesOMliat Purdl..lno COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA REQUEST FOR QUOTATION # 006 (off Contract 06-3971) PROPOSAl PAGE DUE DATE: September 30, 2009 The undersigned, as quoter, hereby declares that the firm has examined the specifications and is informed fully in regard to all terms and conditions pertaining to the project and, if this Proposal is accepted, to furnish same in full, according to the following: IN WITNESS WHEREOF, WE have hereunto subscribed our names on this 30 day of September, 2009 in the County of Collier, in the state of Florida. PSS Construction. Inc Firm's Complete Legal Name 239-643-6527 Telephone Number 239-643-4293 FAX Number siordan(1i)pbscontractors.com Email Address 4395 Corporate Sauare Address Naples City Florida State 34104 Zip P08000012280 Florida Cerlifi Document Number (www,sunbiz.ol1l/searchlhbnl) Signature President Title >A ~~~t~~~e tJ: 9 01 RFQ_ContractDriven_RevfsedJune2009 4 c 0 .." .. > 0 c .. c OJ .... a: en ... c ... oJ. .; Q Q :!: Q ... u c a .. 0 ~ ... ... '" a: c .. 0 .. U 'I: :a: .l:: 0 ! :J: on c 0 > OJ 0 16/1 B1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 ci .. OJ) 0 00 00 N '0 '" .... '" '" 0 '" '" N 00 N .... '" .... N ~ <J> '" .. ~ " <II .. 0 0 0 N u 0 0 0 .... .;: 0 0 0 <Xi Q. 0 '" 00 N ~ N N '" '" '" <J> '" N' :::J <J> 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 N ] ....; vi <ri "" <ri '" .... '" 00 00 N 00 ... '" ... 0 <J> <J> ",' ",' 00 .... .... N '" C '" <J> '" .. ';:: .. > .. 8 0 8 '" '" 00 u "" N <ri <ri .;: Q. 0 .... '" '" ... .... '" ... '" '" <J> '" ",' :::J .... <J> ~ 0 0 0 0 0 E 0 0 0 0 0 l'J 0 0 0 0 ci ] ... ... 00 OJ) N ~ .... 00 OJ) '" 0 > <J> '" ....' ",' 00 <II {!. .. '" .... .. C <J> '" !! :; .. .. 0 0 0 8 .. 0 0 0 c u 0 ci ci "" 0 ';: '" 0 00 N ;;; Q. '" '" OJ) '" .. ... '" ....' ~ '" '" ~ :::J Q. - ! 0 " ~ .. >- >- ~ ~ '" .. '" '" ~ OJ :::J ::E ~ 00 00 .... 0 N N ... ., OJ) c .. " CI " iD ~ w u .. ~ e: e: ~ .. 0 .. ~ u e: <t i" ii .... e: "" 0 0 -0 .... ., -" -" c U Q. .. .. '" > ." ~ ~ e: Q. u ';ij ~ .. '" .. OJ -0 -0 E c Vi 'in "" -0 e: E '" '" e: '" ~ ~ ;;:; OJ '" i" ~ i" '" ~ u u ';( 0 e: e: '" ..0 0 0 1> .. u u .. e: .. OJ) e: 0 > e: ;;:; 0 .. 0 u E ~ u i" .. ~ ~ '" e: ;:; ;:; rl N N1 o:t sillery-t 16/1 ,B'f4 ~ From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Scott Windham [scott@windhamstudio,com] Monday, October 19, 20094:00 PM sillerLt; RichardDarryl; lulich_P Radio Rd Ph 3 Documents for Tom morrow's Mtg WSI Radio Rd Ph 3100% OPC 102009,pdf; 102009 Radio Rd Ph 3 Status Report 4,pdf; Radio Rd Ph 3 ABB, 100% Estimate 102009,pdf Tessie: Attached please find our 100% Status Report 4, 100% Opinion of Probable Cost and ABB's'1 00% Opinion of Probable Cost for Radio Rd Ph 3, Please print the documents for tomorrow's meeting, Darryl and Pam: Please notice that we included an alternate plant list with smaller size specifications as requested, Additionally, the OPC includes irrigation components to supplement in the event that some of the existing components are deemed unusable such as sections of mainline pipe and other components. We also separated herbicide spraying of Bahia grass and fill and grade prep as an alternate only to be utilized in the event that the planting and irrigation gets installed the following summer after curbing construction, Lastly, please notice that we separated the excavation and select fill work as an alternate, I will bring a change order and time schedule with me to the meeting for discussion purposes to address the ramifications of splitting the project into 2 phases. Please call or em ail me if you have any questions, Thanks, Scott Scott D, Windham, ASLA Landscape Architect, LA-0001516 Windham Studio, Inc. 8891 Brighton Lane #112 Bonita Springs. FL 34135 Ph (239) 390-1936 Fax (239) 390-1937 www.windhamstudio.com COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER PROVISION: This e-mail, along with cllly files transmitted with it. is for the sole use of the intended recipienl{s) and may contain information that is confidential or- privileged If this e-mail is not addressed to you (or if you have any reason to believe that it is not intended 1 16/1 814 STATUS REPORT To: Radio Road MSTU Advisory Committee Company: Darryl Richard, Collier County ATM Jim Carr, ASS James Abney, Abney and Associates From: Scott Windham Date: October 20, 2009 RE: 100% Status Report on Radio Road Phase 3 Curbing, Irrigation and Planting Design Committee and team: The following is a brief status report for the Radio Road Phase 3 Curbing, Irrigation and Planting design: ASS: Curbing Design ASB has incorporated tinal stat! review comments to complete 100% curb construction plans . Final intersection layout is completed at the Esther St. turn lane and intersection, . Engineer's Opinion ot Cost with itemized quantities has been updated to 100%. The additional excavation and fill for a tull replacement has been moved to an alternate line item anticipating we will find favorable existing fill conditions. . Final construction plans, bid tabular form and project specifications are completed to be incorporated into the County standard contract. . Percolation and soil tests are underway, Once results are in, fill and excavation quantities will be updated for the final bid package, . Ready to be put out to bid pending any last revisions from county 100% review comments and fill test results, Abney and Associates: Irrigation Design Abney and Associates has incorporated 90% staff review comments to complete 100% Irrigation Plans and Specifications . Completed 100% Irrigation Plans and specitications. . Completed 100% Irrigation Opinion of Cost with itemized quantities . Ready to be put out to bid pending any last revisions trom county 100% review comments, \X'indham Studio, 1nc., Landscape Arclurccture, LC 26000365 8891 Brighton Lane, Bonita Springs, Flonda 3~135 Phone: (239) 390-1936 Fax: (239) 390-1937 l:mail: scott@Vi.'lOdhamstudio.com \vww. windhamstudio. com 16 , ,I [OJ,,- 'ii 01 WSI: Planting Design Windham Studio has incorporated 90% county staff review comments to complete 100% Planting Plans and Specifications . Completed 100% Planting Plans and specifications, . Completed 1 OO%Planting Opinion of Cost with itemized quantities . Ready to be put out to bid pending any last revisions trom county 100% review comments. Please email or call me if you have any questions, Thank you, Scott Windham, ASLA Landscape Architect, LA 000-1516 \X"indl1alTI Studio, Ine., Landscape Architecture, LC 26000365 8891 Brighton bne, Bonita Sprrngs, Florida 3~13S Phone: (239) 390-1936 Fax: (2_19) :190-1937 Email: scott@wil1dhamstudio.com ww\v.windhamstudio.com :! ~ o ;; o ~ ~ o z ~ d fd ~ a ... iii fE w > > 0 !Z !Z ~ ~ ~ Q co. U U Q ffi ffi a: :3 :: ~ 00. U U ~ o 8 ~ 6 :5 ~ g ~ g I- IJi 10 ~ ~ - ~g~ g~ () g g g g t1l '", 3 i g 0_ "i ::J ~, ,10 '0 ~~ , o ~ ~ :3 :3 :3 o w~~~~ ~ ~ o o u j . - . ;;: # g . ~ - ~ . E ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~j . > - . 11.~ ~ o 0 ~ " w ! ~ - t; ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ o. ~ 2 : ~ a: '" dl (lI '5 ffiiil[.~:O.~t o ~ ll.. :::.;: <t ti I;; o U w ~ . . . o ~ ~ ~ o m z 0 o 0 Z ~ ~ c N " ~ ci z E g o 00 g ~ o. g ~~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ g g o ~ ~ ~ w w ~~ " o U g!! 'c Lli 0 ::J <:tJ:i ~~ - ~ ~ I o w ~ . o o ~ ~ Q Q Z . z Q !i ~ . ~ w ~ ~ ~ o , E . ~ . o <: N ~ E -'2 Q 3 w ~ o ~ ~ o ~ = ci z E ~ o g u <> tij :;; " w ~ E . = - o . M o U m 'c <:) ~ ~ ~ . i: g' ~ . 6 ~ . w - ~ ~ ii- . ;; E o o ~ 6 ~ > ~ o U . " u g ~ o . ~ . * o ~ s ~ w ~ ~ -g ~ w .. I::; 1ii ~ 11'I 6 lil ~ g :@ ~ ;i 8. c t:; &l ~ ill ..' Ql <II 0 ~ 0 ,= u.. '" ci z E g " ~ . . ~ o N @> ~ w w " ~ :;; :2 " . o o . o 0: ;c '" u ~ ~ ~ " . ~ ~ ~ & ~ <II ~ ~u ~ g o ~ m .; ~ E . = - o . M .. '0 ~ , w . ~ ~ ~ ~ GI 0:; l: ~ . 0 a: .~ E ~ '5 ~ ..!! a. 0 ~ ~ :u :t:i ~ 2 - , ~ E ~ ~ 'u '" - . 11. .. ~ ~ E " . Cf) <; Z ...J .2 ~ S c f5 g ~ !;;: CLCll ::E g ~ " E . . w ~ ~ ~ o U .. . ~ ggggg ~ ~ ~ ~ <ri N u1 III .,. ;1; <I}......6'>!o'> 8 ggg~~ o 0 ci " w w " " c ~ ~~ c ~ "' <Il <Il co '" W UI W uJ W 15 g] ~ ~ ~ . w ~ ~ o 1 ~ l2 Ql Ql c:: is 6 gf ~ it jg a: a:: . - ~ o . w " , ~ . 6 ~ ~ c c '" c:: -aag~ ..!!! %, (; '" g> c: 0 .;, ;;; iii n. N ~ 5 a: ..,j E ~ g- 10 ~ ~ :,. w ~ g g g gl ~ <D '" fD f:\J 1il ~ :i - . . . " " "5.1il n; . ~ , . ~ :@ ~ ~ ~ ~ -&5 o . ~ ~ 1J~ ~~ . . " . ~~,= ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ . . - " " . ~ g ~ z w ~ u u in . - . . ~~~~~.: .~ ~ ~ 0 0 :. '" '" -g II> ~'E:o.~~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ di Iii "&-al Igjj~~ =; :::; 5 ~ ~ ,.. N M '<t lf1 ci '" z w ~ ~ o g g d g ci ci M ci II) N V '" '" M m <:) ~ <:t <ll ................ o ~ (1; ~ <:) <:) 0 <:) 0'" '" '" ci ci ci d ~ N g: re b'l-b'l-b'l-b'l- <Il <Il <Il <Il LU LU LU W ~ ~ ~ N ~ go 13 ~ . OJ: -g E g " ~ ~ b . go m '" ~ ~ .0 .,j. M <il b ~ ~. E g, :;: ~ ~ o ~ ~ to ]: '-' ~ e 2 to E " ~ E l~ oc . . 0 -g ~ o . 0: U . ~ . . ~ 0 ~ ~ : ~ ~ .B III [\i E ~ 5 0=. 2J Q; ~.o.l:l.g ~ ~ ~ 3: ~ 0 W il.. W 0 c:: (/) > 3: to.... <0 0> w ~ ~ . ~ o 0 0 000 CD gj g w m M <6 Ltl ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ . . . w w w ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w 5 ~ 5 ~~~ " " " E " ~ ~ E E ~ o _ E'~ 5 0 ~ ~ " , 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . , ~ (5 ~ <Il >- 0; 2 ~ l: ~ :E Vi " . oc :;; '" '" '-' ~ > ~ ~ 0 . u !.~ ~ <Il -€ <Il ~ ~ g ~ ~ c% ~ . " ~ " w ~ " oc ~ " W :I: ::!: If.l (I) ~ w > ~ ::: ~ 8 Q Z , o ~ o J " '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" ..., '" ~ ~ ~ ~ i cO ~ ~ N .... .... ::: <6 -i ~ ';:i N """ b'l- W W W W '" '" 0 0 '" to '" 0 l() l() 0 0> 0> .... '" l() cO cO r-.: ,..; M W r-.: M w...... W """... <Il <Il <II <II <II <Il <Il <Il W W W W W W W W ~~~,~.~to ~ en M l!l 'i ~ . 6 ~ ~ - ~ . E " -c ti ~ g-g. "' to W ~ ~ ~ . 6 E " u.. -c -c . ~ g- g.! - to c.. 1D ~ ~E::i:E: b b c.. b Co ~ E E " N '" b 5~5~~~.2~ Iii Iii Iii Iii Iii Iii Iii Iii 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> 0> OJ <'lMM~~<'l"'~ . ~ ~ . 0 g> <:: <:: <:: ~ ~ ~ ls ls " ~ r- t= f3- ~ ~ ~!~oo-gl3>] 5 .'!! ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ 0 <:: <ii~~oUgt5-~ ~ OJ \- ~ ~ ~ '" & 'E 6 ~ - o ~ -'l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ iii iii o 0 5 5 . . ~ .,. .", - ~ ! ~ * ~ ~ ~ ~ " "' <Il "~ >.;Z: ~ t"~ ~ ~ B " ~ .~ ~ " > ~ ~ ~ ~ " . ~ -~ -g g ~ ~ p o~ !is ~ "E . . . :e :e :e o 0 0 " " " ~ ~ ~ , , , w w w CJ U) N <'l 0. u.. Z 0. ID ID m m m G 2: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . m ill. ~ I '1 Bl~ ~ " ~ ~ .; ~ ~ o ~ . E . = ;i - ~ . w " '0 ~ , W ~ . ~ N i ~ . - . 13 . w .. ;; z , w 'jg 0 0 " 0 0 ~ ~ ~ I- N M ~ g g (,) ci d "c g :?: ~ N M ~ "", <Il <II ~ W W o . W . .. E g. . ~ ~ ~ ~ <D'S: ~ ~ ~ ~ - Q [! 8 B ~ . "8 g ~ ~ iil ~ ~ ~ - . ~ - . ~ o ~ o ~ ~ E ~ E . < E l' III ::l Uj ~ gj ~ 0 ~ ;@ r.J :0: i- ~ _ :J ~ ~~b~~ ~ _ 0 Ql ~. :; ~ 8 OJ !!! ~ <l> <:: ~ '1l"O"<: iij .0 <{ ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ c a; ~D 0 i:: ~ ~ ~ ~ U Ql D" " ij; ~ G ~ ~ ~ ~ U) -n ~ ~ , ~ r : g> II) iil ~ ~ ~ liJ a: <ii ii5 ~ ~ ~o :i Q z iil II 2 g r ~ ~ g' ~o ~ D ~ c3 u1 ~ > o Z E ~ o o g . '" ~ o o ~ W ~ . w o < , o ~ C ~ w ~ ~ ~ 0 Ql 8 ~ u ; ~ .. < [j ~ ~ 0 [ ~ Qj "c * E ~ ~ o "'E -g "iij ctl ~ ~ "'i: ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ .9 ~ ~ ~ w 1 D D e.~ ~ ~ ~ " " o < .!!! €: e . D . ~ .a . ~ 0; ~ ~ ~ ~ C-~_ .Q~._~ I~~ ~~~ 2~i i!'~ !!I i~i ~ ~ ~ ~ i J ~ CLE~~ <DB~ E I .<:., ~ ~ Dl E g ~~ i~i ~~ ~"'~R c ~ <;j ~ ~ ~ iij c: ]J", ~g l~[ -g~ 9",~<~ TI"O ~ ~ gJ ~ ~ ~ 0 E (/) " ~ ~ ~ LO ~ ~ ~ .2 Ql ~ 0 .!!! ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ -:-.O'l ~ ::' '" - i: g! o ~ 0; ~ a, '" ;u E -g "0._ ~ E ~ ~ ~ <ii "0 ;a U u~~~~ ~ - 0: -E - ". ~ " . c SO::, 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ <{ ~ -n ~ ~ ~ ~ E ., ~ ~ .E !l~~~ ~ <II ~ g ~ 7J 0: .0: ~ ~ ~ ~ N go e ~ 15 Q g. ~ ~'_J~8~ E _ g ;! :s 5- i 18 g ~ ~ <;i * E lie o <:> 0 0 0 0 o 0 LO LO M ~ LO 0 g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ g ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ N w o 00 o ci <ri ~ ~ ~ d d ci ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o 0 o 0 c> <0 to If) It> M <0 <0 gci~ o ;; ~ <ei '" G ~ , - I 8 '6 . " a ~ . ~ . ~ ~ , . n D ~ W M < li ~ . - - " ~ is N ~ . ~ ~ . - D " . ~ ~ ~ ni ] iii [ iil ~ w .. -g lt~ 6 . (/) Q) c'5~~g ~ ~ <:{ "rJj c; -g re ~ ~ >- c: <'5 !Ii I I I I '" '" '" '" <:: <:: <:: <:: <:: .2 ~"_ _~"= " " ~~~]~ CLC-C-o.CL lij-g- lij- g. g. g~g~~ ..c .0 .0 ..c .0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -a -6 -6 '5-6 j ~ is 8 ~ " I ~ . ~ : " u .2 <: m E US E ~ 8 5 ~. ~ ~ * It ~ 8. ~ 5l b -: ; - . -" [~ . - . 0 o 0 ~ 0 . 0 , E i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~ E " " w w w w w ~~~~~ iii ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ Ql W Ql .~~~~~ ~~~R~~~~~ :~~~8g88 ~ ~ ~ * * ~ ~ ~~l~~]l ~ ~ ffi ffi -g rl.....,:5::5: <'l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-:~'~~~~ .~-~.~gg .g9~~~g - ~ rl.. <'l <'l ~ ~ . ~ ('J ('J 6 INN ~ ~ ~ g en e M N .E .E - " E ~ ~ ~ 8- D D o 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g g g g . . . 000 .;- ~ ;'!: ('J t'J ('J ('J t'J 3: 3: so: so: so: <:{ <:l: <:l: <:l: <:l: , co '" ;' g g ; ; ~ ~ ................ o 0 ~- g ~ ~, "'- l!') _ N ~ w o 0 0 o 0 0 g g ~ , , ~ ~ . . . w w w " ~ - D ~ " ~ . .ra ~ 0; _ ~ ~ ~ ~ i 0 2 : . ~ ~ g < 0 ~ go ~ :g, ~ I i ~ 8 ~ ~ ~~ ,g U5 M ~ o .~ ~ t <0 ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ > 0 ~ ~ ~ I .~ ~ E .;tj .Q ~ !I ~ M .;- ~ _ c . . E E * ~ ~ ~ o o g ~ g 0> w g g o 0 o . . ~ w . . w w ~ 6 , ~ " . <l> Oi C. !!! w 0 ~ gj n; c.. -a g> ~ c ~ " tj ~ ~l o '" . 8 g N ~ i ci ~ Q ~ ~ ~"=' g g 6 ~ ~ go rn " ! j ~ i ~ 1 i ~ ~ ~ Ql ~ ~ ~ ~ :g ~ ~ ~ o c; ~ (> >- ~ >= ~ 6 < ~ D W n Q ~ ~ ~ g. B i ~ ~ ~ '" x-a, ~ ~ ~ I 2 ~ X c... m n; >< ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "',,; rl.. (I) <'l is >< N ~ i ~ ~ c oj 8 ~ ~ Ql :!! X q- .~ .~ >< Vi to c: c:. 0:. ~ [g x ~ ~ g ~ ~ so: :g ;$; to ~ '8 ~ ~ c: (I) I-- I- ~ n ,; ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .s I- g.,s g -~ ~ . o > ;~ o 0 0; - E -@. E 0 0;; u ~ &l .~ in 1:: <'! ~ . ~ ~ . B ~ gJ Cl a\ _ m g.~ 8 to D ~ .~ ~ g ~ E~ w 00 o 0 ci .n ~ r;; w ~ o o ~ " o o o o -, ~ o 0 o 0 g ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ o o .; N W " . w w " w . w o . ~ ~ M N N ~ c . o [ . ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ . w ~ g :B g ~ " ~ % . . c..~ 2 g' ~ c c: ~ ~ - Jig ~'O ~ Gl Ql ~ ~ E E :u 15 ~, ~ ~ ~ :u fi E ~ III ~ III m ~ - 5 ~ g ~ o m 0 ~ ~Dw~g ~ ~ ~ ~ '" .L C:" ~ :a .., ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 i:' ~ --= ~ n; ~ !'! 2 ~.- i:' ~ ffi " ~~~~~ g' ~ 5 ~ 11 m ~ Cl Ci ~ ~ <:: '0 ~:2 g ~ ~ ~ ciS 0. 5 s ;.; ~ 8. 5}.g ~ - - '" c: Ql ",,, '" 2 ~ .= ~ ~~~~~~ ~ '!! .~ ~ 0 9- D- W '0", -is ~~~fQlg ~~j~~g <>!l ffi ~ ~ 1; 5} ~ a (j; ~ ~ g ..~.~ a.> ~ [ g. ~ ~~~~.-.~~ C '" t:: ill Ql C .E ~ .:g ~ -€i 8 ~~~o~"'~ c- '" .;:: 15 ~ ;:: " I'- '" " Cl> Cl - l!') " " '0 " 2 e 1r ~ .~ Vi &: ~ ~ 0 n: ~ !> - " 0. E . 0; ~ . ci. e rl .~ " ~ "8 0 ..!!1 E ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . - . " < ~ ~ ~ o . U ., c 0 . w . c o w < 0 . . e ~ ~ " ~~ ~ , < n ~ X j' ~ ~ ~ , . . ~ ~ o ~ M . ~ 5} ':!- ~ o N N o ~ ! .; - N W > M ~ ~ ~ . . E 13 ~ ~ ~ ~ ci 8 ~ "'. en M ~ w~ g >" :: g.~ ~ ~ l ~ w.. , E . , w w ~ w ~ ~ c ~ . .. ~ " " . D ~ '0 o . 0. - u o ~ . " . " .. o ~ 2 - , 0; oc . ~ o 0 000 8 ~ ~ ~ <ii .;- ~_ "0 g C\l ::: 1-.;- <'l In W ~ ~ ~ . E . ~ Vi~~> 8 ~ ~ .~ " g ~ ~ ::) .;- ,., m .. ;; E 5 ~ ~ ~ w z o ~ " ~ oc ~ z o " z ~ ~ o z ~ - ~ D ~ m oc . ~ . " 0 - Q ~ ~ 0, 8 ~ ~ ~ - - i ~ ~ , dim c c .e ~ '0; " w ;; o z E ~ N o ~ N o '- o ~ ~ ~ . - " 13 . w . . . m .. ;; ~ . .. ~ < o . . ~ . E c . .!!! ,g ~ . D .. <,! E TI ~ g.o . - 2 -; Q; ~ c- o . ~ . n ~ ~ u:: Sl ~ { ~ ~ ~~ ;; ~ " " '5 ~ 0; D " - ~ - ~ o w . - ~ u . w 2 ~ ~ iij .~ S - , E ~ fJ) '- o w z w E W ~ e: '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ :; ...; N C\l N tn ............ g g g g g g ~ ~ g sj N w ~ w m <'l <'l <'l <'l LU LU LU LU LU ~ ~ ~ .. , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :if g 8: 0 gf~ " OC ~ gf 0; ~ -am w _ "Ol.!!! - ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ..; ~ ~ 6 ~ 8: ~ ~ g :if :if ~ 0 0 m ~ ~ _ oc ~ . ~~~ ~ ~ ~ q N <:\i -0-0 .;:: 5} ~ ~ 10 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N 0 w w ~ ~ Ql W ~ ~ i.!'! ~ ~~..g<ii .:g Ol Q. g. u lit ~ '5 ~ g; ~ <:: .= ..., g ~ ~ 1ij ~ ~ ~ -:::; "0 0. ::J m 0 (5 fJ) ::!: Z fJ) ~ -. . E. ~ ::J Q; ;;ii' f ~ " e ~~ ]j .5 . . 1i5 - 'N .ra <'l ~ ~ g ~,<'l ,g ~ '0 . .~ ~ ~ ~ ; .5 ~ " ..c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ =; ::i 5 ~ i::: _ N <'l ...- l(J .1 ~ g 15 ~ 15 ~ ~ ~ ~ N .;- , o;fC .............. 000 '" '" '" '" '" ~ g Ii ~ ~ ~ ~ '" <1l <\I <\I LU LU LU LU M s:: ~ to 1\.i ] go a ij-g ~ g n ~ u W ~ ~ ~. g> go g ~ -5 ~ & ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ <X> 0 N N ~ E rl.. E & ~ ~ ~ E c: ~ E ;f ~ ~ ~.~ u:: c3 ~ ~ . - . '" . . <'l ~ 1ii ~ ,g w ~ :.'l ~ g ~ ~ a. !'! ~ ~~~.g c: Ul ~ 3: ~ (L as g u.. Ul > so: <D I'- r;C a> w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U; N '" W M <"l N.n ~ ~ ~ o g ';! d ,..: N N ~ ~ ~ . . . W W W M W . N W " " 0 N 00 ~ !'? W 10 '" 5 E: .Q ~~~ M ~ M ~ . 0 o " ~ ~ ~ .. "'0 gj ll... Ii: ~ ~ ~ ';. ~ :: :g 1 :a: ~ Ui 1; <r ~ ~ v ;:: ..!!! 2: ~ "J0 1~1 ~ ~ g ~ 10 ~ ::c ~ (f) o 0 ggr!o"<~fi;~~~ N~ _~",~:g~ ~"':;::ri~:ci~ Ifl.... ............... ... ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ g ~ a:i a:i ....: NNW ....: ....."'"Ifl..... '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" w w w w w w w w N a:> ~ ;t; ~ .... :g ~ ~ Sllll. "'. ~ ~ III ;;!; -E 5 ~ ~ g 5 ~ . ~ o . o , E '" . . 'ci U U 0 00. . . '" '" 10 . ~ , o . ~ g > m ~~ o ~ m ~ ~ ~ ;ij ~ en ~ '0 g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :> :> o 0 ~ ~ o 0 m m ~ a . o ~ . ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N '" '" 00 00 o E ~ ~ ~ '" ~ '" ~~~a v I- 1- I- Ii: a. o 0 0 u '" ~ ~~~~~Ul ouu~t5-8 t5 ~ .f ~ ~ . . ~ -g: -g o . <r 1i ~~ tDlf! . . ~ :e ~ ~ g- g- w w b o '" -"';:: ]! ~ ~ ~ .c 1il Cl> (f.l Q- ~ ~ ~ ... p ~ ~ ~ E ~ '" -iJ ~ ~ .~ " ~ a ~ ~ ~ u: ~ ~ ~ 5 ffi ~ (f.l N 9 ll... ~ Z ll... I ~ (f.l m ro ro m w m a ~ ~ <r w > ;?;::~8~~~~~~~~ o z ~ o <r ~ ~ m ~ <r ~ ~ o " N ~ W .; o 8 " " N, o o ~ "' o o g o '" ~ ~ o ~ E ~ > o .g ~ .. " E o ~ o o g ~ o o "' o o '" ~ ~ " ~ " ~ " o " M N ~ ~ D C ~ . u '" ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ .2 <:: 0 ~ ~ ~ ,I <:: 8 :S .8 --= g, <:: <:: .s .~ ~!~~i K~.~~-g8 i ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~~~~6:86: ~" ~ Eo> 0 G.l~ ~-g~ w~"<j- E g <:: ~~ E ~ ~ g 8 j "'";:; 1- :r ~ .<:: .8;;: i~~ ~!!:~ :! '" .s 2l E @ 1l ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E g- E ~ ~ Ul Q) .;ij ~ ~ i 2 I ~ G ~ g ~.~ ~ ~"ti~ qH H~ ~.~~[ 82~ ~ <'l ~ <:: ~.s ~ i~~~ ~1[ ia;~!~~~~. 3..ClZll...ffi~~E~ .s:loi-g~g~ ~.ll...~s~il ~~ -oo~,~<::oQ)o .=8~:~.~~~ ~~~D~~~~ :l .~ g' g> ~ "'u" i '" ~ ~ OJ j ~ i ~ : ~ ~ j :l ~ g: :r : .<:: is .<:: III a C :S .c go 'C ~ ~ ."i5 1l g' <ii e ~ go .J.~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ E '" '5 Q) 8 ffi it! ~ ~ '" 11: ..Cl <:: ~~2i~~:u~~ Z ll... <ii ~ - ~g~UJ~~~~ Cl N ~ ;:: :; ...; .~ ~ $ ~ : @ ~ ~ ~ ~ iN~~",U"l.~~ ~~~~ r~ <i! ,., .~ M g ~ o " ~ o ~ . . o . E 0 . . t > . u S N N " c i c ~ o ~ o 8 ~ E ~ ! ~ c '" ;; > M o o ~ '" ~ 8 " o M . w ~ ~ c ~ . ~ ~ ~ 8 " W M ~ 8 " ~ . w . ~ 2 i 8 o o i ~ . . > ~ o " " ~ U . " o o ~ , o o . o ! ~ D '" . . > 4l ~ ~ U rn ~ ; b g-g ;: : ~ ~ <P ;;; ~ ~ .2B-E- ~ z ~ ~ .<:: iil u ~ ~u ~ '" ;' ~ u '" ~ '" E~~ "i >< Q) " . U ~ Q) :> ~ ~ ~ '" ~ g E! ~ ti 2l ~ ~ .~ ~ 8 oJ ~ -g o ~ ~ !!l ~ [~ "' 2 iil ~ U E . ~ <'l ~ o 5 8 ~ ~ ~ :3 E ~ ~ ~ " 1ii 1ii <:: o >< <l> > W (ij ll... ~ g- J ~ E ~ ~ * " U ~ ]. E ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i'i o 8 1i 0 a.~ ~ u ~ i Z Ii ~ (: ~ .~ ~ 5 0" ~ E B 0 o 0 .2 <Ii ~~ go~ g ~ o o ~ N ~ o o " o . o o " ~ o o g ~ ~ U o o e ~ . c f . U . ~ ~ .,; U 2 :g 2l o , ~ g: ~ ~ o U . > " > ~ o . E . . " > .s ~ Hi 8 g u Q) t ~ 8 <:: ~ go ~ :s :t ~ !2 E 1 o ~ ~ i i ~ g! ll... 0> ~ ~ g ~ E '" ~ '" -a 0 ~ 0 u -g ~ ~ "';::: g. U ~ '" >< u ~ $ E ~ ~ oS :;f g 0; i 0 ~ Q) ~ .~ ~ ~ t ~ Q) ~ u ~ ~ .0 ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ . ~ 3uo " ~ " ~ ~ ~ a g ~ 2 .~ ~ ~ 30 ~ ~ . o ~ 0;; g ui . " ~~ > o 0 o .2 g ~ ~ ~.. " E . " w" ~ ~ . ~ c 2 2 c o o D o . E " . o ~ ~ . . o o o o .. . . o " " ~ U C . ,E ~ ~ = " < " o ~ ~ 5 o z z << < ~ w <r ~ z o ~ ~ o > w o " ~ o . . < 0 ~ o 0 o w '" " ~ 15 ~ e rn . o o c: ;' ~ " ~ o ~ w t;:; o o ~ o . Ii: " o . o o " ~ g ~ ~ > "' D Z E ~ o ~ " m ~ c o u o ~~ iii 8 u- ~ g' ~ is -!Xl ~ 0 0 ~ j : (/j 0> E ~ ~ 2l ~ ~ .s - 3: ~ i ~ ~ -0 . ~ ~ f ~ '5 . . . i3 . . ~ m o o . . o . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .e'i.:. o 0 '" ~ € ~ E a : ~ ~ ~ ; Jg g ~ == * : . N ~ .~ ~ a ~ ~ - g. i'5 <5 al '" "2 is a, Q) E 0 Ul is '0 rf. <")i ~ ..,. . o 15 , ~ ~ ltg . ~ U 0 .u "' ~ 2 13 ~ . 0. g g- o ~ o o .; ~ N M ~ 8 N N W > o ~ ~ ~ . . ~ m > o 0 o ~ ~ ~ ~" ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ "'" ~ . N g g l?i '" . ~N W . ~~ ~ E ~ ". o " g 0 '" ~ ~ .. ~ " E o ~ <r ~ ~ 00 Vi 00 o 0 c::i o ~ ~ lii~~ 0: 00 e N N W ~ . E . 0= <Ii :;>< 8 r! .~ ;:: "'"0 :::l ~ ~ .. " E ~ :3 al (j . w . c ,2 ~ ;; . o " D . .. , = " " ~ z o ~ > < u x ~ z in g; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '6 " . " < 0 < x D Z E ~ 611 '114 .g o . "- 1; o il ~ . o o " I . ~ o "- . o . o 2 ;; . " ~ ~ o o o u ~ . ~ "- ~ ro ~ . 2 TI o . TI . E ~ o x . . ~ ~ U o . . > ~ . 2 U o . c o 1611814 ~ . " c 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ . "- , . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .2 0 0 ~ D ~ D . . ~ ~ .~ . " 0 ~ ~ c " . " ~ . Jg . ~ .i 0 c ~ ~ E ~ . ~ 0 . ~ ~ D " c . < . . E ! "- ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ 2 f j rn ~ ~ " C ~ 0 . ~ W . > 5 "- 0 ~ i 0 ~ . 0 ~ ~ ~ ;; ~ 0 . ~ 0 i ~ , D ~ . B " ~ D " ~ ~ I " ~ . . ~ z 15 . ~ ! ~ . . 0 B E w . ~ r ~ " ~ ~ ~ . U U 0 ~ ~ . E ~ ~ ~ u u . ~ ~ ~ c 8 a 0 ~ W W ~ 0 ~ . ~ ~ , , , , , 0 ]j E ~ . ~ ~ r ~ 0 0 ~ ~ W W ~ 0 ~ M ~ W , ro rn Agnail, Barber & Brundage, Inc 100% Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost October 20, 2009 16 lIB 14 RADIO ROAD MSTU PROJECT PHASE 3 CURBING CONSTRUCTION PLANS , A, CURBING CONSTRUCTION Item No. Description Unit Quantity Unit Total Cost Cost 1 MOBILiZATION LS 1 $37,500.00 $37.500.00 2 MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFlC LS 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 3 CLEARING AND" GRUBBING (13.6 AC) LS 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 4 REMOVE EXISTING CONCRETE PA VEMENT SY 1,362 $]0.00 $13,620.00 5 REMOVE EXISTING BRICK PAVERS SY 185 $5,00 $925.00 6 EXCA V A TION CY 4,943 $lO.OQ $49,430.00 7 EMBANKMENT - MAINLINE CY 588 $]5.00 $8,820.00 8 EMBANKMENT MEDIAN TOPSOIL CY 4,759 $17.00 $80,903.00 9 LIMEROCK BASE, 6" THICK (PRIMED) LBR 100 (UNDER F CURB) SY 2,614 $11.00 $28,754.00 10 ABC 9" TIUCK SY 4 $55.00 $220.00 11 ADJUST EXISTING MEDIAN INLETS TO MANHOLES EA 3 $3,000.00 $9,000.00 12 ADJUST EXISTING IRRIGATION VALVES TO GRADE EA 50 $300.00 $15,000.00 13 CONCRETE CURB & GUlTER, TYPE F LF 9,410 $JO.OO $94,100.00 14 CONCRETE SIDEWALK, 6" THICK SY 23 $35.00 $805.00 15 BRICK PAVERS (INCLUDES 10% WASTE) SY 498 $50.00 $24,900.00 16 SODDING (BAHIA)(JNCLUDES WATER, FERTILIZER & MOWING) SY ]3,100 $2.00 $26,200.00 17 SIGNING AND MARKING LS 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 15% CONTIGENCY $63,300.00 PROJECT TOTAL - WITHOUT LEFr TURN $485,477.00 BID ALTERNATE 1. SELECT SOIL EARTHWORKS 18 EXCAVATION FOR SELECT SOIL CY 7,555 $10.00 $75,550.00 19 EMBANKMENT - SELECT SOIL CY 7,555 $15.00 $113,325.00 15% CONTIGENCY $28,300.00 BID ALTERNATE 1 TOTAL - WITHOUT LEFT TURN $217,175.00 Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta 16 I 1 B 15 RECEIVEC NOV j 3 2009 ""'"'-',,, "... At.s., -It. ~o.rd a/county Com",~ A...,'90IY 00",,,,1111111 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL :14104 April 2, 2009 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: March 5, 2009 V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report - Caroline Soto B. Project Manager Report - Darryl Richard VI. Landscape Maintenance Report - CLM A. Ficus White Fly B. Replacement Shrubs VII. Old Business VIII. Project Update A. Utilities - Charles Arthur B. Maintenance - Bruce Forman C, Tax Analysis - Bud Martin D, Liaison - Dick Lydon IX. New Business A. New Budget FY 2009-2010 X. Public Comment XI. Adjournment The next meeting is May 7, 2009 at 2:00 PM ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER 625 111TH Ave. Naples, FL. Misc. Date:Ot. ld-.-ID Item.JlQl(t [c') "'..'C 16/11 ".."-',,, "... M.s.7.1e. B15 A..l"9OIY 00",,,,'"1111 2705 Horseshoe Dlive South Naples, FL :-14104 November 5. 2009 AGENDA I. Call Meeting to Order II. Attendance III. Approval of Agenda IV. Approval of Minutes: October 15,2009 V. Budget Report-Caroline Soto VI. Utilities Report-Charles Arthur VII. Project Manager Report-Darryl Richard VIII. landscape Maintenance Report-ClM IX. Old Business X. Update Report A. Maintenance - Bruce Forman B, Tax Analysis - Bud Martin C. Liaison - Dick Lydon XI. New Business XII. Public Comment XIII. Adjournment The next meeting is at 2:00 P.M. on December 3, 2009 ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER 625 111TH Ave. Naples, FL. Fiala ~)'f Halas Henning v' Coyle ,. Colett / \./ 16; I 1 B 1 ~ECEIVED NOV 1 3 2009 lI..d""", BtUIC. M.s.7 -U. eoaro of Coun~ Commtsakmers Ad,,;sory 6o".".;tt.. 2705 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 March 5, 2009 MINUTES I. Call Meeting to Order The meeting was called to order by Dick Lydon at 2:02 P.M, II. Attendance Members: Dick lydon, Charles Arthur, Bill Gonnering, Bud Martin - Excused, Bruce Forman - Excused County: Darryl Richard - MSTU Project Manager, Tessie Sillery - MSTU Operations Coordinator, Caroline Soto - Budget Analyst, Pamela lulich - landscape Operations Manager Others: Jim Fritchey - ClM, Chris Tilman - Malcolm Pirnie, lew Schmidt, Lloyd Bowein, Jackie Bammel -Public, Sue Flynn - Mancan III. Approval of Agenda Charles Arthur moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Second by Bill Gonnering. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. IV. Approval of Minutes - January 8,2009 Change: VIII, 0 - "Apply for a portion of the $810,000,000" (Instead of $810,000) Bill Gonnering moved to approve the minutes of February 5, 2009, as amended. Second by Charles Arthur. Motion carried unanimously 3-0. V. Transportation Services Report A. Budget Report - Caroline Soto distributed and reviewed, (See attached) ~ Operating - Remaining Open P.O. $121,248.07 ~ Available Operating Expense - $97,571,23 ~ Ad Valorem Tax $150,898.44 (Outstanding) B. Project Manager Report Darryl Richard noted the following preparations for the MSTU Public Meeting scheduled for March 9, 2009 Mise, Corres . Charles Arthur will present a slide presentation on Burial of Utility Lines, Date: Item # "''''.,-.--t. 1611 815 . Charlotte Miller, External Affairs Manager for FPl will be present to answer questions, . Enlarged print of MSTU Aerial Boundary Map will be displayed, . Staff will provide Sign-In Sheets and Agendas, . Sheriff will have the flashing road sign on Vanderbilt Beach Road announcing the Public Meeting date, time and location, The FPl invoice for the Engineering Fee Deposit was delayed. The Committee requested it be paid before the Special Meeting, Project Manager Report was distributed. (See attached) . (VA-18) Maintenance Contract with ClM expires June 13, 2009. VI. landscape Maintenance Report - elM - Jim Fritchey reported the following: o Trees hanging over sidewalks have been trimmed, o In process of trimming Ficus Hedges to 6'. o Ficus White Fly in the area poses a problem to the hedges, o Recommended treating with chemicals guaranteed to keep bugs out for 10-12 months, o Cost of chemicals is approximately $250 a linear foot. Darryl Richard suggested Pam lulich be involved and the Staff inspect the site and give their recommendation at the next meeting, VII. Old Business A. Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Public Meeting - Previously discussed in V.B VIII. Project Update A. Utilities - Charles Arthur reported the following: . It has taken FPl a month to provide an invoice, . FPl has approved the survey. . Time Line out of our control B. Maintenance Bruce Foreman had an excused absent. lew Schmidt reported as follows: o Plants have been damaged by vehicles deliberately - located at the Tradewinds on Vanderbilt Drive and at Conners and Seabee. o ClM provided estimates as follows: (See attached) - Vanderbilt Drive - Tradewinds $394,50 - Vanderbilt Drive - Conners and Seabee $401,04 Discussion ensued on the services quoted and if whether there was a need to charge twice for irrigation fees. It was also noted both estimates 2 were for 10 Juniper Parsoni in the amount of $174.60 aJt6r~wa1 on~ 1 5 room for 3-plants at Tradewinds. J. Dick Lydon moved to approve CLM quotes for replacement of damaged plants (on Vanderbilt Road) at Tradewinds, Conners and Seabee not to exceed $500. Second by Charles Arthur. Motion canriedunanimously 3-0. Lew Schmidt reported the sprinkler system on during daytime hours with some running until 11:00 am. ClM will check the irrigation system. C. Tax Analysis - Bud Martin - None. D. Liaison - Dick Lydon reported he has not received a response from Connie Mac or Ms. Williams on the request for direction for applying for monies set aside by Congress. IX. New Business Darryl Richard stated the Staff will prepare the new budget for Committee review one week prior to April 2, 2009 meeting. Dick Lydon stated the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Beautification Advisory Committee 4-Year Report will be reviewed by the BCC on March 10,2009. X. Public Comment - None There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 3:40 P.M. Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Advisory Committee -_.-:;:'. /" . -.*~~- - - /" -~ C"'" .-.-r ,.'-, .'/ ',~ Dick Lydon, Chairman -. These minutes approved by the Committee on '--t. d- . 0 7 as presented or amended X The next meeting is April 2, 2009 at 2:00 PM ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER 625 111TH Ave. Naples, FL. 3 Fiala ~ / ~:I~~ing~ 16 I 1 RECEIVED ~~r~~a lIaM""" S... At.s.7.... Board~~{:u:ty3c~e~ Advisory 0011I11I1111111 27()!j Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL :-14104 B15 . March 9, 2009 PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES I. Welcome and Introduction Dick Lydon welcomed the Board and members of the public that attended and made Introductions at 6:05 PM, ATTENDANCE: Members: Bill Gonnering, Charles Arthur, Dick Lydon County: Michelle Amold - ATM Director, Darryl Richard, MSTU Project Manager, Tessie Sillery - MSTU Project Coordinator, Pam Lulich - Landscape Operations Manager, Others: Kate Donofrio - FPL Governmental Account Manager, Charlotte Miller - FPL External Affairs Manager, Chris Tindell - Malcolm Pirnie, Jackie Bammel and Lou Schmidt and many persons from the public) II. Burial of Utility Lines - Charles Arthur gave a slide presentation and discussed the following: A. Scope of Project . Hired Wilson Miller to provide a plan on the Beautification of Vanderbilt Beach area. . Surveys were mailed to all homeowners to research what improvements they would like for the Community, · The Survey showed the "No. 1 Priority" in all neighborhoods was to bury utility lines, · Burial of utility lines will provide security during storms, enhance property values, improve esthetics and lower service calls. · The Area affected will be Vanderbilt Drive West to the beach; from Vanderbilt Beach Road North to Wiggins Pass and does not involved Naples Park or East of Vanderbilt Drive, B. Estimated Cost · MSTU has $4,500,000 that can be used for the Project. · MSTU adds $800,000 a year from tax revenue. · Tax revenue will aide in funding the completion of the project over next few years, · Total estimated costs for entire Project are $6,600,000. · Other funding opportunities were considered but not fe_lcbrres: 1 0Ilt: 11IIII1. C0Piesto 16/1 815 · C. Phasing of Work . A major accomplishment was getting a ROW Agreement. . Start with Phase I on Gulf Shore Drive and 3-Finger streets. . Phase I estimated cost are $1,600,000, D. Use of Right of Way . ROW Agreement states FPL, Embarq and Comcast are allowed to bury their lines in the ROW. . ROW Agreement is important because if utility companies bury their lines in the homeowners' property it would require an easement from every homeowner. E. Visual impact and placement of Boxes . Surveyors identified the existing utilities. . FPL has approved the survey, . FPL will be providing a Design Plan on placement and types of boxes and switch panels. . Electric and cable lines will be buried in the same trench, . Wherever there is a pole, a switch box will be installed. F. Easements required . Switch Cabinets may require the use of easements . All homeowners will benefit from the burial of utility lines and if an easement is required, the MSTU suggests it be given without any cost to the Community. G, Homeowner responsibilities for overheads . Most Condo owners will not have a cost. . Service "Drops" will go from weatherhead to riser at the expense of the homeowner . An Ordinance does not allow the MSTU to pay for work performed on private property, . Homeowners were encouraged to have the weatherhead changed to a riser by a licensed electrician. . The cost to go from weatherhead to a riser is approximately $1,500. . If a homeowner decides not to convert, a pole will be installed on the homeowners' property at the homeowners' expense. . The cost of the poles is approximately $800, III. 25% FPL Contribution Charlotte Miller reported the GAF Potential Eligibility Program is a pilot tariff approved by the Public Service Commission has been in effect for 2 years and extended another year. She stated the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU meets the Program Requirements. To receive the 25% Cost Reduction, 100% of the homeowners will need to be converted. If anyone homeowner chooses not to convert to underground, it will disqualify the MSTU the right to receive the 25% Cost Reduction. 2 16/1 815 IV. Questions and Answers Q. When will the Project start and when will it be finished? A. There wasn't an exact answer to the question. The Designs will be completed late summer. The construction must commence within 180 days, Q. Will there be an interruption of service? A. No interruptions are expected. If there is an interruption in service, it will be a minimal amount of time, Q. How many Phases will there be? A. There will be 4-Phases; Phase I is Gulf Shore Drive and finger streets. The other 3-Phases are Vanderbilt Beach Road, Bluebill Avenue and the land on the East side of the Lagoon. The order of the Phases has not been determined. Q. How will they pay for the project? A. MSTU is chartered by the County and funded by tax revenues based on valuation. Q. Does the 25% GAF Cost Reduction apply to the entire cost? A. The 25% will be applied to the 6,6 mil. Q. How many Switch Cabinets will be installed in Phase I? A. 5-Switch Cabinets will be installed on Gulf Shore Drive. Q. Will the conversion affect FPL employees losing their jobs? A. No drop of employment is foreseen. Q. What if the home has a riser? A. If a home has a riser, there won't be additional costs. Charles Arthur noted the MSTU is interested in saving time and money on hiring licensed electricians. The MSTU cannot hire anyone, but could make recommendations for approval to the BCC. Dick Lydon stated his term on the MSTU will soon expire. He has served on the Board for a long duration of time and is ready to retire. If anyone has an interest to serve on the Board, please contact him. There being no further business for the good of the County, the public meeting was adjourned at 8:00 P.M. 3 16/111315 Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Advisory Committee _'-':.-'.. >~-f'r- --"._/" /~ ;:""- .::.- --'~l, .,i' /' ",," ...... Di~k Lydon, Chaihnan'--- These minutes approved by the Committ~ on i -J.. () 1 as presented or amended L The next meeting is April 2, 2009 at 2:00 PM ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER 625 111TH Ave. Naples, FL. 4 1611 81 "aM""" B..,. At.s.7.fA. I 5 AdviSOry eo".".ltt.. 270!i Horseshoe Dlive South Naples, FL :i4104 October 15, 2009 MINUTES I. Call Meeting to Order The meeting was called to order by Charles Arthur at 9:03 P.M. II. Attendance Members: Bud Martin, Dick Lydon (Excused), Charles Arthur, Bruce Forman, Bill Gonnering County: Darryl Richard-MSTU Project Manager, Tessie Sillery-Operations Coordinator, Caroline Soto-Budget Analyst, Michelle Arnold-Director A TM, Pam Lulich-Manger Landscape Operations Others: Jim Fritchey-CLM, Chris Tilman-Malcolm Pirnie, Mike Ward-RWA Lew Schmidt-Resident, Darlene Lafferty-Mancan III. Approval of Agenda Bud Martin moved to approve the agenda as presented. Second by Bill Gonnering. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IV. Approval of Minutes - June 4, 2009 Discussions ensued on the Committees misconceotion concerning Pg 2, third bullet and requested the following be added to the Minutes: If unable to contact the 4th residence FPL will install a pole and the "MSTU' will be billed $800.00, Bud Martin moved to approve the minutes of June 4, 2009 as submitted. Second by Bill Gonnering. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. LandscaDe Maintenance ReDort Jim Fritchey reported the following: o Spray Turf for cinch bugs-Complete o Trim Palms-Complete o Checking all Site line issues-In progress o Hedge trimming-Rough cut to 6 ft. complete It was reported a Homeowner expressed concerned about incorrect pruning and fronds were not picked up, V. Transportation Services Report 1 16/1"15 A. Budget Report - Caroline Soto distributed and reviewed Fiscal Year end September 30,2009 and October 15, 2009 reports (See attached) Fiscal Year end SeDtember 30. 2009 o Revenue Structure is short $28,474.76 o Available Operating Expense $42,916.26 o Available Improvements General $4,172,350.82 October 15. 2009 Reoort o Anticipated Ad Valorem Tax $978,700,00 o Available Improvements General $4,922,900.00 Charles Arthur requested a balance sheet at the November 5, 2009 meeting. B. Project Manager Report-Darryl Richard (See attached) Charles Arthur gave an update on Utilities: Channel Drive o July 2009 was scheduled for completion and FPL has not commenced work o 3 out of 4 homes converting to overhead connection have paid their portion of cost ($650.00) o Work is complete on 2 out of 4 homes o 4th Homeowner has refused to convert as it is a Rental Property o Per Attorney letter to Scott Teach an Ordinance may be adopted to require Homeowner participation for the Underground conversion (See attached) After much discussion it was agreed by Staff and Committee to request an Ordinance modification to include a deadline and non compliance penalty for Homeowner conversion. Bud Martin moved to support the County directing a new Ordinance be instituted that covers the connection to the MSTU underground facilities if desired. Second by Bruce Forman. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Discussions continued concerning Homeowner refusal for underground conversion on the following issues: o Committee suggested the County pay for conversion if a Homeowner refused as penalty fees may flow to the County o MSTU presently is paying for trenching and saves homeowner $2,000,00 o Underground conversion is in the best interest of Public Safety o A mix of underground/overhead utilities is the least practical setti ng Charles Arthur continued: Phase I o Working with Preliminary Design o Deposit was paid o Is a liability if electrical work is outsourced 2 16 I 1 a 15 ~ o Site layout sketch by FPL is deficient for Contractor bidding hence additional cosUdelay will be incurred as new drawings are required o Developer of large home (Channel Dr.) advised it will be fully enclosed by January and require power Darryl Richard reported the following on Phase I o John Leer is attending the November 5, 2009 meeting o 15 potential easement acquisition areas o Staff will request BCC approval in November for FPL Contract o Comcast cost will be 100% (Channel Dr.) no cost reduction Malcolm Pirnie Proposal in amount of $40,000.00 for FY10 Continuing Services was distributed, (See attached) Discussions resumed on Channel Drive Underground Conversion and the following was determined o Staff and Malcolm Pirnie will work on easement agreements o Charles Arthur volunteered to draft letter to Homeowners requesting they expedite Underground Conversion Bud Marlin moved to approve Malcolm Pimie Proposal (for FY10 Continuing Services $40,000.00.) Second by Bill Gonnering. Motion carried unanimously 4--0. RWA Proposal for Phase II - IV was distributed and discussed. (See attached) After much discussion it was concluded as premature to start subsequent Phases. Phase II Survey will be performed upon commencement of Phase I VI. Landscape Maintenance Report-CLM-Jim Fritchey-Previously discussed under IV. VII. Old Business Bud Martin questioned status on Connor Park Project. Darryl Richard responded: o Parking lot is progressing o Retention Pond is idle o Staff will inquire with Road and Bridge Darryl Richard announced sidewalk installation along 8th Street by Pathways. VIII. Project Update A. Utilities-Charles Arthur-Previously discussed under V. B. B. Maintenance-Bruce Forman-None C. Tax Analysis-Bud Martin-None 3 D. Liaison-Dick Lydon-None 16 11 B 15 IX. New Business-None X. Public Comment-None There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned at 10:37 a.m. Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Advisory Committee {!(/Ui!e1t!j;2 Charles Arthur, Vice Chairman These minutes approved by the Committee on' /. 5 - () 1 as presented or amended (( The next meeting is at 2:00 P.M. on November 5, 2009 ST. JOHNS PARISH LIFE CENTER 625111TH Ave. Naples, FL. 4 Fiala Halas Henning Coyle Coletta , 1 8 rN~2~):~ "MIl""" B~. Mi.tl BoardOfCoun~Co~e" AdviSOry eo".".III" 27(1) Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL a4104 October 15, 2009 Summary of Minutes & Motions III. Approval of Agenda Bud Martin moved to approve the agenda as presented. Second by Bill Gonnering. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. IV. Approval of Minutes - June 4, 2009 Discussions ensued on the Committees misconceDtion concerning Pg 2, third bullet and requested the following be added to the Minutes: If unable to contact the 4th residence FPL will install a pole and the "MSTU' will be billed $800.00. Bud Martin moved to approve the minutes of June 4, 2009 as submitted. Second by Bill Gonnering. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. V. Transportation Services Report B. Project Manager Report-Darryl Richard Charles Arthur reported per Scott Teach an Ordinance modification may be adopted to require Homeowner participation for Underground Utility Conversion. After much discussion it was agreed by Staff and Committee to request an Ordinance modification to include a deadline and non compliance penalty for Homeowner conversion. Bud Martin moved to support the County directing a new Ordinance be instituted that covers the connection to the MSTU underground facilities if desired. Second by Bruce Forman. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Malcolm Pirnie Proposal in amount of $40,000.00 for FY1 0 Continuing Services was distributed, Bud Martin moved to approve Malcolm Pimie Proposal (for FY10 Continuing Services $40,000.00.) Second by Bill Gonnering. Motion carried unanimously 4-0. Mite. CoIres: 011I: 1tImt: CopieI to: 16 /1 815 Report for: October 15, 2009 Meeting Prepared by: Darryl Richard, Project Manger, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Tessie Sillery, Operations Coordinator, Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Proiect Status (V A-33)- ACTIVE - RW A Proposal for Phase II, III, and IV survey 10-12-09 Mike Ward, PLS, RWA Consulting Inc, provides quote for survey Phase 2,3, and 4 (V A-32)- ACTIVE - Legal Review: underground utilities conversion project 10-12-09 County Legal provides legal opinion from Nabors Giblin & Nickerson, 1500 Mahan Drive, Suite 200, Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (Jetter dated 10-8-09 Gregory T, Stewart) (V A-31)- ACTIVE FPL Channel Drive (Design and Cost Estimate) 08-07-09 RYAN DRUMM SUBMITTAL - Channel Drive UFCA; and 'Draft' plans; Ryan confirms no existing underground FPL Facilities on Channel Drive 09-16-09 RYAN DRUMM 2nd SUBMITTAL - Channel Drive UFCA (dated 8-18-09); and' Final' Channel Drive plans (marked 'check se!') 09-21-09 Ryan Drumm confirms total cost for Channel Drive project is: $23,242,00; Staff will process payment on FPL Invoice upon BCC approval of UFCA (pending legal review/approval) (V A-30)- ACT I VE - Com cast Channel Drive & Phase One (Design and Cost Estimate) I 0-06-09 Initial review of project with Cestari Maureen Channel Drive Plans forwarded to Corneas! for quote of underground conversion for Corneas! overhead utilities Mark Cook informs County Staff that Com cast has re-assigned project review to himself and Andy Vaspasiano; Mark indicates he and Andy are working on "Channel Drive" Cost estimate, COMCAST (Mark Cook) CONFIRMS 100% of conversion of Comcast Utilities is to be by the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU as the project sponsor. Comcast indicates that there will be no 'reductions' in cost due to 'depreciation' of equipment/existing installation. Services are identified as 'new' and 'not in need of upgrade', Installation of underground conduit for Com cast is through Com cast contractor managed 'entirely by Comcast', Comcast is currently working on Design and Cost Estimate for Channel Drive Project; after completion of this task, Comcast will coordinate on production of design plans and cost estimate for Phase One Project (pending final FPL plans for Phase One) 03-26-08 09-24-09 10-15-09 (V A-29)- ACTIVE - Channel Drive Undergronnd Facilities Conversion Agreement (UFCA) 10-13-09 County Legal formal approval for 'legal sufficiency' of Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement (UFCA); Signature from FPL requested 10-14-09 Phone call from John Lehr (FPL) indicates that a 'revision' to the UFCA submitted by Ryan Drumm on 8-7-09 is necessary and that there should be 4 pages total rather than the current 'one page' (phone call w/ John Lehr) (V A-28)- ACTIVE -Malcolm Pirnie; Phase I Construction Management Services (Vanderbilt Beach MSTU FPL Underground Power Conversion Project) 09-28-09 Notice to Proceed sent to Malcolm Pirnie 10-14-09 Malcolm Pirnie meeting with staff to review 10-14-09 FPL plan submittal. (V A-27)- ACTIVE -' Phase One "Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement" (UFCA) I 16/1 815 10-14-09 Currently as "Phase One" is still under preliminary design review - FPL has not submitted proposed language for PHASE ONE UFCA, however, as soon as (I) Design is completed and approved by County (Malcolm Pimie Review); and (2) Cost are identified in "Engineering Cost Estimate"; FPL will submit language for PHASE ONE UFCA, (V A-26)- ACTIVE -Malcolm Pirnie; Review preliminary design provided by FPL 10-09-09 Malcolm Pimie submits letter for review of Project Drawing submittals and recommendation related to which party should install the underground conduit for Phase One Project 10-15-09 Ongoing plan review for phase one design; need to confirm 'no easement' required for Phase One per 10-14-09 plan submittal. (V A-24)- COMPLETEFPL receipt of Engineering Deposit 04-20-09 FPL confirms receipt of payment for $13,027,00 Phase One Deposit; Design to begin (V A-23)- ACTIVE FPL Phase One Design 06-25-09 FPL Draft Design submittal Phase One Plans 10-14-09 FPL SUBMITTAL; PLANS FOR PHASE ONE PROJECT (Marked 'Preliminary') (V A-19) - ACTIVE-ONGOING - On Call Services - Malcolm Pirnie Engineering MP-FT-3657-08-03; PO 4500098566; On-going services for meeting attendance and preliminary investigation regarding underground power line installation. 10-15-09 Malcolm Pimie indicates 'renewal of services contract for FY-2010 is necessary for continuation of "On Call Services" for the MSTU FPL Project. (V A-18) - ACTIVE-ON GOING- - Maintenance Contract - "Vanderbilt Beach Beautification MSTU Roadway Grounds Maintenance"; Award to Commercial Land; Annual Maintenance 'base contract' per Quote Company Base + Mowing & Edging = Total Base Planting Services Total Quote Commercial Land Maint $32,988,00 (+$2,600) ~ $35,588,00 $25,491.00 $61,079,00 2 12-11-07 03-26-08 03-10-08 05-12-08 06-05-09 06-23-09 09-11-08 09-12-08 09-17-08 09-22-08 11-21-08 02-02-09 02-04-09 03-09-09 04-10-09 06-01-09 06-25-09 16tl.B15 Officially we are 674 days into the project Brief summory of "Underground Utilities Conversion" project activity Since December 11, 2007 Initial BCC Approval of Agreement BCC Agreement date Dee. 11, 2007 TEAM TELECONFERNCE (FPL, COMCA5T, COUNTY, M5TU (C.ARTHUR), VBPOA (JACKIE BAMMEL, RWA, MALCOLM PIRNIE) PUBLIC MEETING AT ST. JOHNS Review of RWA Survey wi Malcolm Pirnie and C. Arthur Confirmation of 4 residential units affected by "Channel Drive Pilot Project" with FPL (Ryan Drum); Field Meeting to review project; Affected Properties are: NANCE, HAROLD 283 CHANNEL BA5TANI, KEN K 261 CHANNEL KOHLER, RUTH H 227 CHANNEL REYNOLDS TR, HENRY E 213 CHANNEL CHANNEL DRIVE: Hart's Electrical begins work per PO 4500107832 Review of 1st RWA Survey Submittal Sept 11, 2008 Confirmation of FPL Red-Line Comments for survey 5ep. 12,2008 TEAM TELECONFERENCE (FPL, MALCOLM PIRNIE) FPL "Pot Hole" digs recommended locations identified Sept 22, 2008 TEAM MEETING (C. ARTHUR, J. BAMMEL, MALCOLM PIRNIE) FPL Approval of Survey Feb. 4, 2009 Staff request $13,027.00 Engineering Deposit Invoice Feb. 4, 2009 PUBLIC MEETING AT ST. JOHNS Verification of easements for 'private property' April 10, 2009 CHANNEL DRIVE: Ryan Drumm (FPL) request .pdf of ROW Agreement for review; forwarded via email FPL Draft Design submittal Phase One Plans 06- 2 6-09 06-26-09 07-27-09 08-07 -09 09-16-09 09-17-09 09-22-09 09-21-09 09-23-09 09-24-09 10-01-09 .....- ."...- 16 , 1 815 Staff request (1) Cadd file of Phase One Submittal; (2) Review indicates drawings are not sufficient for bidding purposes; (3) Full size prints 'to scale' requested' TELECONFERNCE ; CALL IN FROM FPL (John Lehr, FPL; Troy Todd, FPL; Ryan Drumm, FPL; Darryl Richard, Collier County) Troy Todd (FPL) clarifies that "tariff charges" apply to Channel Drive Project (ref: Tariff No.6 per PSC approved Tariff); $566.59 for the 4 properties on Channel Drive CHANNEL DRIVE: Hart's Electrical completed electrical from ROW to HomelResident for the following Channel Drive Address': 213,283,263 and 227 RYAN DRUMM SUBMITTAL - Channel Drive UFCA; and 'Draft' plans; Ryan confirms no existing underground FPL Facilities on Channel Drive RYAN DRUMM 20d SUBMITTAL - Channel Drive UFCA (dated 8-18-09); and 'Final' Channel Drive plans (marked 'check set') CHANNEL DRIVE RESIDENT COORDINATION: Kent Smith called on behalf of Mr. Nance to report that he has received the mailing/letter regarding Channel Drive project and that Mr. Nance chooses to 'not participate' at this time due to financial concerns. He mentioned his wife was in the hospital and that he did not have the money to pay the $650.00 for his "private conversion" to underground. TELECONFERENCE (FPL, COUNTY LEGAL, STAFF, MALCOLM PIRNIE, C. ARTHUR) Recommendations: FPL to submit 'agreement' in word format (if possible); staff to proceed with obtaining payment for 'private' underground conversion from property owners Nance and Bastani on Channel Drive. FPL confirms that survey has been accepted and 'Final Plans' are pending for Phase One Project. Ryan Drumm provides FPL Cost Breakdown for Channel Drive; Staff intends to process payment for an "FPL Invoice" upon BCC approval of UFCA (Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement) for Channel Drive; UFCA is pending completion of 'legal review' TOTAL CHANNEL DRIVE COST: $23,242.00 Message from Mr. Kent Smith (Legal Representative for Mr. Nance (Property Owner at 283 Channel Drive); Mr. Smith stated that the 'owner' has 'no desire' to underground his private connection, and furthermore has 'no intention of spending any money on his home' (at 283 Channel Drive) related to the power line underground conversion. COMCAST COORDINATION; Channel Drive Plans forwarded to Comcast for quote of underground conversion for Comcast overhead utilities Phase One "Legal Description" forwarded to FPL for confirmation of FPL formal acceptance of 'Legal Description' per 'Right of Way Agreement Section 2. Sub-section (d)' 10-05-09 10-06-09 10-09-09 10-12-09 10-12-09 10-13-09 10-14-09 10-14-09 16 1'1 Rtf; FPL ACCEPTANCE OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION; John Lehr via email confirms FPL's official acceptance of the legal description for the Phase One Project; Staff request confirmation of "EXISTING FPL FACILITIES" per 'Right of Way Agreement Section 2. Sub- section (el) documentation of all existing FPL underground facilities within the ROW that will not be included under ROW agreement (for Exhibit C) COMCAST COORINDINATION: Mark Cook informs County Staff that Comcast has re- assigned project review to himself and Andy Vaspasiano; Mark indicates he and Andy are working on "Channel Drive" Cost estimate. **COMCAST CONFIRMS 100% of conversion of Comcast Utilities is to be by the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU as the project sponsor. Comcast indicates that there will be no 'reductions' in cost due to 'depreciation' of equipment/existing installation. ServLces are identified as 'new' and 'not in need of upgrade'. Installation of underground conduit for Comcast is through Comcast contractor managed 'entirely by Comcast'. Malcolm Pirnie submits letter for review of Project Drawing submittals and recommendation related to which party should install the underground conduit for Phase One Project County Legal provides legal opinion from Nabors Giblin & Nickerson, 1500 Mahan Drive, Suite 200, Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (letter dated 10-8-09 Gregory T. Stewart RWA Proposal submitted for survey of Phase II, III, and IV TELECONFERENCE (c. ARTHUR, STAFF, MALCOLM PIRNIE) FPL SUBMITTAL; PLANS FOR PHASE ONE PROJECT (Marked 'Preliminary') John Lehr notifies staff (via phone call evening of 10-14-09) that the 'one page' agreement submitted on 8-7-09 has to be revised to a new 4 page agreement (delivery pending from FPL) '''1 / i' ..1J Ii ':J il ~ From: Drumm, Ryan [mailto:Ryan.Drumm@fpl.com] Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 11 :35 AM To: RlchardDarryl Cc: Donofrio, Kathryn; Lehr, John; Miller, Chanotte R SUbject: FPL Cost Breakdown Darryl, The cost breakdown you requested: Cutri B~ tan' CWtoifWlll' ~iMM T_ llIIIor/YlIIlIde - ~UGF_.(-) ClodiIlll.."'.......OHli OH FlomowII-) T_ NM_V_I-) s.... VeIuo (-) _lIIl Englnoorin9 Oopollit Ii 0,..,""""" eo... (-) MP.C(-) 128.298 (Slam) $6.419 _ D.. FPl. Thank you, Ryan Drumm Engineer I Bonita Springs Service Center 26430 Old 41 Road Bonita Springs, FL 34135 01fiC&: 239-947-7341 FAX: 239-947-7345 Cell: 239-851-1683 www.fol.com 815 1611 815 Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 4315 Metro Pkwy, Suite 520 Fort Myers, FL 33916 Phone (239) 332-1300 Fax (239) 332-1789 www_pirnie.com MALCOLM PIRNIE INDEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS AND CONSULTANTS October 8, 2009 Mr. Darryl Richard, RLA Project Manager Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 Re: Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Phase 1 Design Drawings Dear Mr. Richard: The plan for the Phase 1 undergrounding project in the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU (MSTU) has always been that Florida Power and Light (FPL) and Comcast Cable (Comcast) would prepare the construction drawings and specifications for undergrounding their respective utilities, and the County would incorporate those drawings and specifications into contract documents for bidding to contractors. Based on the drawings we have seen so far from FPL for Phase 1 and Channel Drive, Malcolm Pirnie is concerned that the drawings that will be provided by FPL and Comcast for this project will be insufficient for bidding purposes. Although we realize that the Phase 1 drawings are just preliminary at this point, the Channel Drive drawings are marked "checkprint" and do not have sufficient detail for construction purposes. We have noted several issues with the drawings, including scaling errors, lack of horizontal and vertical locations for transformer pads, no indication of conduit size, length, or materials, and others. If the final FPL and Comcast drawings for Phase 1 are of similar detail and quality to the drawings submitted by FPL for Channel Drive, the MSTU will have two options to complete the project: Option 1: The MSTU can hire an engineering firm to prepare signed and sealed, bid-quality design drawings and specifications for the FPL electric utility service and the Comcast cable service. This option gives the MSTU almost full control over the design, but will incur significant additional costs and would probably take 6-8 months to complete. The plans would then take another 2-3 months to bid through the County Purchasing Department and the M5TU (and the design engineerl would be liable for any change orders during construction. Construction costs may not be much different than Option 2, as there are only a small number of FPL-approved contractors, but the MSTU would have a great deal of control over the contractors during the construction phase. 16/181,5 MALCOlM PIRNIE Mr. Darryl Richard, RLA Vanderbilt Beach MSTU October 8, 2009 Page 2 of2 Option 2: Pay FPL (and Comcastl to develop their own design documents and complete the construction using their own contractors. The MSTU has already paid FPL for the Phase 1 engineering deposit, and Comcast has indicated that they prefer to install their infrastructure using their own contractors. This option allows the MSTU sufficient influence over the design, speeds up the project, and places all liability during construction on FPL and Comcast. However, the construction costs would likely be higher, and the MSTU would have very little (if any) control over the contractors during the construction phase. If you have any questions regarding this letter or need any additional information, please feel free to contact me at (239) 332-1300. Sincerely, MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC. /1;1 IM~ ..f I , I".' j I . i J " I ,. I L G L (: Christopher C. Tilman, P.E. Senior Consultant 4037108 16/1B15 TALLAHASSEE Suite 200 1500 Mahar; Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (850) 2244010 Tel (850) 224-4073 Fax Nabors Giblin & NickersonPA. FORT LAUDERDALE 208 S.E. Sixth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 {954} 525-8000 Tel (954) 525-8331 Fax ATIO~{I'~t':ys. /; L A iN TAMPA Suite 1060 2502 Rocky Point Drive Tampa, Rorida 33607 (813) 281-2222 Tef (813) 281-0129 Fax Reply to Tallahassee October 8, 2009 Via Electronic and U.S. Mail Scott R. Teach Deputy County Attorney Collier County 3301 East Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34112 Re: Vanderbilt Beach MSTU Dear Mr. Teach: You have requested an opinion concerning the ability to utilize a Municipal Service Taxing Unit created in Vanderbilt Beach for the purposes of relocating and undergrounding utility lines of Florida Power & Light. Additionally, you have requested an opinion as to whether the County may require property owners to connect to the underground system once installed. Based upon my review, it is my opinion that the County can use the proceeds of the ad valorem tax levied within the boundaries of the Municipal Service Taxing Unit to underground the utility lines of Florida Power & Light and that residents within that MSTU can be compelled to connect to the system. Under the provisions of Section 125.01(1) (q), Florida Statutes, counties are specifically given the power to create Municipal Service Taxing Units and Benefits Units. Section 125_01(1) (q) provides in pertinent part: 16/1 B1~ Scott R. Teach October 8, 2009 Page 2 Establish, and subsequently merge or abolish those created hereunder, municipal service taxing or benefit units for any part or all of the unincorporated area of the county, within which may be provided fire protection; law enforcement; beach erosion control; recreation service and facilities; water; streets; sidewalks; street lighting; garbage and trash collection and disposal; waste and sewage collection and disposal; drainage; transportation; indigent health care services; mental health care services; and other essential facilities and municipal services from funds derived from service charges, special assessments, or taxes within such unit only. As authorized by this section, a Municipal Service Taxing Unit ("MSTU") is a mechanism, by which a county can fund a particular service or improvement from the levy of ad valorem taxes within a specific area. Thus an MSTU is a tax equity tool available to a board of county commissioners to place the burden of ad valorem taxes upon a particular area. As the service or improvement provided within a MSTU is through an ad valorem tax, there is no requirement of a specific benefit from the expenditure of those revenues. Under an MSTU, the particular service or improvement must consti tute a municipal service and the statute provides a non- exclusive list of such services and facilities which are deemed to constitute municipal services. It further provides a catch- all for other "essential facilities and municipal services." The provision of electrical lines is not among the enumerated list of municipal services, however, several other types of utility services and facilities are provided. It is our opinion that the provision of electrical facilities does constitute a municipal service and improvement and may be funded by an MSTU. The particular ordinance Beautification Municipal Service MSTU is for the purpose of: creating the Taxing Unit Vanderbilt Beach provides that the 1611915 Scott R. Teach October 8, 2009 Page 3 (1) Providing curbing, watering faci Ii ties, plantings and maintenance of the median strips and right-of-way edges of roadways within the MSTU; (2) Providing traffic calming improvements, street lighting, and sidewalks within the MSTU; (3) Beautification and maintenance of other public areas wi thin the MSTU as determined by the Advisory Committee; and (4) Providing for the Burial of Power Lines within the MSTU, including providing underground trenching and burial of utility lines from the street or transformer to private residences and, as needed, arranging to locate the burial of such power lines alongside any existing utility easements but excluding the expenditure of MSTU funds for any additional wiring or installation of improvements or upgrades to connect service to residences required by current code or resulting from any other hardware nonconformity. See Sec. 122-278. As the MSTU was created to provide beautification of the Vanderbilt Beach area and, among its express purposes was the burial of power lines, it is our opinion that the undergrounding of electrical lines is a valid municipal service or facility under both the ordinance and state law. Therefore, the proceeds of the ad valorem levy within the boundaries of the MSTU may be used to underground the electrical utility lines. The second aspect of this opinion is whether the individual property owners could be compelled to connect to the underground lines. Based upon the information provided, once the electrical lines are placed underground, the individual property owners will need to have an electrician remove the overhead connection and cap off the conduit on the roof of the structure. Underground wiring would then be placed in an existing utility 16 I ~1'" B1 5 Scott R. Teach October 8, 2009 Page 4 easement and connected to the outside of the house. There is no upgrade necessary to make the connection and the approximate cost, which would not be assumed by the MSTU, would be less than $1,000 per structure. The undergrounding of the electrical lines constitutes a legi timate public purpose. The benefits of the undergrounding of these lines to the public are substantial_ There is clearly a safety issue from the elimination of power poles and potential of lines falling. Further, there are benefits obtained by reduced power outages during storm events. It is well established that a governmental entity may lawfully require property owners to connect to the utilities after receiving notice of availability. Keys Citizens for Responsible Gov't, Inc. v. Florida Keys Aqueduct Auth., 795 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 2001); Peoples Water Service v. Adkinson, 184 So. 2d 707 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966); Hutchinson v. City of Valdosta, 227 U.S. 303, 308, 33 S. Ct. 290, 57 L. Ed. 520 (1913) (HIt is the commonest exercise of the police power of a state or city to provide for a system of sewers, and to compel property owners to connect therewithH); City of Trenton v. New Jersey, 262 U. S. 182, 185, 43 S. Ct. 534, 67 L. Ed. 937 (1923) ("The state undoubtedly has power, and it is its duty, to control and conserve the use of its water resources for the benefit of all its inhabitants. .H) Further, there are several provisions of Florida Statutes which require individual property owners to connect with utility services once they are available. (See section 381.00655, Florida Statutes). The primary area where this is utilized is with wastewater connections. In that context, the primary public purpose behind the requirement that a property owner physically connects to a central sewer service once it is available is that it eliminates the use of septic tank systems. The legal analysis in terms of the availability of utility system, the safety issues that result from the undergrounding of lines, and the requirement that property owners connect is no different in the present case. Therefore, I believe that to implement the public benefits received by undergrounding utility lines, that a county could adopt an ordinance, which would 1611 R 15 Scott R. Teach October 8, 2009 Page 5 require that property owners connect to underground electric lines once they are made available. Should you have any other additional questions, please feel free to contact me. GTS:pad 16/1B15 . FPL. FlorIda Power & Light Company August 7. 2009 Collier County - Darryl Richard MSTU Project Manager 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, FL 34104 Re: Vanderbilt MSTU - Channel Drive Dear Darryl: Pursuant to your request for a binding cost estimate, and your payment of ~ for the non-refundable engineering deposit, our engineering cost estimates have been completed. The binding estimate amount, known also as CIAC (Contribution In Aid of Construction), required by FPL for converting those overhead electric distribution facilities described in your letter to underground, is $23242.00 . This CIAC amount is based on the design shown on the attached FPL engineering drawings dated 8/5/2009, revision <0>. Any non-FPL requested modifications to these drawings will be billed at an hourly rate of $70.00. This estimate does not include restoration of property affected by the conversion; describing, securing, and recording of easements; clearing of trench routes; or rearrangement of customer service entrances. This estimate includes no costs you may incur from other utilities/pole licensees affected by the conversion. These aspects, as stated before, are the responsibility of the applicant. To fully account for all expenses which are part and parcel of the full cost of conversion and thereby ensure that other FPL customers do not pay for costs associated with your conversion (and likewise you theirs), FPL requires that the entity or person requesting the conversion agree to certain terms and conditions. The following identifies some, but is not limited to, the terms and conditions required of the applicant before commencing with the underground conversion of the overhead electrical distribution system. The applicant must: B. enter into agreements that will accommodate the conversion of other pole licensees (e.g. Tel. Co., CATV); b. describe, secure, and record all easements (along with opinion of title that they are valid), at no cost to FPL, necessary to accommodate the underground distribution system; c. secure all necessary permits before the commencement of construction. d. be responsible for the costs associated with maintaining service to any affected customer who refuses to rearrange hlslher service entrance to accept service from the underground distribution system; e. agree to be responsible for all restoration of property affected by the installation of the underground system; f. protect FPL from any claim or suit regarding restoration or property affected by the conversion; and g. agree to clear easements of trees and all obstructions that might conflict with construction of the underground system. This binding cost estimate is valid for 180 days, providing there is no work scope change. The 180 day window can be extended for a reasonable period of time for good cause. Should you request FPL to perform the conversion, please sign and return the attached Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement. If you do not request the conversion to be performed, or if the Agreement is not executed and its terms and conditions complied within the specified time period, your $0.00 engineering deposit will be forfeited and the estimate withdrawn. If the agreement is executed and its terms and conditions complied within that time period, FPL will apply the deposit toward the CIAC amount you would owe for the conversion. The remaining amount of $23.242.00 must be paid prior to commencement of construction by FPL. I look forward to hearing from you. Please contact me at 239-947-7341 if you have any questions. Sincerely, +-- D~ Ryan Drumm Engineer I an FPL Group Company UNDERGROUND FACILITIES CONVERSION AGREEMENT 16' IBlr This Agreement, made and entered into this I day of Auaust, 2009, by and between Collier Countv - Vanderbilt MSTU (hereinafter called tI1e Applicant) and FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, e corporation organized under tI1e laws of the State of Florida (hereinafter called FPL) is for the provision of underground electric distribution facilities by FPL in place of existing overhead electric distribution facilities pursuant to the Applicanfs request for such facilities. In consideration of the premises, covenants and agreements set forth herein, FPL and the Applicant agree as follows: 1. The Applicant shall pay FPL a Contribution in Aid Of Construction (CIAC) in the amount of $23.242.00. I" I~e e...ent t~e aa"al Geot of l~e prejea GoRlraaea fer ~erein, e,,,,eeas IRe CIAC iaeRtifiea a"e'/e, tRe Applioant sRall l3ay SA a~ditieRal GaAtFibutisR eqblal 19 tl=le lesser af the siffSF8RSB belweeA tAe asb:lal selSt 8f tAB prejeet aAd tf::Je elf C iaeRtified 8138':0, Sf 1 O~( Elf ttle CI/\C identified abevo. 2. Pursuant to this agreement, the Applicant agrees to comply with and abide by the requirements, tanns, and conditions of FPL's Electric Tariff as those requirements, terms, and conditions are set forth in said Tariff. 3. Upon compliance with the requirements, terms, and conditions of FPL's Electric Tariff, FPL will proceed in a timely manner with the conversion of the existing overhead distribution facilities to an underground configuration in accordance with the construction drawings and specifications set forth in Attachment A hereof. 4. In the event that the underground facilities to be installed, as specified in Attachment A, are part of, or are for the purposes of, relocation, then this Agreement shall be an addendum to the relocation agreement between FPL and the Applicant In the event of any conflict between the relocation agreement and this Agreement or the Electric Tariff, this Agreement and the Electric Tariff shall control. 5. Failure by tI1e Applicant to comply with any of the requirements, terms, or conditions of tI1is agreement or FPL's Electric Tariff shall result in termination of this agreement. The Applicant may terminate this agreement at any time prior to the start of construction and the CIAC paid by the Applicant will be refunded to tI1e Applicant, provided however, that the refund of the CIAC shall be oftset by any costs incurred by FPL in pertorming under the agreement up to the date of termination. 6. This agreement is not assignable. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, FPL and the Applicant have executed this Agreement for the provision of electric underground distribution facilities to be effective as of the date first above written. APPLICANT FPL Signed Signed 7-t7~ Name Name Kya.1" Dru.....,.., , Title Title Enj;"Ur :L 16 /1 R 15 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Second Revised Sheet No. 6.300 Cancels First Revised Sheet No. 6.300 INSTALLATION OF UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES FOR THE CONVERSION OF OVERHEAD ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES SECTION 12. t DEFINITIONS APPLICANT _ Any person, corporation, or entity capable of complying with the requirements of this tariff that bas made a written request for underground electric distribution facilities in accordance with this tariff. CONVERSION _ Any installation of underground electric distribution facilities where the underground facilities will be substituted for existing overhead electric distribution facilities, including relocations. CONTRlBUTlON-IN-AID-OF-CONSTRUCTlON ICIAC) The CIAC to be paid by an Applicant under this tariff section shall be the result oftbe following formula: CIAC~ The estimated cost to install the requested underground facilities; + The estimated cost to remove the existing overhead facilities; + The net book value ofthe existing overhead facilities; + The net present value of the estimated operational costs of underground facilities over 30 years; + The net present value of the estimated average stonn restoration costs ofundergrOlmd facilities over 30 years; The estimated cost that would be incurred to install new overhead facilities, in lieu of underground, to replace the existing overhead facilities (the "Hypothetical Overhead Facilities"); The estimated salvage value of the existing overhead facilities to be removed; The net present value of the estimated operational costs ofthe overhead facilities over 30 years; The net present value of the estimated average storm restoration costs of overhead facilities over 30 years. OAF Waiver For Applicants entering into an Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement - Governmental Adjustment Factor Waiver with the Company. the otherwise applicable CIAC amount. as calculated above, shall be reduced by the GAP Waiver. If the Applicant elects to construct and install all or part of the underground facilities, then for purposes of calculating the GAF Waiver amount only, the otherwise applicable CIACshaH be adjusted to add FPL's estimated cost for the Applicant-performed work. The amount ofthe GAF Waiver shall be calculated as follows: GAF Waiver = 25% x the otherwise applicable CIAC; + 75% x (the net present value of the estimated average storm restoration costs of underground facilities over 30 years less the net present value of the estimated average storm restoration costs of overhead facilities over 30 years). Note: The final tenn avoids double-counting the estimated average stonn restoration costs embedded in the otherwise applicable CIAC. DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM - Electric service facilities consisting of primary and secondary conductors, service drops, service laterals, conduits, t:raJ1gformers and necessary accessories and appurtenances for the furnishing of electric power at utilization voltage. SERVICE FACILITIES - The entire length of cQnductors between the distribution source, including any conduit and or risers at a pole or other structure or from transformers, from which only one point of service will result, and the first point of connection to the service entrance conductors at a weatherhead, in a termin'al, or meter box outside the building wall; the terminal or meter box; and the meter. (Continued on Sheet No. 6.301) Issued by: S. E. Romig, Director, Rates and Tariffs Effective: April 4, 2006 161 ! 815 Original Sheet No. 6.301 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY (Continued from Sheet No, 6.300) SECTION 12.2 GENERAL 12.2.1 Anolication This tariff section applies to all requests for underground electric distribution facilities where the facilities requested will be substituted for existing overhead electric distribution facilities. Any person, corporation,. or entity capable of complying with the requirements oftMs tariff may submit a request as follows. Request'> shall be in writing and must specifY in detail the overhead electric distribution facilities to be converted or the area to be served by underground electric distribution facilities in lieu of presently existing overhead electric distribution facilities serving said area. Upon receipt of a written request, FPL will detennine the feasibility of converting the existing facilities, any necessary revisions to this written request, and the non-refundable deposit amount necessary to secure a binding cost estimate and notify the applicant of said amount. 12.2.2 Contribution-in-Aid-Of-Construction feIAC) Upon the payment of a non~refundable deposit by an Applicant. FPL shall prepare a binding cost estimate specifying the contribution in aid of construction (CIAC) required for the installation of the requested underground distribution facilities, where the installation of such facilities is feasible, and provide said estimate to the Applicant upon completion of the estimate along with either an Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement or an Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement - Governmental Adjustment Factor Waiver. The CIAC amount to be collected pursuant to a binding cost estimate from an Applicant shall not be increased by more than 10 percent of the binding cost estimate to account for actual costs incurred in excess of the binding cost estimate. However, the ClAC may be subject to increase or refund if the project scope is enlarged or reduced at the request oftbe Applicant, or the CIAC is found to have a material error prior to the commencement of construction. The binding cost estimate provided to an Applicant shall be considered expired if the Applicant does not enter into either an Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement or an Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement - Governmental Adjustment Factor Waiver and pay the CIAC amount specified for the installation of the requested underground electric distribution facilities within 180 days of delivery of the binding cost estimate to the Applicant by FPL. (Continued on Sheet No. 6.310) Issued by: S. E. Romig~ Director, Rates and Tariffs Effective: April 4, 2006 , ... , I IH 15 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Third Revised Sheet No. 6.310 Cancels Second Revised Sheet No. 6.310 (Continued from Sheet No. 6.301) 12.2.3 Non-Refundable Deoosits The non~TefundBble deposit for a binding cost estimate for conversion to a direct buried cable in conduit underground electric distribution system shall be determined by multiplying the number of pole line feet of existing overhead electric distribution facilities to be converted by $1.20. The deposit must be paid to FPL to initiate the estimating process. The deposit will not be refundable, however, it will be applied in the calculation of the CIAC required for the installation of underground distribution facilities. The deposit and the preparation of a binding cost estimate are a prerequisite to the execution of either an Underground Facilities Conversion ~ Agreement or an Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement - Governmental Adjustment Factor Waiver. If the request for underground electric distribution facilities involves the conversion of less than 250 pole line feet of existing overh~ad facilities, then no deposit will be required for a binding cost estimate, provided, however, that all otherrequirements ofthis tariffshall still apply. 12.2.4 Non-BindiDll Cost Estimates Any person, corporation, or entity may request a non-binding cost estimate free of charge. The non-binding cost estimate shall be an order of magnitude estimate to assist the requestor in detennining whether to go forward with a binding cost estimate. Neither an Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement nor an Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement . Governmental Adjustment Factor Waiver may be executed on the basis ofa non-binding cost estimate. 12.2.5 UnderlZl"ound Facilities Conversion Aareement Any Applicant seeking the installation of underground distribution facilities pursuant to a written request hereunder shall execute either the Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement set forth in this tariffst Sheet No. 9.720 or. if applicable, the Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement. Governmental Adjustment Factor Waiver set forth in this tariff at Sheet No. 9.725. The applicable Agreement must be executed and the CIAC paid by the Applicant within 180 days of the delivery of the binding cost estimate to the Applicant. Failure to execute the applicable Agreement and pay the CIAC specified in the Agreement within the 180 day time limit. or tennination of the Agreement, shall result in the expiration of the binding cost estimate. Any subsequent request for underground facilities will require the payment ofa new deposit and the presentation of a new binding cost estimate. For good cause FPL may extend the 180 day time limit. Upon execution of either the Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement or the Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement - Governmental Adjustment Factor Waiver. payment in full of the CIAC specified in the binding cost estimate, and compliance with the requirements of this tariff, FPL shall proceed to convert the facilities identified in a timely manner. However, new service extensions, maintenance and reliabilitY projects, and service restorations shall take precedence over facilities conversions. 12.2.6 Simultaneous Conversion of Other Pole Licensees Before the initiation of any project to provide underground electric distribution facilities pursuant to either an Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement or an the Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement. Governmental Adjustment Factor Waiver the Applicant shaH have executed agreements with all affected pole licensees (e.g. telephone, cable TV, etc.) for the simultaneous conversion of those pole licensees' facilities and provide FPL with an executed copy of the Agreement(s). Such agreements shall specifically acknowledge that the affected pole licensees will coordinate their conversion with FPL and other licensees in a timely manner so as to not create unnecessary delays. Failure to present FPL with executed copies of any necessary agreements with affected pole licensees within 180 days after delivery ofthe binding cost estimate to the Applicant shall result in the expiration of the binding cost estimate, the return of any CIAC paid, and the tenninatian of any Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement or Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement - Governmental Adjustment Factor Waiver entered into between the Applicant and FPL. 12.2.7 Easements Before the initiation of any project to provide underground electric distribution facilities pursuant to either an Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement or an Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement ~ Governmental Adjustment Factor Waiver, the Applicant shall provide FPL, at no cost to FPL, all easements, including legal descriptions of such easements and all survey work associated with producing legal. descriptions of such easements, specified as necessary by FPL to accommodate the requested underground facilities along with an opinion of title that the easements are valid. Failure to provide the easements in the manner set forth above within 180 days after the delivery of the binding cost estimate to the Applicant shall result in the expiration of the binding cost estimate, the return of any CIAC paid, and the tennination of any Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement or Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement - Governmental Adjustment Factor Waiver entered into between the Applicant and FPL. (Continued on Sheet No. 6.320) Issoed by: S. E. Romig, Director, Rates and Tariffs Effective: April 4, 2006 1611 q15 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Third Revised Sheet No. 6.320 Cancels Second Revised Sheet No. 6.320 (Continued from SheelNo. 6.310) 12.2.8 Affected Customer Services The Applicant shaH be responsible for the costs associated with any modifications to the service facilities of customers affected by the conversion of FPL distribution facilities which are made necessary as a result of the conversion. The Applicant shall be responsible for arranging the conversion of affected residential overhead customer service facilities by providing, at no cost to FPL: a) any necessary rearranging of the customer's existing electric service entrance facilities to accommodate an underground service lateral through the use of a licens~ electrical contractor, in accordance with all local ordinances, codes, and FPL specifications; and b) a suitable trench, install FPL provided conduit according to FPL specifications to a point designated by FPL, and perform the backfilling and any landscape, pavement or other similar repairs FPL shall be responsible for the installation of the service lateral cable, the cost of which shall be included in the Applicant's binding cost estimate. In the event a customer does not allow the Applicant to convert the customer's affected overhead services, or the Applicant fails to comply with the above requirements in a timely manner consistent with FPL's conversion construction schedule, then the Applicant shall pay FPL, in addition to the CIAC specified io the binding cost estimate, the costs associated with maintaining service to said customer through an overhead service drop. The cost for maintaining an overhead service drop from an underground system shall be: a) the sum of$789 for residential dwellings containing less than five individual units; or, b) the estimated cost to maintain service for residential dwellings containing five or more individual units. For existing residential undergr01md service laterals affected by a conversion the Applicant shall be responsible for the trenching, backfilling and any landscape, pavement or other similar repairs and installation of FPL provided conduit, according to FPL specifications, necessary to bring existing underground service laterals of affected customers to an FPL designated handhole or lransfonner. FPL will install the necessary cable, the cost of which shall be included in the binding cost estimate. However,' in . the event that a customer owned service lateral fails on connection to the underground distribution system the customer will be responsible for the replacement of !heir service lateral or compliance with section 10.5 ofFPL's tariff. The Applicant's responsibilities for modifications to the service facilities of non-residential cuslomers affected by the conversion of FPL distribution facilities which are made necessary as a result of the conversion will be specified in an attachment to any Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement or Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement - Governmental Adjustment Factor Waiver. 12.2.9 Other Tel1l1S and Conditions Through the execution of ei!her the UndergrOlmd Facilities Conversion Agreement set forth in this tariff at Sheet No. 9.720 or the Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement - Governmental Adjustment Factor Waiver set forth in this tariff at Sheet No. 9.725 the Applicant agrees to the following: a) The Applicant shall be responsible for all restoration of, repair of, or compensation for, property affected, damaged, or destroyed, to accommodate !he installation of underground distribution facilities and !he removal of FPL's overhead distribution facilities; b) subject to section 2.7 Indemnity to Company, or section 2.71 Indemnity to Company - Governmental, FPL's General Rules and Regnlations, the Applicant shall indemnify FPL from any claim, sui~ or other proceeding, which seeks the restoration of, or repair of, or compensation for, property affected, damaged, or destroyed, to remove existing facilities or to accom11,1odate the installation of underground distribution facilities arising from or brought as a result of the installation of underground distribution facilities; c) the Applicant shall clear easements provided to FPL of trees, tree stumps and other obstructions that conflict with construction or installation of underground distribution facilities in a timely manner consistent with FPL's construction schedule. (Cootinued on Sheet No. 6.330) Issued by: S. E. Romig, Director, Rates and Tariffs Effective: April 4, 2006 16 '~I ~B15 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY Second Revised Sheet No. 6.330 Cancels First Revised Sheet No. 6.330 (Continued from Sheet No. 6.320) 12.2.10 Tvoe of System Provided An underground distrihution system will be provided in accordance with FPL's current design and construction standards. 12.2.11 Design and OwnershiD FPL will design, install, own, and maintain the electric distnbution facilities up to the designated point of delivery except as otherwise noted. The Applicant may, subject to a contractual agreement with FPL, construct and install all or a portion of the underground distribution facilities provided that: a) such work meets FPL's construction standards; b). FPL will own and maintain the completed distribution facilities; c) the construction and installation of underground distribution facilities by the Applicant is not expected to cause the general body of ratepayers to incur greater costs; d) the Applicant agrees to pay FPL's current applicable hourly rate for engineering personnel for all time spent for (i) reviewing and inspecting the Applicanfs work done, and (il) developing any separate cost estimate(s) that are either requested by the Applicant to retlect only FPL' s portion of the work or are required by FPL to retlect both the Applicant's and FPL's portions of the work for the purpose of a GAF Waiver calculation pursuant to an Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement ~ Govenunental Adjustment Factor Waiver; and e) lhe Applicant agrees to rectifY any deficiencies found by FPL prior to the connection of any Customers to the underground electric distribution system and the removal of the overhead electric distnbution facilities. 12.2.12 Relocation Where underground electric facilities are requested as part of, or for the purpose of; relocation, the requirements of this tariff shall apply. As applicable, the Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement or the Underground Facilities Conversion Agreement - Governmental Adjustment Factor Waiver shall be executed as an addendum to the relocation agreement between FPL and the Applicant In the event of any contlict between the relocation agreement and this tariff, the tariff shall control. Furthenuore, where the regulations of the Federal or State Department of Transportation (DOT) prevent pre-payment of deposits and otber conversion costs, the Federal or State DOT may pay the CIAC after the work has been perfonued. Issued by: S. E. Romig, Director, Rates and Tariffs Effective: April 4, 2006 MALCOLM PIRNIE INDEPENDENT ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS AND CONSULTANTS 16 11 B I! Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 4315 Metro Pkwy, Suite 520 Fort Myers, Fl33916 Phone (239)332-1300 Fax (239) 332-1789 www.pirnie.colT1 September 28, 2009 Mr. Darryl Richard, RLA Project Manager Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes 2885 Horseshoe Drive South Naples, Florida 34104 Re: Vanderbilt Beach MSTU General Consulting Services Dear Mr. Richard: Malcolm Pirnie has been pleased to provide the Collier County Department of Alternative Transportation Modes (Department) General Consulting Services for the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU since April 2008, and we would like to continue providing these services to the County. Under this scope, Malcolm Pirnie will continue to function as an extension of the Department's existing staff, assisting with the management of the day-to-day aspects of MSTU projects while keeping the Department integrated in the decision-making processes. Our services will vary depending on the nature and complexity of each project, but generally include the foliowing: SCOPE OF SERVICES The services for this project include the following tasks: TASK 050 - Proiect Management This task includes the work effort required for project planning, administration, and coordination. Specific activities included in this task include the following: . Managing and coordinating project activities and field personnel to control costs and maintain the project scheduie. . Maintaining project files and data systems . Preparing monthly invoices . Providing internal quality control . Internal and external project-related communications ., 16/181 E MALCOLM PIRNIE Mr. Darryl Richard, RLA Vanderbilt Beach MSTU CMA Services September 28, 2009 Page2of3 TASK 100 - General Consulting Services Under this task, Malcolm Pirnie will provide the Department and the MSTU Committee with experienced professional consultants that will provide technical assistance and engineering resources on an as-needed basis. Such assistance may include project planning, budgeting, reviewing documents, and other services as requested by the County. TASK 200 - MSTU Meetings Under this task, Malcolm Pirnie will prepare for and attend up to twelve (12) meetings with County staff, stakeholders andlor the MSTU Advisory Board to review project statuses and address outstanding issues. ADDITIONAL SERVICES In addition to performing the work identified in this scope, Malcolm Pirnie will perform Additional Services as requested by the County. The need for such services may arise from the completion of the tasks identified above and cannot be fully defined at this time. However, it may be determined at some future date that these additional services are necessary to thoroughly complete or implement the Work. Examples of Additional Services may include technical evaluations, preparation of reports, or other activities deemed necessary by the County. It should be noted that the fees for these services have not been included in this scope. Such tasks and their level of effort, associated budgets and schedules will be described in detail in work authorizations to be issued at the time such tasks are requested by the County. SCHEDULE Malcolm Pirnie anticipates providing the professional services outlined above for a period of up to one (1) year after Notice to Proceed or until the total contract amount is invoiced. The scope and schedule of services provided in each task above is dependent on the levei of services requested by the County and are subject to adjustment during the course of the project so as not to exceed the compensation amount shown below. COMPENSATION Malcolm Pirnie will provide this scope of services under the terms and conditions of Contract 05-3657 Agreement for Project Management and Oversight Services for a lump sum fee of $40,000. The project budget is based on the scope of work as provided and is subject to cost adjustment resulting from any change in the scope or schedule of work that would exceed the totai lump sum fee shown above. 16 11 815 MALCOLM PIRNIE Mr. Darryl Richard, RLA Vanderbilt Beach MSTU CMA Services September 28, 2009 Page3of3 Malcolm Pirnie appreciates this opportunity to provide this requested scope of services, and will enjoy working with the County on this important project. If you have any questions regarding this scope or need any additional information, please feel free to contact Christopher Tilman, P.E. or me at (239) 332- 1300. Sincerely, MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC. ~+J, ~~ Robert H. French, P.E. Sen ior Associate A403746 16/11315 DlXTA'\( C(),""SU1..'I'I'C; ..... ....., '.L ..... .Pbnnine .Vi'\l;llil;lli"11 . Civil Engim:-nillC; . SllrH"~'illl! & ".lapping October 12, 2009 Darryl Richard Collier County Government Transportation Department 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Professional Service Proposal for Vanderbilt Beach MSTU - Phases 11- IV (RW A, Inc. File No. 080010.00.PO) Dear Darry I, R W A, Inc. is pleased to submit the following proposal for land surveying and subsurface utility services associated with the redesign of the existing FPL aerial lines. Outlined below is our understanding of the project profile and the assumptions we have used to develop our scope and associated fees in response to your request for proposal. This proposal has been prepared with the knowledge and experience gained through the successful completion of the Phase I project. [ believe that if the subsequent phases are executed together, and the work effort can be timed so that the phases are completed consecutively, the MSTU will benefit with an economy of scale. This will help us compress the time schedules for completion, and avoid subsequent mobilization time and expense. We will be able to deliver the subsequent Phase Surveys individually, or should the MSTU want desire, one large package, delineated with the Phase II through IV boundaries. PROJECT PROFILE . Collier County (Client) intends to assist the MSTU with the redesign of the existing FPL aerial lines located within the MSTU boundary in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 25 East in Collier County, Florida. . The Client has issued a request for proposal including a preliminary scope of services, and has asked the consultant to provide a proposal by October 13,2009. . R W A shall provide a detailed topographic and control survey and existing underground utility location of Phase II - IV, as depicted on the Vanderbilt Beach MSTU power line-underground installation exhibit, received on January 4, 2008. The surveying limits are 10' outside of the existing right-of-way. . Phase II shall include the following streets: Bluebill A venue from Gulf Shore Drive to Vanderbilt Drive, Vanderbilt Beach Road from Gulf Shore Drive to Vanderbilt Drive, S. Bay Drive, Gulf Shore Court, and Center Street. (7200 linear feet) . Phase III shall include Vanderbilt Drive from Vanderbilt Beach Road to Bluebill Avenue, Palm Court, Oak Avenue, Pine Avenue, Bay Side, Lagoon Avenue, Tradewinds, Willet 6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200, Naples FL 34109' (239) 597-0575, fax: (239) 597-0578 \fNofIN,consult-twa.com 16111815 A venue, Seagull A venue, German A venue, Seebee A venue, Conners A venue, Egret A venue, Heron A venue, and Flamingo A venue. (22,850 linear feet) . Phase IV shall include Vanderbilt Drive from Bluebill A venue, north to just south of Wiggins Pass Road West. (7765 linear feet) . The Client desires to retain tbe services of RW A, Inc. (Consultant) and proceed with the Project as described within this proposal. . The project will be permitted, designed and developed in three subsequent phases. . Phase I of the project (approximately ] 0,200 linear feet) included an additional services (change order) to utilize vacuum excavation methods to obtain vertical information on twenty seven (27) specific locations at the request of FPL, or one hole per 400 linear feet. This proposal for services factors in the use of vacuum excavation at a rate of one hole, per 400 linear feet for each of the subsequent phases. The use of vacuum excavation is to clarifY potential utility conflicts. This shall be billed on an as-needed basis. PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS . The client will make available all pertinent information associated with the project including, but not limited to, legal descriptions, existing surveys, permits, title policies and other available documents. . The vertical datum will be collected in NA VD 1988 and converted to NGVD 1929. . The surveying services will be completed and delivered within 90 business days, per phase, after receiving an executed contract along with a Notice to Proceed and the marking of the existing utilities by Earth View, LLC. . All the additional surveying services, additional underground soft digs and radar tomography will be billed on a time, material and expense 1:Jasis as per the approved rate codes stated within Annual Contract # 07-4112. . The surveying services outlined in the proposal is based upon the FPL scope of services received on January 10,2008, which was the basis for Phase I of the project. . This proposal includes perfonning all services described within on a one-time basis. SCOPE OF SERVICES 1.0 Control Survev 1.1. Reproduce the recorded right-of-way and baseline information. Right-of-way shall include the intersecting road within the project limits. The right-of-way information shall be labeled, including, date, bearings and distances. In addition the following information shall be noted: a. Horizontal datum - tied into the Florida State Plan Coordinate System, NAD 1983/1999 Adjustment. RW A will provide project control network sheets for the survey baseline control points instead of setting reference points. b. Vertical datum (benchmarks) - 1988 (NA VD 88), set eight per project area. Page 2 of6 S:\2008\080010,QQ,PO Vanderbilt Beach MSTtn02\2009-] 0.] 2-PSA-D.Richard-Ph II-IV.doc 16111315 c. Existing layout shall be tied to the existing right-of-way. d. Locate existing visible property markers (e.g. - iron pipe, concrete monuments, etc.) e. Tie buildings located within 20' of the proposed limits of the project to the existing right -of-way. 1.2. Property ownership shall be determined from Collier County records and incorporated into the plan drawings and files. Property lines do not need to be surveyed, but shall be verified utilizing any visible property markers, wherever possible. The MSTU will provide or make available to the surveyor the identifying property owner information and easement report upon request. 2.0 Topographic Survey 2.1. Locate and collect spot elevations of the above-ground visible improvements located within the project limits. 2.2. Locate individual trees 4" in diameter and up. 2.3. Locate the outline of hedgerows and planted areas. 2.4. Collect sanitary and storm structure data; rim elevations, inverts, pipe sizes directions and condition. 3.0 Underground Utility Location 3.1. Locate all known and unknown utilities in Phase I of this project, which is Gulfshore Boulevard from Illth Avenue to Vanderbilt Beach Road, using ground penetrating radar and/or radio detection 3.2. Paint and flag utilities in accordance with Florida D.O.T. Requirements. 3.3. This proposal does include vacuum excavation, assumed to be at a rate of one hole, per 400 linear feet, as was the case during the Phase I project. 3.4. RW A, Inc. will field locate underground utilities, as marked in the field by Earth View LLC. The utility locations will include the horizontal locations of all marked lines. Field locations will be delivered in Auto Cadd format. 4.0 Sketch and Description 4.1. Prepare sketch and legal description of the existing right-of-way to be occupied by the FPL underground facility as required in the County right-of-way agreement for underground conversion dated December II, 2007. 5.0 Reimbursable Expenses 5.1. Expenses for blueprints, reproduction services, overnight or express delivery services, and vehicle mileage, shall be reimbursable to RWA, Inc. Page 3 of6 S:\2008\080010,QO,PO Vanderbilt Beach MSTU\02\2009-1 O-12-PSA-D.Richard-Ph I1-IV.doc PROFESSIONAL SERVICE FEES 1611 815 The professional service fee estimates for the associated scope of services are listed below. Scope of Services (Phase II) Fee ~ 1.0 Control Survey $ 14,000 Fixed 2.0 Topographic Survey $ 16,400 Fixed 3.0 Underground Utility Location $ 33,200 Fixed 4.0 Sketch and Descriptions $ 2.500 Fixed Total $ 66,100 5.0 Reimbursable Expenses $ 1,000 T /M/E $ 15,200 $ 17,400 $ 35,200 $ 2,500 Total $ 70,300 5.0 Reimbursable Expenses $ 1,000 T/MIE Note: T/M/E denotes Time, Material and Expense billing category. Stated Fee is an estimate only; client will only be billed for actual hourly costs related to individual surveying services. Scope of Services (Phase lID Fee 1.0 Control Survey 2.0 Topographic Survey 3.0 Underground Utility Location 4.0 Sketch and Descriptions $ 45,000 $ 52,000 $ 74,600 $ 5.700 $177,300 $ 1,000 Total 5.0 Reimbursable Expenses Scope of Services (Phase IV) Fee 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Control Survey Topographic Survey Underground Utility Location Sketch and Descriptions Page 4 of6 5:\2008\080010,OO,PO Vanderbilt Beach MSTU\02\2009-J 0-12-PSA-D.Richard-Ph II- IV.doc ~ Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed T /M/E ~ Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed 16/1 815 Deliverables . RWA will submit an Autocad Version 9 or higher electronic file in DWG format as required by FPL. . The final control survey shall include a detailed and accurate compilation of control points established by a closed traverse loop through the primary control points or with a Global Positioning System-based network, to assure an error-free or closed control network. Relative error or loop closure will conform to requirements of subsection 6IGl7-6.003(1) (e), FAC. All control points will be referenced to the Florida State Plan Coordinate System, NAD 198311999 Adjustment. . Up to four copies of the final control survey will be provided in hard copy print, signed and sealed by a Florida registered Surveyor and Mapper. Excluded Services The professional services to be provided by the Consultant are limited to those described in the Scope of Services. All other services are specifically excluded. Listed below are excluded services that may be required or desired by the Client: . Construction Layout Services . Preparation of Sketch and Descriptions . Easement Vacations . Special Purpose Surveys . Radar Topography Page 5 of6 $:\2008\08001 O,OD,PO Vanderbilt Beach MSTU\02\2009. 1 0-12-PSA-DRichard-Ph II-IV.doc 1611 815 ACCEPTANCE AND AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED Period for Acceptance This Proposal/Agreement is open for acceptance by Client through November 30, 2009. After the acceptance date, the proposal may be withdrawn or subject to modification by R W A, Inc. Acceptance If this Proposal/Agreement satisfactorily sets forth Client's entire understanding of the agreement, please sign one copy of this agreement in the space provided and return it to R W A, Inc. as authorization to proceed with the work. Owner/Client Authorization I hereby certifY that the undersigned is the Agent to the Owner of the property that is the subject of this proposal. I hereby certifY that the undersigned has the authorizing authority to execute this contract for professional services. I hereby authorize the performance of the services as described herein and agree to pay the charges resulting thereby as identified above in accordance with the attached Standard Business Terms and Conditions and Rate Code and Fee Schedule ofRWA, Inc. Accepted this _ day of ,2009. By: Please Print Name Title For: Collier County Transportation Thank you for the opportunity to submit this professional service proposal. Please call if you have any questions. We will look forward to hearing back from you soon. Sincerely, i{LljJf---- r Michael A. Ward, PLS RWA, Inc. Project Manager Enel.: Collier County Rate Code Billing Address Information Page 6 of6 S:\2008\08001 O.OO.PO Vanderbilt Beach MSTUl02\2009-1O-12-PSA-D.Richard-Ph 1I-IV.doe SCHEDULE B RATE SCHEDULE Professional DepartmenUContractor Manager/Senior PLS $172.00 Project Manager/PLS $ 97.00 Field Crew Supervisor/Chief of Party $ 7700 CADD Tech/Survey Tech $ 6800 5-Person Survey Crew $185.00 4-Person Survey Crew $151.00 3-Person Survey Crew $12700 2-Person Survey Crew $108.00 GIS Technician $ 55.00 GIS Analyst $ 80.00 Professional Surveyor and Mapper I $ 90..00 16 11 B 15 A minimum of a bachelor's degree in surveying and mapping and a professional registration in the State of Florida as a Surveying Intern within one year Professional Surveyor and Mapper II $103.00 16111815 A minimum of a bachelor's degree in surveying and mapping. A minimum of two years experience and the ability to obtain registration in the State of Florida as a surveying intern within one year. Professional Surveyor and Mapper III $115.00 A minimum of a bachelor's degree in surveying and mapping with at least three years of experience.. Professional registration in the State of Florida as a surveying intern or a professional surveyor and mapper. Professional Surveyor and Mapper IV $133.00 A minimum of either a bachelor's degree in surveying and mapping with at least five (5) years of experience. Professional registration in the State of Florida as a professional surveyor. Completion of all requirements for a doctorial degree and one year of experience may be substituted for 5 years of experience required Professional Surveyor and Mapper V $160.00 A minimum of either a bachelor's degree in surveying and mapping with at least 8 years of experience.. Professional registration in the State of Florida as a professional surveyor.. Completion of all requirements for a doctorial degree and an additional 4 years of professional experience may be substituted for the 8 years of experience required. Field Crew GPS $135.00 GPS Mapping Grade: One Man Party $ 80.00 GPS Mapping Grade: Two Man Party $120.00 GPS Surveying Grade: One or Two Man Party $150.00 Hydrogeologist $ 88.00 Technician II $ 67.00 16 11 B15 This position requires: 2-4 years of Autocad or MicroStation experience and a high school diploma or equivalent, or; an Associates Degree in computer aided drafting from a community college or technical school, and 1-3 years of Autocad or MicroStation experience Technician III $ 72.00 This position requires: 3-7 years of Autocad or MicroStation experience and a high school diploma or equivalent, or; an Associates Degree in computer aided drafting from a community college or technical school, and 2-4 years of Autocad or MicroStation experience Technician IV $ 85.00 This position requires: 5-9 years of Autocad or MicroStation experience and a high school diploma or equivalent, or; an Associates Degree in computer aided drafting from a community college or technical schoof, and 3-5 years of Autocad or MicroStation experience Expert Witness $232.00 Support Administrative Assistant $ 54.00 Clerical $ 42.00 This list is not intended to be all-inclusive. Hourly rate fees for other categories of professional, support and other services shall be mutually negotiated by the County and finn on a project by project basis as needed. END OF SCHEDULE B 16/1815 D'XTA'NC CONSULTlNO .JL. '-., ., .L .JL. . Planning. Visuali.zarion . Civil Engineering .Smveying & Mapping REQUIRED BILLING INFORMATION IN ORDER IV SIMPLIFY OUR BILLING RECORDS, PlEASE FILL OUI THE FOLLOIVING INFORAfATION: INVOICE ADDRESSEE INFORMAIION: COMPANY NAME: CONT ACT NAME' STREET AOORESS: CITV, STA TE & Zrp: PHONE NUMBER: FAX NUMBER: E-MAIL ADDRESS: PO # (IF REQUIRED): ACCOUNI'S PAYABLE DEPARIMENI INFORMATION CONTACT NAME: PHONE NUMBER: FAX NUMBER: E-MAIL ADDRESS: IF SPECIAL INVOICING PAY ApPLICATION OR PAY REQUEST FORMS ARE REOUlRED, PLEASE PROVIDE A COpy F:\OOOOO3 0000 OPR\OOOOOJ 00.01 OPM" Manage\O005 Standard DocumenU\PSA and At1acnments\2007 Required Billing Information.doc 1611 ~15'''' VANDERBILT BEACH MSTU BEAUTIFICATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE June 22, 2009 MEMBERS COLLIER COUNTY ADMINISTRATION 2885 Horseshoe Drive, South Naples, FL 34104 (239) 252-8192 (Main) Dick Lydon - Chairman 450 Tradewinds Ave. Naples, FL 34108 (239) 597-2746 Olvdon 124lalaol.com 4 - Year Term Expires 11-09 Darryl Richard- Project Mngr Landscape (239) 252-5775 (W) (239) 253-9083 (C) (239) 252-6219 (F) Oarrvlrichardlalcollieroov. net Charles Arthur - Vice Chairman 239 Channel Drive Naples, FL 34108 (239) 594-8958(H) (239) 598-4575 (F) CCArthurlalearthlinknet 4 -Year Term Expires 11-12-12 Tessie Sillery- Operations Coordinafor (239) 213-5840 (W) (239) 530-6219 (F) T essiesillervlalcoll ieroov. net A.D. (Bud) Martin 9790 Gulfshore Dr. #306 Naples, FL 34108 (239) 514-3067 . (239) 269-5333 (C) bud martiin lalcomcast. net 4 - Year Term Expires 11-12-12 Caroline Soto- Budget Analyst (239) 252-6932 (W) (239) 252-9370 (F) Carol inesotolalcollieroov. net Bruce Forman 11116 Gulfshore Dr. Unit 903B Naples, FL 34108 FBA YVIEW@aol.com (239) 566-8593 -YearTermEExpires Michelle Arnold - Director A TM (239) 252-5841 (W) (239) 252-5899 (F) Micheliearno Id lalcollierQov. net LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CONTRACTOR William Gonnerin9 375 Seabee Ave. Naples, FL 34108 (239) 566-8660 4 - Year Term Expires 11-13-11 Commercial Land Maintenance Inc. Robert Kindelan 370 Commercial Blvd. Naples, FL 34104 (239) 643-6205 (W) (239) 643-5012 (F) Commlandlalaol.com ENGINEERING CONSULTANT Jim Fritchey - CLM J LFritchey@atl.blackberry.net Malcolm Pirnie Christopher Tilman- Project Engineer 4315 Metro Parkway, Suite 520 Fort Myers, FL 33916 (239) 332-1300 (W) (239) 910-1018 (C) (239) 332-1789 (F) ctilmanlalpirnie.com Maria Jost - CLM m iost@commlandmaint.net SECRETARIAL SERVICES Darlene Cherry-Lafferty - Mancan (239) 597-1182 (H) dcherrv-Iaffertvlalcomcast. net if~d Fiala - ..t." 1-<ilI ~:~~in9 :' 16 lIe loclober 16,2009 Coyle -=-1'~ -.::. Coletta INUTES OF THE HEARING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY RECEIVEr SPECIAL MAGISTRATE NOV 132009 Board of County CommJssiot1 Naples, Florida, October 16, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Special Magistrate, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in the Administrative Building "F," 3rd floor, Collier County Government Complex, Naples, Florida, with the following persons present: SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: Honorable Brenda Garretson ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisor Michele McGonagle, Administrative Secre~~ : oo:~ lllImlt l~l-Lt )LI --.,.,i~~ to: 16 lIe ltober~, 2009 I. CALL TO ORDER The Hearing was called to order at 9:00 AM by the Honorable Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson. All those testifying at the proceeding did so under oath. A. Hearing Rules and Regulations were given by Special Magistrate Garretson. Special Magistrate Garretson noted that, prior to conducting the Hearing, the Respondents were given an opportunity to speak with their Investigating Officer(s) for a Resolution by Stipulation; the goal is to obtain compliance without being punitive. RECESS: 9:13 AM RECONVENED: 9:33 AM II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisor, noted the following changes: (a) Under Item V (A), Stipulations were reached in the following cases: · Agenda #11, Case #CEPM 20090015056 - BCC vs. Anthony & Victoria Dedio · Agenda #6, Case #CESD 20090003131- BCC vs. Lake Trafford Independent Baptist Church, Inc., c/o Jamie Frederick · Agenda #7, Case #CESD 20090000692 - BCC vs. Pedro & Linda Salazar, III (b) Under Item V (B), "Hearings," the following case was DISMISSED by the County due to payment: · Agenda #1, Case #SO 172029 - CEEX 20090015412 - BCe vs. David Belsinger (c) Under Item V (B), "Hearings," the following case was DISMISSED by the park ranger: · Agenda #2, Case #PR 003082 - eEEX 20090015012 - BeC vs. Lennard P. Benoit (d) Under Item V (B), "Hearings," in Agenda #8, Case #CELU 20090012495- BCe vs. St. Louis Moise, the correct Violation number is 1.04.01(A) (e) Under Item V (C), "Emergency Cases," the following case was ADDED to the Agenda: · Case #CEPM 20090015884 - BCe vs. George Lambert (0 Under Item X., "Next Meeting Date," The Special Magistrate Hearing for November 6, 2009 will be held at the CDES ("Community Development and Environmental Services") Building at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive. 2 16 , 1 C1 ..... October 16, 2009 The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda as amended, subject to changes made during the course of the Hearing at the discretion of the Special Magistrate. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 2, 2009 Corrections: · Under Item V (C), "Emergency Cases," in Case #CEPM 20090015533- BCC vs. Jean Claude Martel, the Violation should be 22-231 (2), not 22-2341 (2). · Under Item V (B), "Hearings," in Case #CEPM 20090004038 - BCC vs. Timothy Cotter, the Order should state "the pool is to be drained on or before October 9, 2009, " not October 8, 2009. The Minutes of the Special Magistrate Hearing held on October 2, 2009 were reviewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as amended. IV. MOTIONS A. Motion for Reduction/Abatement of Fines - None B. Motion for Continuance - None V. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. Hearings: 9. Case #CEPM 20090012930 - BCC vs. Karen A. Faiola The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Carmelo Gomez who was present. The Respondent was also present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Article VI Property Maintenance Code, Section (19) Shed infested with bees Folio No: 36516480007 Violation address: 4120 29th Place SW, Naples The Respondent resides at 4120 29th Place SW, Naples, Florida. Investigator Gomez stated he met with the Respondent on August 5, 2009 concerning the bee infestation and explained she would have thirty days to correct the situation since it was a health, safety and welfare issue. The Respondent stated she called two exterminators who each charged her $500 to remove the bees, but neither treatment was successful and the exterminators would not guarantee their work because the nest is located underneath the shed. 3 16 , 1 O(;;bt 16, 27;d9 GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to remove the bee infestation on or before October 23,2009, or afine of $250.00 per day will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. lfthe Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by Contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondent. Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the terms of the Order. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $1l7.87 on or before January 16, 2010. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $117.87 The Special Magistrate requested that the County assist the Respondent to obtain the services of an exterminator. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Stipulations: 11. Case #CEPM 20090015056 - BCC vs. Anthonv & Victoria Dedio The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator John Santafemia who was represented by Investigative Supervisor Jeff Letoumeau. The Respondents were not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ord, Chapter 22 Buildings and Building Regulations, Article VI Property Maintenance Code, Section 22-231(15) Private swimming pool not being maintained creating an unhealthy condition Folio No: 27637600005 Violation Address: 417 Flamingo Avenue, Naples A Stipulation was entered into by Respondent, Anthony Dedio, on October 15, 2009. Supervisor Letourneau stated Invetigator Santafemia conducted a site visit and verified the violation had been abated and the Operational Costs were paid. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served andfinding the violation did exist but was CORRECTED prior to the Hearing, the Respondents were found GUILTY of the alleged violation. The Respondents paid the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $118.49. 4 16 ,f 1 ~otI6'2~:9 6. Case #CESD 20090003131- BCC vs. Lake Trafford Independent Baptist Church. Inc.. c/o Jamie Frederick The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Maria Rodriguez who was present. The Respondent was represented by Pastor Jamie Frederick as Registered Agent. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 2004-41, as amended, Section 1O.02.06(B)(I)(A), Florida Building Code, 2004 Edition, Chapter I Permits, Section 105.1 Five sheds erected in rear of property without first obtaining a Collier County permit Folio No: 00072040001 Violation address: 1207 Carson Road, Immokalee Pastor Frederick resides at 1207 Carson Road, Immokalee, Florida 34142. A Stipulation was entered into on behalf of the Respondent by Jamie Frederick as Registered Agent on October 15, 2009. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to obtain either a Collier County Building Permit or a Collier County Demolition Permit, all required inspections, and a Certificate of Occupancy/Completion on or before April 16, 2010, or afine of $1 00. 00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by Contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondent. /fnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the terms of the Stipulation. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117.87 on or before November 16, 2009. The Respondent is to notifY Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $117.87 7. Case #CESD 20090000692 - BCC vs. Pedro & Linda Salazar. III The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Maria Rodriguez who was present. Respondent, Pedro Salazar, III, was present and represented his wife, Linda Salazar. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ord, Chapter 22 Buildings and Building Regulations, Article II, Florida Building Code, Section 22-26(B)(1 04. 1.3.5) 5 16/1 C1 ., ~ October 16,2009 Sheds on property without building permits Folio No: 00076440005 Violation address: 856 Pine Court, Immokalee The Respondents reside at 856 Pine Court, Immokalee, Florida. A Stipulation was entered into by Respondent, Pedro Salazar, III, on behalf of Linda Salazar, his wife, and himself on October 15, 2009. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to obtain either a Collier County Building Permit or a Collier County Demolition Permit, all required inspections, and a Certificate of Occupancy/Completion on or before January 16, 2010, or a fine of $1 00. 00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by Contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondents. Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sherlff's Office to enforce the terms of the Stipulation. The Respondents were ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $11 7.61 on or before November 16, 2009. The Respondents are to notifY Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $117.61 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. Hearings: 3. Case #SO 166029 - CEEX 20090015052 - BCC vs. Andrez Samuels The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. Collier County Deputy Sheriff Fred Klinkmann was also present. Violations: Code of Law & Ord., Sec. 130-67 Parking in wheelchair access Violation address: Freedom Square Regions Bank The Respondent resides at 4650 St. Croix Lane, Apt. #738, Naples, Florida 34109 and stated he is a courier for a local bank. He admitted parking in the white-striped area while making a delivery to the bank but was unaware it was included as part of the Handicapped Parking space. The Special Magistrate explained the white-striped area which is adjacent to the 6 16/1 C1 ~ October 16, 2009 parking area, outlined in blue, is necessary for a handicapped individual to unload a wheelchair from hislher vehicle. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to pay a civilfine in the amount of $250. 00 on or before December 16, 2009 The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $50.00 on or before December 16, 2009. Total Amount Due: $300.00 5. Case #PR 003305 - CEEX 20090015710 - BCC vs. Tulsv Gillv The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. Collier County Park Ranger Kurt Araquistain was also present. Violations: Code of Law & Ord., Sec. 130-67 Handicapped space Violation address: Golden Gate Community Park The Respondent resides at 13345 Covenant Road, Naples, Florida and stated she had driven down an aisle in the parking lot which was a dead-end. She pulled into the Handicapped Space with the intention of turning her car around, rather than trying to back out of the parking lot. She further stated the Officer pulled up behind her car as she was attemtping to reverse and blocked her access. Park Ranger Araquistain presented three photographs which were marked as County's Composite Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence. The Respondent stated she would not jeopardize her child by driving in reverse through the narrow parking aisle in order to exit. The Special Magistrate stated it would have been too dangerous to back a vehicle down a narrow parking aisle and ruled the Respondent was NOT GUILTY. 4. Case #PR 043405 - CEEX 20090015066 - BCC vs. Georl!:e Kusaj The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was not present. Collier County Park Ranger Kurt Araquistain appeared on behalf of Park Ranger Cynthia Gaynor. Violations: Code of Law & Ord., Sec. 130-66 Expired Meter Violation address: Vanderbilt Beach Street The Notice of Hearing was sent, via Certified Mail, on Octrober 5, 2009 and proof of delivery on October 6, 2009 was confirmed by the U.S. Postal Service. 7 16 I lr~~. C1 October 16,2009 , Park Ranger Araquistain stated a Citation was issued by Park Ranger Gaynor on September 7, 2009 at 9:30 AM. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to pay a civi/fine in the amount of $30. 00 and an administrative of $5. 00 on or before November 16,2009 The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $50.00 on or before November 16, 2010. Total Amount Due: $85.00 8. Case #CELU 20090012495 - BCC vs. St. Louis Moise The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Thomas Keegan who was present. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 2004-41, as amended, Sections 2.02.03 & 1.04.04(A) .. Residential zoned property being used as storage area for items to be shipped to Haiti Folio No: 67491080009 Violation address: 4415 Thomasson Lane, Naples · .Corrected to 1.04.01 (A) per amendment to Agenda The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on October 5, 2009. Investigator Keegan met the Respondent at his property on August 4, 2009 and informed him the accumulated debris could not be stored on his front yard. The Notice of Violation was served on the Respondent on August 6, 2009, together with a copy of the County Resource Guide. The Respondent's solution was to cover the litter with a tarp. A site visit was conducted on August IS, 2009 and the violation was not abated. Photographs taken on August 4, 2009 and October 15,2009 were marked respectively as County's Composite Exhibits "A" and "B," and admitted into evidence. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to cease using residential zoned property for outside storage. The Respondent was further ordered to remove all litter to an appropriate waste disposal facility, or store items in a completely enclosed structure, on or before October 26, 2009 or a fine of $1 00. 00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or 8 16 I i "~ ~~' ~_'.i \, .. ,~ ,,,.. , October 16,2009 Order of the Special Magistrate. lfthe Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by Contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondent. lfnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of the Order. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117.87 on or before November 16, 2009. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the 1nvestigator peiform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $117.87 10. Case #CEPM 20090001763 - BCC vs. Robert Custer The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Azure Sorrels who was present. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ord, Chapter 22 Buildings and Building Regulations, Article VI Property Maintenance Code, Section 22-231 (19) An infestation of bees located underneath the rear of mobile home Folio No: 68891160007 Violation address: 29 Covey Lane, Naples The Notice of Violation was posted at the property and the Courthouse on October I, 2009. Investigator Sorrels stated the property was vacant and the Respondent has not contacted her. She introduced one photograph taken on February 24, 2009 which was marked as County's Exhibit "A" and two photographs taken on October I, 2009 which were marked as County's Composite Exhibit "B." The Exhibits were admitted into evidence. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GU1LTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to hire a licensed bee remover or exterminator to remove the bee infestation on or before October 21,2009, or ajine of $250. 00 per day will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. lfthe Respondent has not complied by the initial deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by Contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondent. lf necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the terms of the Order. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code 9 16 I 1 'I ~ . f,..,... '..t' oc.. '. October 16, 2009 Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $118. 05 on or before November 16,2009. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance and provide a copy of the signed Contract with the bee remover or exterminator at the time of the site inspection. Total Amount Due: $118.05 RECESS: 10:50 AM RECONVENED: 11:08 AM V. PUBLIC HEARINGS C. Emergency Cases: Case # CEPM 20090015885 - BCC vs. Geore:e Lambert The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Jeff Letourneau who appeared on behalf of Investigator Ronald Martindale. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulations, Article II Florida Building Code, Section 22-26(103.11.2) Private swimming pool without safety fence or enclosure Folio No.: 37987440002 Violation address: 3580 White Blvd., Naples, FL 34117 The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on October 15, 2009. Supervisor Letourneau introduced one photograph taken on October 5, 2009 by Investigator Martindale which was marked as County's Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence. He noted the property is currently rented to a family with children. The property is also in foreclosure. The Special Magistrate noted the case was a Health. Safety and Welfare issue. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violations and ordered to erect an adequate temporary safety barrier around the pool on or before the close of business on October 19, 2009 or a fine of $200. 00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. The Respondent was further ordered to obtain the appropriate Collier County Permit to erect an approved permanent safety barrier, all required inspections 10 16 I' · C1 ~ 1 October 16,2009 and a Certificate of Completion/Occupancy on or before November 16, 2009 or afine of $200.00 per day will be imposedfor each day the violations remain thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. lfthe Respondent has not complied by the October 19th deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violations by Contractor bid-out, erect a permanent safety barrier and assess the costs to the Respondent. Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of the Order. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117.70 on or before November 16,2009. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator petform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $117.70 VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 1. Case #CEPM 20090000375 - BCC vs. Primitivo Lara The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Jeff Letourneau on behalf of Investigator Renald Paul. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Ordinance No. 2004-58, Section 12 Building sustained severe damage due to fire causing unsafe and dangerous conditions Folio No: 36452720009 Violation address: 5020 27th Place SW, Naples The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on October I, 2009. Supervisor Letourneau stated the violations have not been abated. The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum of$117.78, and fines in the amount of$9,750.00 for the period from September 8, 2009 through October 16,2009 (39 days @$250/day), for a total amount of $9,867.78. The Special Magistrated GRANTED the County's Motion of Imposition of Fines in the amount of $9,867.78 and noted Fines continue to accrue. 2. Case #CEPM 20090004376 - BCC vs. Nicholas B. Ford & Sarah A Boesel The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigative Supervisor Jeff 11 16/1 Cl ., October 16, 2009 Letourneau on behalf of Property Maintenance Specialist Joe Mucha. The Respondents were not present. Violations: Ordinance 2004-58, Section 12 Structure with severe fire damage that has been declared a dangerous building by Deputy Building Official Folio No: 45850640002 Violation address: 980 16th Avenue SW The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on October 5, 2009. Supervisor Letourneau stated the violations were abated on October 2, 2009. The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum of$117.87, and fines in the amount of$9,750.00 for the period from August 25,2009 through October 2,2009 (39 days @ $250/day), for a total amount of$9,867.87. The Special Magistrated GRANTED the County's Motion of Imposition of Fines in the total amount of $9,867.87. 3. Case #CEPM 20090001588 - BCC vs. JoseDh B. and Jacqueline A. Okuniewicz The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigator Reggie Smith. The Respondents were not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI Property Maintenance Code, Section 22-231, Subsection 12C Damaged roof which allows rain or dampness in the wall or interior portion of the building Folio No: 53001640005 Violation address: 2324 Kings Lake Blvd, Naples The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on October I, 2009. Investigator Smith stated the violations have not been abated. The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sum of$117.52, and fines in the amount of $6,250.00 for the period from September 21, 2009 through October 16,2009 (25 days @ $250/day), for a total amount of$6,367.72. The Special Magistrated GRANTED the County's Motion of Imposition of Fines in the amount of $6,367. 72 and noted Fines continue to accrue. VII. OLD BUSINESS: None 12 161'1 C1 ~ 4 October 16,2009 VIII. CONSENT AGENDA: A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as referenced in the submitted Executive Summary. The Special Magistrate reviewed the cases identified in the Executive Summary and GRANTED the County's request to forward the referenced cases to the County Attorney's Office. B. Request for Special Magistrate to Impose Nuisance Abatement Liens on Cases referenced in the submitted Executive Summary. The Special Magistrate reviewed the cases cited in the Executive Summary and GRANTED the County's request to impose Nuisance Abatement Liens. IX. REPORTS: None X. NEXT HEARING DATE - November 6, 2009 at 9:00 AM, located at the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Administrative Center, 6776 Osceola Trail, Naples, Florida ** Please note, the location of the November 6,2009 Hearing has been changed to the Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services ("CDES'? Building at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive There being no further business for the good of the County, the Hearing was adjourned by Order of the Special Magistrate at 11 :33 PM. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING ~__~~'",k The Minutes were approved by the Spec~1 Magistrate on as presented _, or as amended v . NO\llv.br S Jod1 , l 13 16 I l' 1 III . ~e ber 5, 2009 riala Halas Henning J coyle Coletta MINUTES OF THE HEARlNG OF THE COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE RECEIVED NOV 2 5 2009 Board of County Clln1lnlssioners Naples, Florida, November 5, 2009 LET IT BE REMEMBERED that the Collier County Special Magistrate, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 AM in REGULAR SESSION in the Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services ("CDES") Building at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida, with the following persons present: SPECIAL MAGISTRATE: Honorable Brenda Garretson ALSO PRESENT: Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Sup~wes: Michele McGonagle, Administrative Secr~ Itllm II: Capies to: 16 I ~ N"veC15, 2009 I. CALL TO ORDER The Hearing was called to order at 9:00 AM by the Honorable Special Magistrate Brenda Garretson. All those testifying at the proceeding did so under oath. A. Hearing Rules and Regulations were given by Special Magistrate Garretson. Special Magistrate Garretson noted that, prior to conducting the Hearing, the Respondents were given an opportunity to speak with their Investigating Officer(s) for a Resolution by Stipulation; the goal is to obtain compliance without being punitive. RECESS: 9:16 AM RECONVENED: 9:40 AM II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Jennifer Waldron, Code Enforcement Supervisor, noted the following changes: (a) Under Item IV (B), "Motion for Extension of Time," the following case was WITHDRAWN by the County: . Agenda #1, Case #CENA 20090000707 - BCC vs. Humberto & Alicia Barco (b) Under Item V (A), Stipulations were reached in the following cases: . Agenda #5, Case #CEAU 20090011940 - BCC vs. Kenneth & Penny Ann Price . Agenda #9, Case #CESD 20090010144 - BCC vs. Mario & Yuridia Rojas . Agenda #11, Case #CEV 20090004289 - BCC vs. Stan & Nancy Spence . Agenda #13, Case #CEPM 20090005245 - BCC vs. Adam Canales (c) Under Item V (B), "Hearings," the following cases were WITHDRAWN by the County: . Agenda #1, Case #PR 043485 - CEEX 20090015944 - BCC vs. Jean Jerome . Agenda # 12, Case #CEPM 20090008822 - BCC vs. Pierre Aurelien & Pierre Casimir (d) Under Item V (B), "Hearings," the following case was DISMISSED by the Park Ranger: . Agenda #2, Case #PR 003095 - CEEX 20090016352 - BCC vs. Matthew Kent (e) Under Item V (B), "Hearings," the following case was DISMISSED by the County due to compliance: . Agenda #10, Case #CESD 20090010043 - BCC vs. Gary & Lucinda Nunez 2 16 I '1 C!mber72009 (1) Under Item X, "Next Hearing Date," the correct date is November 20, 2009. The Special Magistrate approved the Agenda as amended, subject to changes made during the course of the Hearing at the dIscretion of the Special MagIstrate. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - October 16, 2009 Correction: . Under Item VI (A), "Imposition of Fines," in Agenda #3, Case #CEPM 20090001588 - BCC vs. Joseph B. and Jacqueline A. Okuniewicz, the correct amount of the tine is $6,367.52 (not $6,367.72). The MInutes of the Special MagIstrate HearIng held on October 16, 2009 were revIewed by the Special Magistrate and approved as amended. IV. MOTIONS A. Motion for Reduction/Abatement of Fines - None B. Motion for Extension of Time - None C. Motion for Re-Hearing: 1. Case #CEPM 20080008180 - BCC vs. GracIela Susi The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Ron Martindale was also present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ord, Chapter 22 Buildings and Building Regulations, Article II, Florida Building Code, Section 22-26(103.1 1.2) No protective barrier surrounding swimming pool. Folio No: 49660 I 05665 Violation address: 2130 Morning Sun Lane The Respondent stated she is divorced and her correct name is DIaz-Mainza. The Special Magistrate stated the case was initially heard on October 2nd and an Order had been entered. She noted the Respondent submitted a written request for the Re-Hearing and her house is in foreclosure. The Respondent stated she was in Orlando undergoing training for a new job when the Hearing was scheduled and thought the Hearing was scheduled for October 6th. She further stated she needed more time for payment and to correct the violation. Investigator Martindale clarified the temporary fencing was to be installed on or before October 9th, while the deadline to obtain a permit and erect permanent fencing is December 2,2009. 3 161 1 (\1 ~ . NoverMen, 2009 The Respondent stated she contacted the Code Enforcement Office but misunderstood what was meant by "temporary barrier." Home Depot advised her that using yellow construction ("caution") tape would suffice, so she surrounded the pool with the tape secured by stakes as the temporary barrier. The Investigator stated a temporary fence (orange plastic) had been installed at the property, but was not sturdy. The Special Magistrate stated there were no grounds to justify are-hearing. The Special Magistrate DENIED the Respondent's Motionfor aRe-Hearing. The Respondent stated after a second conversation with Code Enforcement, she immediately installed the plastic fencing. She was informed that fines had accrued and were continuing to accrue. She also stated she did not understand why fines were imposed since she did comply. The Special Magistrate stated the previous Order will stand as entered and noted the County had not asked for a Motion to assess fines at the Hearing. She instructed the Respondent to attend a future Hearing when the County will ask for fines to be imposed and she could request a reduction at that time. The Special Magistrate stated the Respondent understood and, due to the foreclosure and possible short sale, a permanentfence would not be installed. The Respondent was advised to reinforce the barrier by December 2, 2009 as stipulated in the Order. She suggested the Respondent contact the Investigator for further information and instructions. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Stipulations: 5. Case #CEAU 20090011940 - BCC vs. Kenneth & Penny Ann Price The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Renald Paul who was present. The Respondents were not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ord, Chapter 22 Buildings and Building Regulations, Article II, Florida Building Code, Section 22-26(103.11.2) No fence or pool enclosure around the pool Folio No: 38223400006 Violation Address: 6111 Cedar Tree Lane, Naples A Stipulation was entered into by the Respondents on November 2, 2009. 4 16 , 1 Nove~15, 20~ Investigator Paul stated the Operational Costs of $117.78 had been paid. He noted the Respondents obtained a permit and installed a permanent fence, but had yet to obtain the inspection and Certificate of Completion. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to obtain the required inspection and a Certificate of Completion on or before December 5,2009, or afine of $1 00. 00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. if the Respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation and assess the costs to the Respondents. if necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the terms of the Stipulation. The Respondents are to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the 1nvestigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. 13. Case #CEPM 20090005245 - BCC vs. Adam Canales The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Property Maintenance Specialist Joe Mucha who was present. The Respondent was also present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ordinances, Chapter 22, Article VI, Section 22-231, Subsections 4, 10, II, 12B, 12C, 121, 12K, 12L, 12P, 19 and 20 Rental property with several Minimum Housing violations Folio No: 73181240004 Violation address: 515 Clifton Street, Immokalee The Respondent resides at 8624 East Park, Fort Myers, Florida. A Stipulation was entered into by the Respondent on November 5, 2009. Investigator Mucha stated the Respondent admitted he was in violation of the Ordinance. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to hire a licensed Contractor to obtain either a Collier County Building Permit or a Collier County Demolition Permit, all required inspections, and a Certificate of Occupancy/Completion on or before December 5, 2009, or afine of $250.00 per day will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. if the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by Contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondent. 5 -...., , ... 16 '1 C1 ... November 5, 2009 Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the terms of the Stipulation. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $118.31 on or before December 5, 2009. The Respondent is to notifY Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator petform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $118.31 9. Case #CESD 20090010144 - BCC vs. Mario & Yuridia Roias The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Weldon Walker, Jr. who was present. Respondent, Mario Rojas, was present and also represented his wife, Yuridia Rojas. Violations: Building and Land Alteration Permits. Collier County Land Development Code 2004-41, as amended, Section 1O.02.06(B)(1)(A) Shed on left rear side of property not permitted Folio No: 51040320003 Violation address: 1208 Tyler Avenue, Immokalee The Respondents reside at 1208 Tyler Avenue, Immokalee, Florida. A Stipulation was entered into by Re;,pondent, Yuridia Rojas, on behalf of her husband, Mario Rojas, and herself on November 4, 2009. The Respondent stated he was unable to obtain a permit earlier due to financial constraints. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to obtain either a Collier County Building Permit or a Collier County Demolition Permit, all required inspections, and a Certificate of Occupancy/Completion on or before December 5, 2009, or a fine of $150. 00 per day will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by Contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondents. Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the terms of the Stipulation. The Respondents were ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117.70 on or before January 5, 2010. The Respondents are to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. (, 1 ~ , 1 Cl November 5, 2009 ., TotalAmountDue: $117.70 The Special Magistrate advised the Respondent to contact the Investigator if an extension of time is needed to complete the repairs or demolition. 11. Case #CEV 20090004289 - BCC vs. Stan & Nancv Spence The Hearing was reqested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Patrick Baldwin who was present. Respondent, Stan Spence, was present and also represented his wife, Nancy Spence. Violations: Collier County Land Development Code 2004-41, as amended, Section 2.01.00(A) Unlicensed jeep on residentially zoned property Folio No: 00740240007 Violation address: 139 Andre Lane, Naples The Respondents reside at 139 Andre Lane, Naples, Florida. A Stipulation was entered into by Rei>pondent, Stan Spence, on behalfofhis wife, Nancy Spence, and himse!j'on November 5, 2009. Investigator Baldwin introduced two photographs, dated April 17, 2009 and November 4,2009, which were marked as County's Exhibits "A" and "B" respectively and admitted into evidence. The Respondent stated the property was zoned as agricultural/mobile home and lived there for approximately 30 years, His Jeep has remained parked in the same location for the same period of time without incident. He claimed the vehicle has been parked on a driveway apron which was permitted. He was confused as to why he was now in violation of the Ordinance. He further stated he was informed by the County that the street was zoned as "private," and the County was "petty and ridiculous." The Investigator stated the Respondent had signed the Notice of Violation and had been made aware of the violation. After being questioned by the Special Magistrate, the Respondent admitted he was in violation. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to obtain and affIX a valid license plate on the vehicle, repair the vehicle to become operable, store the vehicle in a completely enclosed structure, or remove the vehicle from the property on or before December 5,2009 or afine of $50.00 per day will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. 7 16 11 Cl November 5, 2009 ... , If the Respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by Contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondents. lfnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of the Order. The Respondents were ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117.61 on or before February 5, 2010. The Respondents are to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $117.61 RECESS: 11:51 AM RECONVENED: 12:18 PM 14. Case #CEPM 20090002476 - BCC vs. Anl!el & RaQuel Hernandez The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Property Maintenance Specialist Joe Mucha who was present. Respondent, Angel Hernandez, was present and also represented his wife, Raquel Hernandez. Court Interpreter Maria Delashmet served as translator for the Respondent. Violations: Ordinance No. 2004-58, Section 12 Structure declared to be a dangerous building due to severe fire damage Folio No: 00422680008 Violation address: 6199 Whitaker Road The Respondents reside at 6199 Whitaker Road, Naples, Florida. A Stipulation was entered into by Respondent, Angel Hernandez, on behalf of his wife, Raquel Hernandez, and himself on November 5, 2009. Investigator Mucha stated the Respondents admitted to the violation. He further stated the demolition was completed. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondents were found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to obtain final inspection and a Certificate of Completion for Demolition Permit #2009071705 on or before November 12, 2009, or afine of $250.00 per day will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondents have not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation and assess the costs to the Respondent. lfnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the terms of the Stipulation. 8 16 11 , ct November 5, 2009 ~--.., The Respondents were ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117.96 on or before December 5, 2009. The Respondents are to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $1/7.96 Supervisor Cristina Perez informed the Special Magistrate that the Certificate of Completion had been issued and was ready for the Respondent to retrieve. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS B. Hearings: 3. Case #DAS 11911-CEEX 20090016580 - BCC vs. Patricia Swallow The Hearing was requested by the Respondent who was present. Collier County Domestic Animal Services Officer Paul Morris was also present. Rebecca Winans appeared as a witness for the Respondent. Violations: Code of Law & Ord., Section 8, Paragraph (l)-H To bark, whine, howl, or cause other objectional noises. Violation address: 3560 25th Avenue SW The Respondent resides at 3560 25th Avenue SW, Naples, Florida 34117. The Witness resides at 4530 Randall Blvd., Naples, Florida 34120. DAS Officer Morris stated the applicable portion of the Citation referenced the birds that the Repondent owned by the phrase, "cause other objectionable noise. " The Respondent stated she thought the Citation referred to her dogs and could have called other witnesses if she knew the subject was birds, not dogs. The witness stated she could testify in reference to birds but there were other people who could have testified but were not present. The Respondent stated she lived on her property (3 acres) in Golden Gate Estates for approximately fifteen years and the birds have been there during the entire time. Officer Morris stated he conferred with the Respondent prior to the Hearing. She informed him she had not received the Certified Mail concerning the Hearing. He further stated he never mentioned dogs as an issue during any of their conversations at the property. The Respondent stated she did not receive the Certified Mail - only the yellow notice to pick up a letter from the Post Office which she found inserted in one of her 9 1611"1 i C1 . November 5, 2009 catalogues. She stated her witness, Rebecca Winans, called her and told her about the Hearing. The Respondent maintained she had no idea she was to appear. Ms. Winans stated she was notitied about the Hearing by Commissioner Coletta's secretary. There had been a conversation with Mr. Coletta concerning the lack of any reference in the Ordinance specific to parrots --- just "noise." Officer Morris stated he gave the Citation to the Respondent, which she signed, and explained it was in reference to the noise caused by the birds but dogs were never mentioned. The violation occurred in May 19th, but the Citation was not served until September 4th He stated the neighbors have signed affidavits and will testify concerning the issue of noise. The Special Magistrate concluded the Respondent had been aware of the situation [i.e., complaints about the noise caused by the birds] due to several converstions with the DAS Officer and because she had conducted her own research. The process had been ongoing since both the Respondent and Witness had conversations with the Officer about the birds. She stated nothing was presented to indicate the subject matter was a complete surprise. Supervisor Waldron stated the Notice of Hearing was sent via Certified Mail on October 26, 2009 and a notice was leti by the U.S. Postal Service on October 27, 2009. The Notice of Hearing was also sent via U.S. first-class mail delivery ("regular mail"). The Special Magistrate ruled the Notice given had complied with the terms of the Ordinance. The Special Magistrate noted the presence of the Respondent was proof of "actual notice" and the Respoondent was aware of the charges against her because of her conversation with Commissioner Coletta's office. Ms. Winans (witness) stated Commissioner Coletta was also confused concerning the subject matter of the Citation and thought it was about dogs, not noise Ms. Waldron stated Code Enforcement received the Respondent's Request for a Hearing and a letter from Ms. Swallow via interoffice mail. The Officer introduced a letter from the Respondent dated September 17,2009 which was marked as County's Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence. A letter from "Birds Galore" was marked as County's Exhibit "B" and admitted into evidence. The Special Magistrate reviewed the Respondent's letter and stated it contradicted the Respondent's previous statements because the letter referenced "my parrots." The Special Magistrate ruled the requirements for Due Process had been met. The ReslJondent stated: · She obtained a permit approximately fourteen years ago to build an aviary for her birds located in the back on approximately 3 acres 10 ~'>.-~~-'------ .fIlI 1 16 , 1"~ ~';, November 5,2009 ..... . Her neighbor's homes are very close to her property line . She took the parrots with her when she left three years ago. When she returned in May, the problems started. . The birds (25) and "some" chickens live in the aviary along with a pair of young peacocks kept in a large pen. She mentioned the birds can be noisy when she is feeding them ar at sundown. · After returning in May, the birds were noisy because they were adjusting to different surroundings. . To abate the noise, she spent "thousands of dollars" boarding the aviary and installing an air conditioner during the summer. It is not totally enclosed. The Ale was removed due to the high cost of running it. . She stated she and the workmen have been harassed by her neighbors. Neighbors have been on ladders peering over her fence using binoculars, screaming over the fence at her and have tossed tree clippings and debris in her yard. She has called police twice to her property . She is installing a privacy fence around her property The Resvondent 's Witness stated: . The aviary is about 75 feet from the property line . When birds are moved from place to place, they will make noise for about a week or so ("squeeling") . Birds will be excited during feeding periods (approximately 5 to ] 0 minutes) . Birds do "talk" to each other all day long DAS Officer Morris stated: · The Respondent's property was monitored by DAS officers in split shifts (day and evening) . Recordings were made of the noise created by the birds for extended periods of time during the evening Officer Ron Martindale stated: . He met Officer Morris at the scene on May 19th and helped capture one of the escaped birds . He witnessed the noise ordinance to the Respondent during that visit and the Respondent stated she would reduce the number of birds kept on the premises . Officer Morris suggested enclosing the aviary to reduce the sound levels The Respondent asked Officer Morris why she was required to enclose the aviary. The Officer stated he gave the Respondent several suggestions to help buffer the nOSle: . install louvered windows to allow air and sunlight to penetrate . install fans for circulation . install a small ale unit at the end of the aviary away from the birds . install grow lights for birds not receiving sunlight II 16 , 1'~ C 1 November 5, 2009 Officer Morris mentioned he raises birds and knows they are "never totally quiet" all day or all night long. DAS Witness: Jeanette Freeland, 3520 25th Avenue SW, Naples, Florida 341 17. Mrs. Freeland stated: . Has lived in her residence since 1986 · Chief complaint is the noise of the birds - including roosters that crow in the morning, the peacocks, the macaws, the parrots and the chickens lasting from 2 to 4 hours at a time. Cannot enjoy sitting on their lanai or entertaining friends. · Kept accurate notes about the times when noise occured which were turned over to DAS · Birds were noisy from the beginning when the Respondent began residing at her property - the only difference was that the Respondent didn't own the peacocks or the roosters until recently and had previously kept a nwnber of the birds inside her house. Some are at the pool which is next to the witness' house Danny Freeland agreed with his wife's testimony and had nothing to add. DAS Witness: Cecilia Comperatore, 3570 25th Avenue SW, Naples, Florida 341 17. Mrs. Comveratore stated: . Has lived at her residence for approximately 10 years and agreed with Mrs. Freeland's assessment of the noise level · Has also raised large birds and knows macaws are "screamers" and when one bird starts, they all follow . Issue was not only the length of time but also the time itselt~ i.e., the roosters, the donkey and the peacocks start anywhere from 1:00 AM up to 6:00 AM . Has been unable to sleep in her bedroom due to the noise . The aviary is not as "boarded" as the Respondent indicated and has not made a difference to the noise level . Cannot enjoy any outdoor activities John Comperatore agreed with his wife's testimony and had nothing to add. The Respondent did not have any questions for either ofthe witnesses. She stated she is unable to sell her home due to the economy and the complaints did not start until after she returned in May. She reiterated her peacocks are young and do not make noise and the birds are quiet at sundown. The birds do not make noise during the night and the noise does not last for hours at a time. The Special Magistrate suggested the Respondent, because she lives with her animals all the time. may have become immune to the noise level. She suggested the number of birds may need to be reduced or the .\pecies should be separated She further stated all parties involved are entitled to live on their properties with a reasonable expectation of peace. ]2 1 6 I ~o~ember 5Col The Special Magistrate ruled that, based on the evidence presented, there was a violation of the Ordinance. The Officer suggested the Respondent consult her contractor to see if there was a solution that he could recommend concerning noise abatement. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to pay afine of $100. 00 and an administrativefee of$7.00 on or before January 5,2010. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $50. 00 on or before January 5, 2010. Total Amount Due: $157.00 The Special Magistrate advised the Respondent she was entitled to file an appeal within thirty days of receiving the Order. RECESS: 12:56 PM RECONVENED: 1:12 PM 4. Case #CEPM 20090011813 - BCC vs. Crvstal Pepper The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Carmelo Gomez who was present. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ordinances Chapter 22, Buildings and Building Regulations, Article VI Property Maintenance Code, Section 22-231 (15) Pool with green water - algae Folio No: 33140012763 Violation address: 3850 Recreation Lane, Naples The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and Courthouse on October 22, 2009. Investigator Gomez introduced one photograph which was marked as County's Exhibit "A" and admitted into evidence and stated the violation had not been abated. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to either clean and maintain the pool water to remove all algae, or drain the pool completely, on or before November 12, 2009 or a fine of $250. 00 per day will be imposed for each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondent. 13 16 ~ ~o~ember sl)~ Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of the Order. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117. 96 on or before December 5, 2009. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $I17.96 6. Case #CEPM 20090005339 - Bee vs. Edward Slasienski The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Jonathan Musse who was present. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ordinances Chapter 22 Buildings and Building Regulations, Article VI Property Maintenance Code, Section 22-231 (11),22-231 (12)(B), and 22-231(12)(C); Roof in partial disrepair, exposed wiring, missing exterior lighting and holes to the exterior walls Folio No: 29781040001 Violation address: 1112 Highlands Drive, Naples The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on October 22, 2009. Investigator Musse introducted four photographs which were marked as County's Composite "A" and admitted into evidence and stated the violation had not been abated. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to repair the damaged items cited on the Property Maintenance Inspection Report on or before November 12, 2009, or afine of $200.00 per day will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by Contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondent. If necessary, assistance may be requested from the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of the Order. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117.70 on or before December 5, 2009. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $117.70 ]4 16 , I Cl November 5, 2009 7. Case #CENA 20090005343 - BCC ys. Edward Slasienski The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Jonathan Musse who was present. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ordinances, Chapter 54 Environment, Article VI, Weeds, Litter, and Exotics, Section(s) 54-179 & 54-184 Litter consisting of, but not limited to, camper top, 2 inoperable lawn mowers, buckets, wood, metal, doors, windows, etc. Folio No: 29781000009 Violation address: 1100 Highlands Drive, Naples The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on October 22, 2009. Investigator Musse introducted seven photographs which were marked as County's Composite "A" and admitted into evidence and stated the violation had not been abated. Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation and ordered to remove all litter to an appropriate waste disposal facility, or store items in a completely enclosed structure on or before November 12, 2009, or afine of $100. 00 per day will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter, unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by Contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondent. Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of the Order. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117.78 on or before December 5, 2009. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $1l7.78 8. Case #CEPM 20090005344 - BCC ys. Edward Slasienski The Hearing was requested by Collier County Code Enforcement Investigator Jonathan Musse who was present. The Respondent was not present. Violations: Collier County Code of Laws & Ordinances Chapter 22 Buildings and Building Regulations, Article VI Property Maintenance Code, Section(S) 22-231 (II) And 22-231 (l2)(C) 15 It:,.n.-,, . November 5, 2009 Cl - Roof in partial disrepair, exposed wiring, and missing exterior lighting Folio No: 29781000009 Violation address: 1100 Highlands Drive, Naples The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on October 22, 2009. Investigator Musse introducted five photographs which were marked as County's Composite "A" and admitted into evidence and stated the violation had not been abated Finding the Notice of Hearing was properly served, the Respondent was found GUILTY of the alleged violation(s) and ordered to repair the damaged items noted on the Property Maintenance Checklist on or before November 12,2009, or afine of $100. 00 per day will be imposedfor each day the violation remains thereafter unless altered by a subsequent Stipulation or Order of the Special Magistrate. If the Respondent has not complied by the deadline, the County is authorized to abate the violation by Contractor bid-out and assess the costs to the Respondent. Ifnecessary, assistance may be requestedfrom the Collier County Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of the Order. The Respondent was ordered to pay the Operational Costs incurred by Code Enforcement during the prosecution of this case in the amount of $117.52 on or before December 5, 2009. The Respondent is to notify Code Enforcement within 24 hours of abatement of the violation and request the Investigator perform a site inspection to confirm compliance. Total Amount Due: $117.52 VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Motion for Imposition of Fines: 1. Case #CEPM 20090008987 - BCC vs. Jerry & Susan Currie The County was represented by Code Enforcement Investigator Renald Paul. The Respondents were not present. Violations: Collier County Code Of Laws & Ordinances Chapter 22, Article Vi, Section 22-231 (15); Pool is green and stagnate, not maintained Folio No: 36248400009 Violation address: 1797 54th Street SW The Notice of Hearing was posted at the property and the Courthouse on October 23, 2009. Investigator Paul stated the violation has not been abated. 16 1 6 11 ! Cl November 5, 2009 The County requested imposition of Operational Costs in the sim of $117.96 and fines in the amount of $41 ,000 for the period from Septebmer 26, 2009 through November 5, 2009 (41 days @ $100/day), for a total amount due of$41,217.96. The Special Magistrated GRANTED the County's Motion of Imposition of Fines in the amount of $41,217.96 and noted Fines continue to accrue. VII. OLD BUSINESS: None VIII. CONSENT AGENDA: A. Request to Forward Cases to County Attorney's Office as referenced in the submitted Executive Summary. The Special Magistrate reviewed the cases identified in the Executive Summary and GRANTED the County's request to forward the referenced cases to the County Attorney's Office. B. Request for Special Magistrate to Impose Nuisance Abatement Liens on Cases referenced in the submitted Executive Summary. The Special Magistrate reviewed the cases cited in the Executive Summary and GRANTED the County's request to impose Nuisance Abatement Liens. IX. REPORTS: None X. NEXT HEARING DATE - November lil.. 2009, as corrected under Item II, "Approval of the Agenda," at 9:00 AM, located at the Collier County Community Development and Environmental Services ("CDES'? Building at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive There being no further business for the good of the County, the Hearing was adjourned by Order of the Special Magistrate at 1:36 PM. COLLIER COUNTY SPECIAL MAGISTRATE HEARING The Minutes were approved by the ~ial Magistrate on as presented _, or as amended . ~~ dt:> I~Di , 17