BCC Minutes 01/19/2010 S (GMP Amendments)
January 19,2010
TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Naples, Florida, January 19,2010
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County
Commissioners, in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as
the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board (s) of such
special district as has been created according to law and having
conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in SPECIAL
SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples,
Florida, with the following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Fred Coyle
Frank Halas
Jim Coletta
Tom Henning
Donna Fiala
ALSO PRESENT:
Leo Ochs, County Manager
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
Sue Filson, BCC Executive Manager
David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Michael Bosi, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Page 1
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
t1"
~^...,
__"~",J
SPECIAL AGENDA
GMP AMENDMENTS
(Transmittal Hearing)
January 19, 2010
9:00 a.m.
2007/2008 Cycle of Growth Management Plan Amendments
(Including a 2009 Petition)
Fred Coyle, BCC Chairman, District 4
Frank Halas, BCC Vice-Chairman Commissioner, District 2 (Arrived at 9:40 a.m.)
Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3
Jim Coletta, Commissioner, District 5
Donna Fiala, Commissioner, District 1
NOTE: THE BOARD INTENDS TO BREAK AT APPROXIMATELY 3:00 P.M.,
AND THEN WILL RECONVENE AT 5:00 P.M. TO HEAR ITEMS 2.C. AND 2.D.
NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEMS MUST
REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE
COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA
ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. ALL REGISTERED SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE
UP TO THREE (3) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE
CHAIRMAN.
COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED BY
ORDINANCE 2004-05 AND 2007-24, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS
SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE
BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT.
Page 1
January 19, 2010
REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON
THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION
TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS."
PUBLIC PETITIONS ARE LIMITED TO THE PRESENTER, WITH A
MAXIMUM TIME OF TEN MINUTES.
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 UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.
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 EAST
TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 252-8380; ASSISTED
LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE A V AILABLE IN
THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE.
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Proclamation designating January 27, 2010 as International Holocaust
Remembrance Day - Adopted 4/0 (Commissioner Halas absent)
3. 2007/2008 Combined Cycle of Growth Management Plan Amendments,
including a 2009 Petition (Transmittal Hearing)
A. CP-2007-1, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area
Master Plan and Golden Gate Area master Plan Future Land Use Map and
Map Series. to create the Wilson Boulevard Conditional Uses Subdistrict, to
allow a maximum of 40,000 square feet of permitted and conditional uses of
the Estates zoning district, for property located on the southeast comer of
Immokalee Road (CR 846) and Wilson boulevard, in Section 27, Township
48 South, Range 27 East, consisting of :1:5.17 acres. [Coordinator: Corby
Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner]
Motion to continue until petitioner arrives - Approved 3/0
(Commissioner Coyle and Commissioner Halas absent);
Page 2
January 19,2010
Motion to transmit amended petition - Approved 3/2 (Commissioner
Halas and Commissioner Coyle opposed)
B. CP-2007-3, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area
Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and
Map Series, to create the Mission Subdistrict to allow church and related
uses, including schools, adult care and child care, and community outreach,
with a maximum of 90,000 square feet oftotal development, for property
located on the south side of Oil Well Road (CR 858), II. miles west of
Everglades Boulevard, in Section 19, Township 48 South, Range 28 East,
consisting of :1:21. 72 acres. [Coordinator: Beth Yang, AICP, Principal
Planner]
Motion to transmit - Approved 4/0 (Commissioner Halas absent)
C. CP-2008-1, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area
Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and
Map Series, to create the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict to allow a
maximum of 21 0,000 square feet of commercial uses of the C-4 zoning
district, with exceptions, and some uses of the C-5 zoning district, with
requirement to construct a grocery store, for property located on the north
side of Golden Gate Boulevard extending from Wilson Boulevard west to 3rd
Street Northwest, in Section 4, Township 49 South, Range 27 East,
consisting of :1:40.62 acres. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP,
Principal Planner]
[Note: To be heard when BCC reconvenes at 5:00 p.m.]
Motion to continue indefinitely and place proposed amendment on the
November, 2010 ballot, as a straw measure, to be voted on by the
residents of Golden Gate Estates; petitioner will bear all advertising
costs and costs associated with putting this amendment on the ballot
Approved - 4/0 (Commissioner Coyle absent)
D. CP-2008-2, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area
Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and
Map Series, to expand and modify the Randall Boulevard Commercial
Subdistrict to allow an additional 370,950 square feet of commercial uses of
the C-4 zoning district, with exceptions, for property located on the south
side of Randall Boulevard, extending from 8th Street Northeast west to the
canal on the west side of the Big Corkscrew Island Fire Station, in Sections
26 and 27, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, consisting of :1:56.5 acres.
[Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner]
Page 3
January 19, 2010
[Note: To be heard when BCC reconvenes at 5:00 p.m.]
Motion to transmit w/CCPC recommendations - Approved 4/0
(Commissioner Coyle absent)
E. CP-2008-4, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use
Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series, to re-designate from
Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District (RFMUD) Sending Lands to Neutral Lands
for property located on the east and south sides of Washburn Avenue, east of
the Naples Landfill, in Section 31, Township 49 South, Range 27 East,
consisting of :1:28.76 acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP,
Principal Planner]
Motion to transmit w/CCPC recommendations - Approved 5/0
F. CPSP-2008-7, Staff petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land
Use Element to add a new Policy 4.11 pertaining to aligning planning time
frames in the Growth Management Plan (GMP). [Coordinator: David
Weeks, AICP, GMP Manager]
Approved - 5/0
G. CP-2009-1, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use
Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series (FLUE/FLUM). to
create the Dade-Collier Cypress Recreation Area District within the
Conservation Designation, for property located along the Miami-
Dade/Collier County border, in Sections 13, 14, 15 & 16, Township 53
South, Range 34 East, consisting of 1,608:1: acres. [Coordinator: David
Weeks, AICP, GMP Manager]
Motion to transmit w/amendments - Approved 4/0 (Commissioner
Coyle absent)
· Resolution 2010-12: Transmitting amendments to DCA (Department of
Community Affairs) - Adopted w/amendments
4. Adjourn - Consensus
INQUIRIES CONCERNING CHANGES TO THE BOARD'S AGENDA SHOULD
BE MADE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AT (239)
252-2400.
Page 4
January 19, 2010
January 19,2010
RESOLUTION 2010-12: TRANSMITTING AMENDMENTS TO
DCA (DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS) - ADOPTED
W / AMENDMENTS
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, ladies and gentlemen,
welcome to the Collier County Commission meeting on the growth
management amendment changes. We're going to be starting in about
15 more minutes. We're running just a little bit late, but I wanted to
make sure we didn't lose your interest before that time. So please sit
tight, and we'll be with you very shortly.
(A brief recess was had.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Good morning, everyone.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: If you would pardon me, I'd like
to nominate you as chair to run this meeting until the chair or
vice-chair can attend.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And since I'm the only other
one here other than yourself, I'll second it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: All in favor?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you, Mr. Henning, or
Commissioner Henning, for keeping us on the straight and narrow. I
appreciate that.
Welcome, everyone, to the Growth Management Plan
amendments, combined cycle 2007 and 2008 plus petition CP-2009-1
for the transmittal hearings on this fine January 19th.
Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we do the pledge?
Page 2
January 19,2010
COMMISSIONER FIALA: We can. Would everyone please
stand, put your hands over your heart.
(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.)
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sorry you had to wait a little bit. I
was at the Canvassing Board this morning, and they had to pull me out
of there. So thank you. I'm glad to be with you. They're canvassing
the Marco Island elections, by the way.
Okay. So we go on to -- David, do you want to take over from
here?
MR. WEEKS: Thank you. For the record, David Weeks,
planning manager in the comprehensive planning department.
Commissioners, next on your agenda is a proclamation, but
because I believe the intent is for Commissioner Coyle to read that, if
we could skip over that until he arrives.
We would next move into the amendments themselves. And as
far as your agenda goes, a couple of comments. First of all, a
reminder that you're scheduled to recess at three o'clock or sooner, if
you finish with the five items on your agenda that are scheduled for
the daytime, and then reconvene at five p.m. to hear agenda items 3C
and 3D, and those are the two large projects located out in Golden
Gate Estates, one of which is at the intersection of Wilson and Golden
Gate Boulevard, and the other is at the intersection of Randall
Boulevard and Immokalee Road.
Secondly, the first item showing on your agenda for these
petitions is Item 3A, petition CP-2007-1 that is located at the southeast
corner of Immokalee Road and Wilson Boulevard. The petitioner has
requested a continuance until later in the hearing until the actual
petitioner arrives. He has a delay of some sort. The agent is here but,
again, that is the request, and I believe the board would need to act on
that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Board members?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Motion to continue.
Page 3
January 19,2010
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. All in favor?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. We have done that.
MR. WEEKS: Thank you. And now, Commissioners, as usual I
need to give some introductory remarks before we get into the specific
petitions.
First of all, just as a reminder, this is an amendment -- excuse me
-- a hearing on Growth Management Plan amendments. You typically
hear these about twice a year. This is the transmittal hearing. This is
where you take what I would refer to as preliminary action on the
approved -- on these items, unless you vote not to transmit, which is --
constitutes a denial, and that would be your final action.
But if you do vote to transmit, then the process continues, the
petitions would be sent to the Florida Department of Community
Affairs and other agencies for their review, and then they will provide
back to the county what is called an Objections, Recommendations
and Comments Report identifying any issues or concerns they have
regarding compliance with state statutes. Then you would hold your
adoption hearings on these petitions, at which time you would be
taking final action and then, again, the amendments will be sent to
DCA, Department of Community Affairs, and other agencies for their
final compliance determination.
This is a legislative action, not quasijudicial, so there is no
requirement to swear in participants or to offer a notice of ex parte
communications.
As required by state law, there is a sign-up sheet located out on
the table outside of these chambers, and that allows the interested
members of the public to sign up to receive notice from the Florida
Page 4
January 19,2010
Department of Community Affairs when they have issued their notice
of intent to find the amendments in compliance or not in compliance.
That would not occur until after the adoption, but by state law we are
required to have that sign-in sheet both at transmittal and adoption
hearings.
As always we would appreciate, at the conclusion of these
hearings, which hopefully will occur later this evening, we would like
to collect all of the binders. And I know you've been weighed down.
We've provided you with four different binders. We can reuse those
to send to the state agencies. If those could be left either in the
chambers here or in your office area, we'd be glad to pick those up
tomorrow.
I would like to note, very briefly, that, as you noticed, these
petitions were submitted in 2007 and 2008 yet here we are in 2010.
Why the delay? Well, there's a few reasons. First of all, we had to
adopt the Evaluation and Appraisal Report-based Comprehensive Plan
amendments prior to being allowed to go forward with these
amendments, and those EAR-based amendments were not adopted
until January of2007, and we first had to get through the 2005 and '6
cycle of petitions, and we also had certain state-mandated
amendments which we had to have adopted as well. That included the
ten-year water facilities supply plan and also the schools public
facilities elements.
All Comprehensive Plan amendments are required to submit data
and analysis or, that is, there's required to be data and analysis to
demonstrate the need for the amendment as well as a determination
that it is the appropriate location and that the infrastructure impacts are
accepted as well. That will be dealt with in more detail as we discuss
each individual petition. And also, specifically this evening, we'll talk
some about the needs analysis for commercial demand, and that's
applicable only to the two petitions that will be discussed this evening.
New legislation by the Florida legislature adopted in 2008,
Page 5
January 19,2010
known as House Bill 697, pertains to reduction in greenhouse gases
and reduction in vehicle miles traveled. That being new legislation,
relatively new, this is the first set of Comprehensive Plan amendments
that are subject to review for compliance with that legislation. And
that will also be discussed in -- more specifically as we get to each
individual petition.
The last thing I'll touch on, Commissioners, has to do with the
Golden Gate Area Master Plan. As you'll notice, I believe it's the very
first exhibit behind your executive summary itself, is a map depicting
the four petitions that are located in Golden Gate Estates, the two large
ones that were referenced earlier and then the first two on your
agenda, the first of which has already been continued until a little bit
later in the meeting.
The Golden Gate Master Plan was first adopted in 1991. And
Commissioner Coletta, if! recall correctly, you were on the committee
that was appointed by the board at that time to work towards the
development of that master plan to assist county staff in so doing.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. I chaired the
committee.
(Commissioner Coyle is now present.)
MR. WEEKS: Thank you, you chaired the committee.
The master plan's adoption changed the rules for the Golden Gate
Estates area significantly from what had been the case prior. Most
particularly, it imposed stringent limitations on the location of
conditional uses and, secondly, identified just a few locations for
where commercial development could occur and limited the scale and
the intensity of that commercial, limited to small quadrants of
approximately five acres each at four different intersections, and also
limited the use intensity to that allowed in the C 1, 2, and 3 zoning
districts, neighborhood/commercial-type uses. There was no provision
for community commercial, no provision for larger-scale commercial.
And again, we'll get into that more this evening.
Page 6
January 19,2010
The master plan has been amended over time but is significantly
the same in the fact that it continues to have stringent limitations on
the location of conditional uses and for commercial opportunities.
And I make those comments because they're relevant. Today
you have four different petitions; two this evening making commercial
requests, and two for this morning's session pertaining to
institutional-type uses.
Commissioners, that concludes my introductory remarks. I think
at this time we want to break and allow Commissioner Coy Ie to read
the proclamation on the agenda.
Item #2
PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING JANUARY 27,2010 AS
INTERNATIONAL HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE DAY -
ADOPTED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
We're not really going to read the entire proclamation. What I
would like to do is ask that the commissioners consider the
proclamation as part of our Board of County Commissioners' meeting.
The Holocaust Museum has asked for the proclamation to be
presented this next weekend at a multi-faith observance of Holocaust
Day. And so I'm merely looking for approval of the referendum -- or
the proclamation concerning International Holocaust Remembrance
Day designating January the 27th, 2010.
If I could get a motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to approve by
Commissioner Henning, second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any discussion?
Page 7
January 19,2010
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
And I would like to offer a brief explanation of why
commissioners will be coming and going most ofthe day, and have
been so far this morning.
We have -- for the public we have scheduled a lot of extra
meetings in order to accommodate the public and the petitioners, and
several of the commissioners have had long-standing commitments for
other meetings, and we have naturally had some scheduling conflicts.
Commissioner Henning and I will have to leave at various times
during the day. No?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: That has changed.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh. Commissioner Henning has solved
his problem. I haven't solved mine yet. So I'll be coming and going at
various times during the day.
But in any event, I expect that that will happen on some of the
other hearings also, but this is, in fact, the first of what will be two
hearings. And any of these GMP plan amendments that have been --
or that will be approved will be forwarded to the Department of
Community Affairs in Tallahassee for review, they will then send their
recommendations back to us, and we will have a chance to consider
them during an adoption hearing.
So with those explanations, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. I had two questions for David,
if! may. The first one is, you were saying about the needs
assessment, and it's only applicable to this evening's items. Can you
Page 8
January 19,2010
explain that?
MR. WEEKS: Certainly. Let me clarify. There is a requirement
to demonstrate a need for an amendment that is applicable to all
Comprehensive Plan amendments. This evening's petitions are
requests for commercial development whereas none of this morning's
are. There are some specific requirements pertaining to requests for
commercial or for increased density -- again, not applicable to this
morning -- that will be addressed this evening. That has to do with a
-- what's called a market ratio. And I don't want to get into it now, if
you please, but it is only applicable to commercial requests.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And then you said, the ones
this morning are institutional versus commercial. Could you explain
what that is?
MR. WEEKS: Certainly. Of the five petitions on this morning's
agenda, there are two in Golden Gate Estates, both of which are
requesting institutional uses. The first one that you'll actually be
hearing, CP-2007-3, is a request for a church and related uses, an
institutional-type use.
The other one, which is actually first on your agenda, you've
previously continued it until later in the meeting; that one is requesting
the allowance for all of the conditional uses allowed in the Estates
zoning district.
And so I've -- lumping all of those conditional uses, which
includes churches, childcare, neighbor - -- nursing homes, adult living
facilities, et cetera, as institutional uses. That's what I was referring to,
those types of conditional uses.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you, David.
Any other commissioners want to make any statements?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: David, we're going to move on to 3B; is
that the plan?
Page 9
January 19,2010
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Has a time been established for
the hearing of3A?
MR. WEEKS: No, sir. It was continued until the petitioner
shows up.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, I see. Okay. Well, we even have
petitioners who are late today, right? Good.
MR. WEEKS: In this case.
Item #3B
PETITION CP-2007-3: REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO
THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN AND GOLDEN
GATE AREA MASTER PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND
MAP SERIES, CREATING THE MISSION SUBDISTRICT TO
ALLOW A CHURCH AND RELATED USES, INCLUDING
SCHOOLS, ADULT CARE AND CHILD CARE, AND
COMMUNITY OUTREACH, WITH A MAXIMUM OF 90,000
SQUARE FEET OF TOTAL DEVELOPMENT, FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF OIL WELL ROAD
(CR 858), 1;4 MILES WEST OF EVERGLADES BOULEVARD,
IN SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 28 EAST,
CONSISTING OF ::1:21.72 ACRES - MOTION TO TRANSMIT -
APPROVED
Commissioners, if I may, for the record, the first petition you'll
be hearing then is Item 3B. That's petition CP-2007-3. Petition
requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and
Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and map series,
to create the mission sub-district to allow church and related uses,
including schools, adult care, and childcare and community outreach
with a maximum of 90,000 square feet of total development, for
Page 10
January 19,2010
property located on the south side of Oil Well Road, a!kla County
Road 858, one-quarter mile west of Everglades Boulevard, in Section
19, Township 48 south, Range 28 east, consisting of approximately
21. 72 acres.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Very well. We are swearing in
everyone who's going to be giving testimony today. Please stand and
raise your hands.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All right. Thank you very much. And
ex parte disclosure?
MR. KLATZKOW: That's not required, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. It's not required.
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's not required.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, it's not required.
Why do I have an ex parte item here? Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Ready?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, Mr. Y ovanovich. Go ahead.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good morning, Commissioners. For the
record, Rich Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner.
With me are two people who can answer any questions that I
can't answer. One is Jay Kerr, he is -- he's in charge of the strategic
planning committee for the church, as well as Bob Duane from Hole
Montes, who can answer any questions.
The petition you have before you today is a request to construct a
church and related uses of -- on a 22-acre site, and the request is for
90,000 square feet.
The original request included some commercial uses which have
been deleted from the petition, and that deletion occurred prior to the
Planning Commission hearing.
The Planning Commission heard the petition without the
commercial uses, and including the revised language that is in front of
Page 11
January 19,2010
you today. The Planning Commission recommended 8-0 to
recommend transmittal of this particular request.
I was under the impression that staff felt that the revisions were
appropriate, but apparently based on the executive summary, staff is
still not recommending transmittal.
The request, as I said, is for a church, and your staff in their staff
report mentions that there are seven other churches out in the Golden
Gate Estates area. None of them are -- except one -- all of the
churches they're citing to are at least five miles away from this current
location. They're all smaller, nonmainstream Protestant
denominations. The closest mainstream Protestant denomination is 12
miles away, and none of them are Lutheran. So we believe that, you
know, there isn't a Lutheran church out in this area, so we believe that
the church -- there is a need for a Lutheran church out in Golden Gate
Estates, and your Planning Commission agreed with that.
There are no daycares or adult daycares in the area. The ones
that were cited by your staff are pre-school or after-school programs
for the school system that's out there, so we believe that there's clearly
a demand for childcare out in the area, as well as there are no adult
daycare facilities out in this area at all, so we believe there's clearly a
need for adult daycare out in this area.
There's -- your staff cites to seven public schools in the area, and
we think that supports our argument that there's obviously school-aged
children in this area and, perhaps, a private school may make some
sense in this area, since there clearly are child -- children in the area.
So we would like the opportunity to, through the rezone process, ask
for all of these uses.
We believe that there is sufficient demand, and our data and
analysis is in the back of your packet. I can go through it in detail if
you need me to, but I wasn't planning on doing that since the Planning
Commission did recommend transmittal 8-0. And we can answer any
questions you may have regarding the vision for this proposed site.
Page 12
January 19,2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Your time has expired.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Apparently.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta has a question.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, actually I have several
questions. One, we're talking about just transmitting this. This comes
back to us for further review.
The first question is to Sue Filson. Do we have any speakers on
this item?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Can you tell me a little bit about
the public process that you went through to bring this thing forward?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure. We, of course, had our required
neighborhood information meeting, and there were no objectors at the
neighborhood information meeting. We went to the Planning
Commission, and the only speaker -- I think there was one speaker,
and he was actually in favor of the petition.
You know, we meet with neighbors, we do advertising, we put
signs on the property. So there is quite a public outreach program that
occurs prior to getting to the Planning Commission, and there have
been no objectors along the way for what we're proposing to do. And
we started in '07, as you know. We're in 2010 at this point. And
there's a staff review and our response to staff comments, and it's a
long and tedious process, as you know.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Mr. Y ovanovich, of
course, there's quite a few elements to this that are very important.
The commercial part, one more time. I see all sorts of permitted
commercial uses listed in here under the Planning Commission's
recommendations.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, there were no commercial uses.
What we did in an abundance of caution, a lot of churches, my church
included, will, during Sunday, have blood screenings. You know,
they'll do blood pressure, cholesterol screening, bloodmobile, things
Page 13
January 19,2010
like that, inoculations for the swine flu, things like that. In an
abundance of caution, we listed those as medical, and we limited it to
2,500 square feet on the site.
As we discussed this further, everybody realized that, you know,
most churches do this. It's really a church-related use. So we crafted
the language that said these uses have to be in conjunction with the
church. So that's why we dropped the request for commercial
because, in an abundance of caution, we characterized it as
commercial because we didn't want anybody to say, no, you can't have
a blood drive; no, you can't do swine flu inoculations. That's where
that came about from.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, who from staff is prepared
to discuss the transportation issues that may be there or -- Nick, good
mornmg.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Good morning, Commissioners. For
the record, Nick Casalanguida.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, always concerned over
the transportation issue.
At this point in time, Oil Well Road is a two-lane road. It's
planning to be upgraded, sections of it. How's this going to fit into the
scheme of all things? Is it going to meet the transportation
requirements? Are the roads going to be in place in time for this
entity to be able to be built?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. The Oil Well Road contract is
about to be signed and go to construction. So by the time this goes
through the rest of the process, Oil Well Road from Immokalee to
Everglades will be constructed and completed. So there will be no
transportation conflicts with this application.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But there will be sufficient
capacity on the roads to be able to accommodate this?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I don't have any
Page 14
January 19,2010
objections with this project.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. Actually, I have -- I have no
problem with this one, and so I would recommend we transmit. Make
a motion to transmit.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Motion to transmit by
Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any further discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, David.
(Commissioner Halas is now present.)
Item #3E
PETITION: CP-2008-4, REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO
THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE
MAP AND MAP SERIES, RE-DESIGNATING RURAL FRINGE
MIXED-USE DISTRICT (RFMUD) SENDING LANDS TO
NEUTRAL LANDS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST
AND SOUTH SIDES OF WASHBURN AVENUE, EAST OF THE
Page 15
January 19, 2010
NAPLES LANDFILL, IN SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH,
RANGE 27 EAST, CONSISTING OF ::1:28.76 ACRES - MOTION
TO TRANSMIT W/CCPC RECOMMENDATIONS - APPROVED
MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, next would be petition
CP-2008-4. Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use
Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series to re-designate
from rural fringe mixed-use district sending lands to neutral lands.
Property located on the east and south sides of W ashburn Avenue, east
of the Naples landfill, in Section 31, Township 49 south, Range 27
east, consisting of approximately 28.76 acres.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you very much. Will all
persons who are -- will be providing testimony in this hearing please
stand to be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much.
Okay. Go ahead.
MR. NADEAU: Commissioners, good morning. For the record,
my name is Dwight Nadeau. I'm the planning manager for RW A
representing the petitioner, Filmore Recycling, for this Comprehensive
Plan amendment 2008-4.
I had intended on having some expert witnesses here to address
environmental. I do have Mike Ramsey of Ramsey Environmental,
Inc., that would address any environmental issues you may have; Reed
Jarvi is our transportation consultant from Omega; and Gina Green,
who's a professional engineer, has been representing the Filmores for a
number of years.
This Growth Management Plan amendment is for a 28.7-acre
parcel of land located on W ashburn Avenue and White Lake
Boulevard. It's in Section 31, Township 49, Range 27.
Subject property is currently zoned agriculture and is partial
cleared and being used as a horticultural waste recycling facility. I'll
Page 16
January 19, 2010
put up an aerial so you can see the operations.
As you can see on the site, there's active materials that come into
the facility. They're ground up, separated, stockpiled in mulch piles,
watered as they ferment to clean out all the bacteria and other little
bugs to make it clean, and then it's transferred either -- it's sold retail
or wholesale. It's also provided to Collier County for some of the
median landscaping materials.
Our proposed amendment is to provide for a construction and
demolition debris operation in addition to the horticultural mulching
operation. It's a natural transition. The problem with this is that the
subject property lies within the sending area of the rural fringe
mixed-use district.
Now, the sending area are those lands that are identified to be of
the highest environmental quality and known use by listed species.
Well, the neutral designation -- and I back up to the sending
designation. These construction and demolition debris sorting and
transfer are not permitted in the sending area; however, they are
permitted in the neutral area. He has slightly less environmental
sensitivity and very little use of the property as habitat for a listed
species.
So we put together a data and analysis package, very
comprehensive, done by Mr. Ramsey. He provided nine years oflisted
species, surveys, evidence, and there hasn't been any listed species on
the property utilizing it at all during that time period.
We took this petition to the Collier County Planning
Commission, and we had a recommendation for approval from
environmental staff. Our data and analysis did show that the property
was not being significant -- was not being used at all by listed species,
and that they made a recommendation to transmit.
We went to the EAC, and we received a recommend- --
unanimous recommendation to transmit.
We then went to the Planning Commission and identified all of
Page 17
January 19,2010
our data and analysis to be found sufficient by staff. We received a
unanimous recommendation to transmit from the Planning
Commission on this petition with a couple stipulations.
Transportation wanted to have some right-of-way along the south
boundary of the property. That's been agreed to by the petitioner.
There is one other condition that was applied to it, and that was
the -- that prior to the BCC, the applicant bring in some energy
efficiency responses to House Bill 697. Those materials were
provided to staff as is referenced in your recommendations document
in your package, and staff has reviewed and evaluated the materials
and found them to be satisfactory. We'll see how the state looks at it
when we get our ORC Report back.
So really that's it in synopsis. We've got an existing mulching
operation. We have all of our environmental permits, both district and
Corps permits. We have an established 12-acre preserve. That will not
be harmed at all by the addition of the construction demolition debris,
sorting, and transfer away. There won't be any real recycling, no --
maybe some crushing of concrete and removal of rebar for sorting, but
there won't be any actual recycling on site. That would all be
transferred out to other bona fide recycling facilities.
There will be no acceptance of hazardous waste on the property,
so when the -- the boxes, garbage boxes, come off the trucks, they're
inspected by John Filmore, who's actually in attendance today, my
petitioner, and Theresa as well. And there wouldn't be any hazardous
materials accepted on site.
So with that, Commissioners, I'm open to any questions that you
may have, and I hope to get your recommendation -- hope to get a
transmittal recommendation today, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is that near Yahl Mulching?
MR. NADEAU: It is Yahl Mulching, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It is Yahl Mulching.
Page 18
January 19,2010
MR. NADEAU: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, okay. Well, yeah. I got
some high-quality dirt from that mulch. And boy, I'll tell you, it sure
is great on the tomatoes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You're going to vote yes on this, aren't
you?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I mean, I can understand
why they need to expand.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: The -- that's adjacent to the
landfill?
MR. NADEAU: It is directly adjacent to the landfill.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, good.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No. I think Commissioner Fiala
was next.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, she --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Well, you know what, now I do
want to ask something.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Two questions. Do they already
operate at this facility? And are they trying to expand?
MR. NADEAU: They're operating their mulching and recycling,
which is consistent with the Growth Management Plan, and they have
a conditional use to do so. They're proposing to add the construction
and demolition debris. They will not expand the site, but they'll add a
couple more employees, and there will be more materials that will be
sorted. It will be an expansion of the operation, not an expansion of
the property.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. Then how close are the
neighbors? Have they had any problems with the neighbors? And I'm
concerned with smell and noise.
Page 19
January 19,2010
MR. NADEAU: Of course. We've gone through the
compatibility issues, discussions with the Planning Commission. The
Filmores are very gracious with the community. They have -- all of
their neighbors are happy with them because the Filmores fill in their
dirt roads with crushed concrete, which is permitted by Collier County
to fill in roadways.
So, yes, they have a great relationship with their neighbors, and
we have not had any -- anyone come out in objection to the petition.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. First, do we have
any speakers?
MS. FILSON: No, sir.
MR. BOSI: Excuse me, Commissioner, yes, we do. We just
submitted -- Nancy Payton would like to speak on this item.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'd like to ask my questions after
Ms. Payton speaks.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MS. PAYTON: May I?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, Nancy, sure.
MS. PAYTON: Thank you. Nancy Payton representing the
Florida Wildlife Federation, and thank you for allowing me to speak,
even though I got here late when I thought I was going to be early.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: You only get one minute because of it.
MS. PAYTON: Okay. Well, we are opposed to transmitting this
because it does undermine the concept of the North Belle Meade
overlay by setting a precedent of creating these isolated pockets of
neutral lands or something else.
I want to correct how neutral land came to be. I rushed here.
Neutral land was not based on an environmental value. It was based
on the fact that there were some land uses on lands that were elevated
to the sending land status, but they couldn't be sending lands because
they were destined for a school site or a county park or they already
Page 20
January 19,2010
had a commitment like Mirasol for some type of development. So
there needed to be a category that addressed those predating uses prior
to the final order.
So environmental values had nothing to do with a neutral status.
In fact, I'll bring up Section 24, which had the highest environmental
values in North Belle Meade, and we're still in dispute about
designation of Section 24 because it went neutral because of a school
site, which is now a Conservation Collier site.
So it undermines, by having these isolated pockets of neutral
lands, it undermines the concept ofthe overlay, which was a landscape
approach which was required by the final order. Now, if it goes back
to neutral, we start going back to those land uses prior to the final
order, and we get back into a situation of where we were with the final
order, that there was a -- not a comprehensive strategy to deal with
conservation issues in North Belle Meade.
Mr. Nadeau said that there's a permanent preserve of roughly 12
acres. That has a conservation easement on it because of their impacts
to wetlands. The majority of the site was wetlands. It's 28 acres; 18
acres were wetlands, roughly 12 are now in a conservation easement
because of permitting.
The road proposal is going to go through those wetlands, so we
further undermine the concept of protecting environmental resources
in North Belle Meade.
It just doesn't rise to the level of being changed to neutral, and it's
isolated. So we don't think it should be transmitted.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much --
MS. PAYTON: You're welcome.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Nancy.
Commissioner Coletta, do you want to ask any follow-up
questions?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, please. Would your expert
witness like to take --
Page 21
January 19,2010
MR. NADEAU: Well, that may be appropriate, but I also want
to identify that this petition has been properly vetted through the --
both the environmental -- by staff, through the Environmental
Advisory Council, through the Collier County Planning Commission,
and now here before you.
Ms. Payton has not showed up or expressed any interest in the
petition in the year and a half that it's been in process.
This really isn't an isolated district. As you mayor may not
know, the property does abut the landfill site. That also has a sending
designation. The -- the government has no opportunity to take
Transfer of Development Rights off of those public lands.
Additionally, that's the location of the dump.
Now, there may be some foraging by listed species on the dump
materials, but now it's all being contained. I wouldn't necessarily say
that it's a great habitat value adjacent to my client's 29 acres.
So consider that the dump land is neutral as well. The county put
provisions in the neutral area to provide for the transfer station and C
and D specifically for their uses. The sending lands directly adjacent
to it, which is this property, does not meet the criteria in the Growth
Management Plan for a designation of sending and, therefore, it's
more appropriately -- to be designated as neutral as was recommended
by all governing and recommending bodies before you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And our environmental group,
the advisory group, has unanimously approved this?
MR. NADEAU: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So it's not quite -- the real issue
I wanted to get to, Commissioner Fiala brought it up, but I wanted to
bring it up one more time so there's no misunderstanding.
MR. NADEAU: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I think it's wonderful you
met some sort of the needs of the residents in that area, you gave them
something for -- what you're going to be using, some amenities to be
Page 22
January 19,2010
able to counter those uses, but what's going to go in there is going to
be like tub grinders to be able to break down the vegetative waste?
MR. NADEAU: That's already in existence.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So that's already in
existence?
MR. NADEAU: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's never received a complaint
on it. Is this concrete grinding you're talking about, is this going to be
new?
MR. NADEAU: It would be a new opportunity of concrete
crushing. They would just use their existing equipment there to break
it down.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And the neighbors in the
area were made aware of the fact that they were looking at concrete
grinding to take place?
MR. NADEAU: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I know they're remote from the
site. They're quite far removed. What's the nearest residence to the
site itself?
MR. NADEAU: Oh -- if we can refer to the aerial.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Quarter of a mile.
MR. NADEAU: Ifwe refer to the aerial, you can see some
residences on the north side of Washburn Avenue. They're closely
located to the operations of the facility. There is one single-family
residence off to the east.
To our knowledge, you haven't had any complaints from any of
your neighbors to the north or to the east, and they've been fully --
made fully aware of the proposed future operations.
Now, again, you're going to have a chance as the Board of
Zoning Appeals to hear another conditional use on this if we
successfully transmit, if we successfully adopt with the petition. It's
got to come back with another zoning effort, so there will be really
Page 23
January 19,2010
two more chances to discuss these compatibility issues.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to transmit.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm going to --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Just a moment, please. I need to close
the public hearing before you do that. But could I -- could I let
Commissioner Henning speak for just a moment? I think he wants to
do that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I want to second
Commissioner Coletta's motion.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And the reason being -- and it
must have been a while since I've been out there because it was called
Yahl Mulching the last time I went out there. Very clean operation.
This is adjacent to the landfill. What a great opportunity for residents
to pick between government services and the private sector services,
right next door. It's unique.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Could I just clarify a couple
of things?
MR. NADEAU: Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Could you trace the limits of the site, the
total land area that you're going to be changed from neutral -- or from
sending from neutral?
MR. NADEAU: Is this on?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, it is.
MR. NADEAU: Yes.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: We're watching from up here.
MR. NADEAU: The primary operations are located in here.
The conservation area is in the green boundary that you see here. The
expansion opportunity would be in this already-permitted area, this
area already permitted with the Water Management District and the
Corps. There may be the addition of ten more employees, but all of
Page 24
January 19,2010
the operations are going to be contained generally in the location
where they are right now.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'm just a little bit concerned
about the statement you said -- you made earlier, and that is that the
operations would not expand beyond the current site.
MR. NADEAU: Correct. The property boundary's in red. We
would not expand the parent parcel.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. NADEAU: But the land use would be expanded. The land
use opportunity is expanded to go from just mulching to the
construction and demolition debris, and it would all be contained on
the same facility.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. But here's my real issue. You're
going to add a couple of additional materials to be recycled, and for
that you're saying that you want to and, in fact, can under this petition
expand the limits of the entire recycling to include all of that land that
is enclosed in the red border. Is that what you're really saying?
MR. NADEAU: Not to encroach into the conservation area that's
already been established.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Which is -- what is the conservation
area?
MR. NADEAU: The conservation area is those land areas -- the
boundary in green that runs up and around here, so this entire bottom
is conservation, and all of this area over here is conservation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: So the only portion that is not
conservation is that one corner right there?
MR. NADEAU: That is accurate, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. And so all-- what you're asking
to do is just add a couple of additional categories of recycling
materials for this particular site?
MR. NADEAU: That is accurate, Commissioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Now, County Commissioner, is there--
Page 25
January 19,2010
or County Attorney, is there any way that the additional categories for
recycling can be permitted without changing it to a neutral
designation?
MR. KLATZKOW: I don't believe there is.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's the only way to do it?
MR. KLATZKOW: I think -- I mean, not to be facetious, but I
think that's why we're here. I mean, this is a very costly and lengthy
process to go through, and if there was a different way to do it, we
would have done it that way.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Some of the questions were
answered by Commissioner Coyle's questions. But I just want to make
it clear here that you're saying -- and thanks, by the way, for
increasing the size of this, because it was very difficult up here to see
the area which is green.
So you're saying anything in the green boundary is not going to
be touched; is that correct?
MR. NADEAU: That is accurate, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And so the only thing that
we're looking at is G24, number five, and looks like G24/743, number
three? Is that the only area that you're going to be adding additional
facilities to?
MR. NADEAU: And it appears 624, number seven just below
that would also be included. It's not within the green boundary.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And so that's the only areas
that you are going to open up operations for; is that correct?
MR. NADEAU: That is accurate, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And that you're not going to
encroach any farther outside the red boundary that's -- encompasses
this whole thing?
MR. NADEAU: No. We will not expand -- that would require
another Growth Management Plan amendment. We're dealing with
Page 26
January 19,2010
this legal description.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: County Attorney, do you see this as a
precedent -setting decision?
MR. KLATZKOW: No. It's only 29, as I do the calculations.
It's adjacent to a landfill. It's an existing operation. Where better to
do this in the county than this one place?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, all right. I'm going to close the
public hearing.
Is there a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You have a second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm going to have to re-open the public
hearing. Do you really want to force us to go through that process?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir. In fairness to the applicant
and the -- one of the people on public comment, I just want to point
something out to the commission.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: On the diagram you see in front of
you, the south part of that property would contain that
Wilson/Benfield or within the preserve area that 130 feet. Nancy
asked me to just make sure I put that on the record so you were aware
of that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Would you say that again?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: That diagram you see, the south
portion of that that's against 1-75 --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: -- the south side of that, the 130 feet
would be future roadway.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay.
Page 27
January 19,2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's a transportation easement you
were asking at the beginning?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, good.
Yes, David?
MR. WEEKS: That ties in with the comment I want to make,
Commissioners. I wanted to ask if the motion for approval would
reflect the Planning Commission's recommendation which is to have
that reservation.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes. There were conditions, if I
remember correctly.
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. And the second one has been met.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, very well. Then the public
hearing is closed again.
I'll entertain a motion. Okay. The motion was by Commissioner
Coletta.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: For transmittal.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: For transmittal by Commissioner
Coletta, and it was second by Commissioner Henning.
Is there any further discussion by the commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Then all in favor, please signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes unanimously. Thank you.
MR. NADEAU: Thank you very much, Commissioners.
Page 28
January 19,2010
Item #3A
PETITION: CP-2007-1, REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO
THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN AND GOLDEN
GATE AREA MASTER PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND
MAP SERIES, CREATING THE WILSON BOULEVARD
CONDITIONAL USE SUB-DISTRICT, TO ALLOW A
MAXIMUM OF 40,000 SQUARE FEET OF PERMITTED AND
CONDITIONAL USES OF THE ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT,
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER
OF IMMOKALEE ROAD (CR 846) AND WILSON BOULEVARD,
IN SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27 EAST,
CONSISTING OF ::1:5.17 ACRES - MOTION TO TRANSMIT
AMENDED PETITION - APPROVED
MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, now we move back to the Item
3A on your agenda, as the petitioner has arrived. That's petition
CP-2007-1. Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate
Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use
Map and Map Series to create the Wilson Boulevard conditional use
and sub-district to allow a maximum of 40,000 square feet of
permitted and conditional uses of the Estates zoning district for
property located on the southeast corner of Immokalee Road, a!kla
County Road 846, and Wilson Boulevard in Section 27, Township 48
south, Range 27 east, consisting of approximately 5.17 acres.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
MR. ANDERSON: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Bruce Anderson from the Roetzel Andress law firm.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry, Bruce. We didn't swear you in
before.
MR. ANDERSON: Swear anybody.
Page 29
January 19,2010
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Anyone who's going to be giving
testimony on this petition, please stand and be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. Go ahead,
Bruce.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
With me today is my client, Mr. Ismael Gonzalez, and his
daughter, Maria.
And the county attorney asked me to note that what you're
hearing today is a reduction in our -- the original request, which was
for commercial designation. That has been reduced in intensity to
simply request conditional uses that are allowed in the Estates.
I've displayed here on the visualizer the property, and it's a
five-acre parcel in the southeast corner of the intersection, signalized
intersection, of six-lane Immokalee Road and in the planned
four-laned Wilson Boulevard. This fronts on what will be one of the
busiest segments ofImmokalee Road when Wilson is four-laned and
Randall Boulevard is six-laned.
We feel that this is a perfect location for a church, a daycare
center, or an ALF, which are all conditional uses in the Estates but not
allowed throughout the Estates.
All this amendment does is to allow the property owners to apply
for one of these conditional uses. You would still have to approve
whatever specific use it might be at a subsequent publicly noticed
hearing.
This is not a desirable or realistic location for the construction of
a new home. Staff report states that there are other viable uses for the
property that are already allowed. The staff report lists a utility plant
as a viable use that should allowed.
And I would ask you, does it make sense to allow for a utility
plant at this location but to prohibit a church on this corner?
Staff report also says that parks and open space are viable uses.
Page 30
January 19, 2010
Wernet with the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association Board.
No member, no neighbor, or member of the public has objected to this
amendment. We request that you allow an economically viable use at
this busy corner and designate it as eligible to apply for transitional
conditional uses.
These transitional uses would be an appropriate location to
transition from the busy six-lane road and provide a visual and sound
barrier from Immokalee Road.
I'd ask you to put yourself in my client's shoes. You would not
build a new single-family home on this property, and I don't think that
you would say leaving the property as it is and calling it a park or
open space suddenly makes it a viable use. When Wilson gets four-
laned, this property will have direct exposure and directly abut ten
lanes of traffic.
We're asking you to grant relief so that this property is at least
eligible to apply for real economically viable uses. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Mr. Anderson, a couple
questions, if I may. You say this would not be a suitable site for a
home, that's because why, the way the roads are configured with both
Immokalee and Wilson?
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And the -- the Collier County
Planning Commission, they didn't hear the revised plans that you're
talking about now?
MR. ANDERSON: I did raise them. I don't know that their --
their motion concerned the specific uses. It may have, or it may have
just been the commercial that they were -- they were dealing with at
the time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, when this -- if this was
transmitted, it would go back to the Planning Commission?
Page 3 1
January 19, 2010
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, sir, it would.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And at that point in time they'd
be able to view it and weigh it.
So you held public meetings, and the public meetings, you had
no discussions as far as a negative impact?
MR. ANDERSON: No, no. We had one person show up at the
neighborhood information meeting, and they were confused and were
at the wrong meeting. But that was the only -- only person that
showed up other than my client and the planning staff.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's the only questions I got.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. I'd like to ask staff if they
would step forward. Bruce, I'll probably ask you a couple of questions
after I have -- get some questions -- or answers from staff.
In this document that was given to me, it says that basically staff
does not recommend approval for transmittal for the Florida
Department of Community Affairs. Can you tell me why?
MR. SCHMIDT: A number of reasons, Commissioner. For the
record, Corby Schmidt, principal planner with the Comprehensive
Planning Department.
This initially came to us as a commercial request for these five
acres at this location. And in the process of being considered by staff
and as it reached Planning Commission, that application or the request
changed, and the alternative request, along with the original request,
was heard by the planning commissioners.
The reasons that the staff and the Planning Commission as well
did not recommend that this be transmitted have to do with its other
viable uses, its data and analysis, which did not support the change to
commercial uses.
Well, now that we've withdrawn from the commercial uses
request portion of this, we've seen no other data and analysis proposed
to support the change or the different uses.
Page 32
January 19,2010
We still have the same transportation headaches or concerns that
we did with the commercial uses, the same conflict of land uses or
difference of land uses at this location, and it also introduces the same
possibility -- I'm sorry -- I'll say that differently -- because we've got
another location nearby for a request for commercial uses, and should
that request -- and I believe it's a quarter mile away on Randall Road,
should that request be approved, it also introduces with it a number of
possibilities for transitional conditional uses.
Regardless of whether I'm introducing the commercial uses at
this location or exempting myself from the transitional conditional
uses and allowing myself to put them here, I've got numerous
possibilities and ample opportunities for that nearby. Those are some
of the reasons why we did not recommend approval.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, if I could add to that briefly. One
of the considerations, from staffs perspective on all four of the
petitions in Golden Gate Estates -- one, you've already heard this one,
and the two for this evening -- was the piecemeal approach to the
planning.
Staff perspective is that what is appropriate here is for us to -- the
county to go back through some type of study process of the Golden
Gate Master Plan, a process that specifically looks at all of Golden
Gate Estates, not just a particular portion of it or not just a market area
portion of it, but the entire Golden Gate Estates area, to allow the
public the input.
As I mentioned earlier in my opening remarks, the Golden Gate
Master Plan was adopted in 1991 and imposed stringent locational
requirements for conditional uses. And though there's been some
amendments over time, that remains. It is still very restrictive as to
where conditional uses can be located.
We would like the opportunity for the public, through that global
process, to tell us if their vision has changed. They want to -- do they
want it to remain the way it is now, and that is with stringent
Page 33
January 19,2010
locational criteria, or do they want to see that change. And if they do
want to see it change, where are those other locations that will be
acceptable, if they wish to be mapped or text base, you know, such as
intersection of two roads of a certain classification, do they want to
increase the size of the property?
Because right now in the Golden Gate Master Plan, with rare
exception, conditional uses are limited to five acres in size. Well, that
does not accommodate a large project like the one you approved
earlier in this meeting, petition CP-2007-3, that has a site over 20
acres for a church campus. You cannot have that in the Golden Gate
Master Plan in the Estates; hence, that's why they were before you
asking for that amendment.
So that's something, again, we would like the public to have that
chance to weigh in on in a comprehensive approach rather than this
piecemeal approach of each petition comes in and makes its own
request for its own specific piece of property.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you finished, Commissioner
Coletta?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, that was me.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I didn't start.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, you didn't start.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Not yet.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Are you next? You can't be next.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I was -- that was my
question.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got some more questions.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So let me get this clear. You're
saying that the portion that we're hearing today wasn't really heard by
the Planning Commission; is that correct?
MR. SCHMIDT: The language for the sub-district itself --
Page 34
January 19,2010
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Right.
MR. SCHMIDT: -- as you might approve it for transmittal was
not written and presented to them; however, the alternative four
conditional uses only, instead of the commercial uses on the property,
was presented and considered by the planning commissioners.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So are you saying that this
is somewhat of a bait-and-switch?
MR. SCHMIDT: I couldn't characterize it that way,
Commissioner, because in every respect the commercial uses in the
property would also have included a subset or some of the same uses,
so not entirely, no.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Let me digest this and --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'll give you another chance.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, you give me another chance
later.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's talk a little bit about the
Golden Gate Master Plan. I had the distinct privilege of chairing the
first one in '91, and there was one attempt beforehand to put a master
plan in place and it failed, but nevertheless, it accurately reflected the
will of the people at that point in time.
Now, help me understand why we're going through this process if
a master plan is supposed to be a document that's all containing in
itself. In other words, isn't this process supposed to be able to give us
the ability between master plan reviews to be able to weigh the public
opinion, to be able to go through a long and lengthy process to be able
to come to final conclusions?
I'm kind of curious why we even go through this if we're -- the
master plan is a hindrance to be able to move forward.
MR. WEEKS: I'll take that. Commissioner, you're absolutely
right. Under state law, the applicant has the right to be here. They
have the right to file this application. What staff is saying is, we think
Page 35
January 19,2010
it's approp -- this is not consistent with the Golden Gate Master Plan
vision. The Golden Gate Master Plan continues to have this strict,
stringent limitation on where conditional uses can be located.
We did have a restudy from about 2001 to 2003, and then two
rounds of amendments to the Golden Gate Master Plan followed that
restudy process. And that continued to limit the location of conditional
uses with the Evaluation and Appraisal Report, going back to 1996, so
it was in between the original adoption and that restudy, the same
result.
So the staff perspective is, the master plan was adopted, it went
through a restudy process, it also went through an Evaluation and
Appraisal Report process. And at the end of all of that, the vision
remains the same: Maintain a stringent location on where conditional
uses can be located.
So the staff perspective is, this is not consistent with the vision of
the master plan; therefore, though they have the right to ask for it, for
the change, staff is saying, we don't support it. We think it should go
back through a restudy process again and let the community as a
whole determine if they believe it's appropriate.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, the community as a whole
-- and I'll be honest with you, I sat through master plans after master
plans, and there's a tremendous amount of community involvement. I
have also sat through this process that's taken place with a number of
these different amendments that we're seeing before us, and I can tell
you they're just as involved as the master plan was.
Now, is everything considered at one time across the board? No.
So the last review that we had on the master plan was what year
again?
MR. WEEKS: Around 2003 for the restudy. The amendments, I
believe, approved in '05.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, 2003, the time that we
took a survey of the people, that was seven years ago. And during that
Page 36
January 19, 2010
seven years, there's been tremendous changes.
Now, here's the problem. I'm not saying this project here should,
in the end, be approved. What I'm saying is is that we've got to keep a
little bit of an open mind. We've got seven years plan of time in there.
We have a change of public opinion that I have seen take place. I
mean, I've been the original supporter of it back in '91 and '92 when it
went through. We wanted to be able to protect the integrity of the
Estates because we were having a run on property out there for
commercial and churches and everything else, and they were able to
file for it and get the permits and just go ahead and build. We needed
to protect ourselves. As time went forward, I seen the attitude
changing over and over again.
Now, if -- and I just want to keep an open mind on everything
that's taking place. What happens if we reject all petitions before us
that have to do with what some people interpret as a conflict to a
master plan? But what happens is is that everything moves into
another time dimension which puts it way out there. We've heard
from numerous people asking for certain commercial, certain other
entities to take place out there. And if we cancel everything out
without keeping an open mind to what's taking place, I'm afraid we
put ourselves at a tremendous disadvantage.
I know the people I represent have been banging on my door for
a long time saying that they're looking for some amenities out there.
And I'm not saying this one particular amendment before us is what
they're looking for in its entirety. I'm just saying that I want to make
sure we keep everything in a perspective that means something.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes. A couple of the things that
trouble me as I read through this, one of them is that the -- there's a
phrase or statement here, the granting of this amendment will have
destabilizing impacts on the existing, adjoining, and nearby
single- family residential developments in all directions, and that's a
Page 37
January 19,2010
concern for me.
Another thing that it said is -- and they were talking about a
needs assessment, and they said, there will not be a need for another
typical community center in this primary trade area until the year
2040, and that -- that also concerns me. And if -- can you -- if you
could correct that or add to that.
I can see where they say that a single-family home here, it would
be on a busy highway and near the turn at Immokalee Road and
Randall Boulevard, which is going to be expanding, yet at the same
time some of these other items really trouble me. And then, of course,
we've got all of the -- not only staff but Planning Commission also
saying that we should not transmit.
MR. SCHMIDT: In reverse order, Commissioner. The
statements in the staff report are outdated regarding the needs analysis
for commercial uses. Although the planning commissioners heard the
request -- and that was the original request for the commercial uses at
this location -- that's no longer part of the request.
So there's no time line involved or there's no demand to be shown
for any of those commercial uses. So that comparison is no longer
being made by staff.
When it comes to the statement regarding the effects on the
neighboring residential area, certainly the impact or the effects would
have been much more evident if this were a commercial use and it also
introduced the availability of transitional conditional uses on those
surrounding properties.
Now that this has been drawn back to conditional uses only,
those same conditional uses, as a transitional conditional use location
being allowed here to stand alone, those impacts would be lessened,
but they're still there.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: With what's going to take place out
there at the intersection of Randall Road and Immokalee, it seems to
Page 38
January 19,2010
me that even if this was a conditional use, that it could have large
impact, especially if you had a fairly large church there and addressing
transportation needs in the future. That's, I guess, one of my big
concerns.
And also what Commissioner Fiala brought up is that you do
have homes in that surrounding community, and that may cause a
problem where those people are saying, I don't want this next door to
me, whether they have said that or not, but I could see where it could
be a burden to those people, especially -- even if it was a church.
Only knows how many services it would be or everything.
So I'm not sure -- and then the other thing that I have questioned
is, could this conditional use come back as a 7-Eleven store and a gas
station?
MR. SCHMIDT: As it's now proposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: As it's now proposed.
MR. SCHMIDT: It could not.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: It could not. So all it's proposed as
is a church or some kind of a community center; is that correct?
MR. SCHMIDT: Well, let me read to you my list of those kinds
of transitional conditional uses that could locate here if this were to be
adopted.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. SCHMIDT: Besides the essential services and parks and
recreation and open space that are allowed throughout the Estates,
you'd permit or you would allow public schools, libraries and
community centers, certain family care facilities, other essential
services that are allowed only by conditional use, including hospitals
and hospices, other government facilities, utility plants, childcare
centers, adult daycare centers, other kinds of group care facilities,
churches and other places of worship, private schools, social and
fraternal organizations and, of course, the model homes, earth mining
and ancillary plants that are associated with other locations more than
Page 39
January 19,2010
this one.
But those are the uses allowed by the Land Development Code
for these transitional locations.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So they were only dealing here
with a little over five acres of land. So there's -- again, as far as
putting up something like assisted living care facilities, that would be
pretty -- that would be pretty confining, I would think. Maybe a --
daycare facilities for children wouldn't be a bad idea, but I think other
ideas for this conditional use may lend to serious traffic congestion,
and especially in this corridor of Randall Road and Immokalee area in
the future. I'm not sure it would be advantageous to have something
sitting at this particular site.
So I guess I don't have all the answers that I need to move this
forward at this point in time.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Schmidt, would this site, if
it is transmitted, would it be subject to preserve standards?
MR. SCHMIDT: I believe so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Would it be subject to buffering
the neighboring property if it is not?
MR. SCHMIDT: I believe so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So where does the statement
come from about the impacts of the neighbors when we have seen
these types throughout Collier County where you have criteria for
development to address those?
MR. SCHMIDT: Some of those impacts that would have been
associated with the commercial uses in the property have not been
shown that they would be eliminated, reduced, or affected in any
manner by some of these conditional uses that might be located on the
property in the future. We have transportation issues at this
intersection that have not been shown to be changed because we've
changed the request.
Page 40
January 19,2010
There's limited access. We have a problem with the stacking, the
turning lane length, and that doesn't change because of the change in
the request. Those effects or those impacts are still there. And as
much of an impact on the neighbors as I might have from a
commercial use on the property, I'm still seeing the same impacts
possible from on the roads impacting those neighbors in that area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: What kind of uses again would
be subject to continual use for this site? Churches, daycare centers,
private schools.
MR. SCHMIDT: Hospitals, hospices, public safety facilities.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hospitals?
MR. SCHMIDT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Hospitals is a conditional use or
MR. SCHMIDT: It's considered to be an essential service in
Collier County, yes. And that could be a location for this. You have
social and fraternal organizations, private schools, of course churches,
other group care facilities.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could a -- if a hospital is allowed,
could medical offices be allowed?
MR. SCHMIDT: Medical offices are associated with hospitals,
yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: So that could be -- medical
office could be a conditional use?
MR. KLATZKOW: No.
MR. SCHMIDT: They would be accessory use if a conditional
use for a hospital were asked for, yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. I don't know how you do
a traffic impact statement between the use of a church and a hospital
because most definitely they have different traffic patterns and
impacts. Is that a fair statement?
MR. SCHMIDT: It is a fair statement, Commissioner. And
Page 41
January 19,2010
certainly if this were to be adopted and the conditional use would be
applied for, you'd have a look at those specific traffic impacts when
the specific use was asked for at some point in the future.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Well, I -- you know, I--
I mean, we just approved a church that's not within an activity center.
Why would we not transmit this one? It's the same thing except for it
is on two arterial roadways instead of one. That's the only difference
that I see.
I don't have any problem transmitting it, personally, but I'll refer
to the commissioner of the district.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, Commissioner Fiala's next.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: No, no.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Forgive me. I don't mean to
keep telling you what to do, but you do get confused once in a while.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Not very frequently.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's right. We haven't taken a
vote or anything on this petition.
A couple of things. And Commissioner Henning brought up
some good points, is the fact that the reason why everything is in such
a rush right now isn't because anyone person wants to go out there
and build something at anyone site. It's not going to happen.
Economic conditions the way they are, anyone that goes and slaps up
a large five acres or 40 acres, puts on all sorts of commercial buildings
at this point in time is just asking for all sorts of trouble. The market
won't substantiate it.
The reason we're here today and the reason why we have so
many other meetings planned to try to deal with these amendments has
to do everything with Amendment 4 that's going to be on the ballot.
Let's be honest about it. Nothing like truth in government, we've said
many times before.
Page 42
January 19,2010
When that happens, everything that's ever been done by anyone
out there is up to second guess. It's going to be by the public that may
have the vote and -- countywide, and it's going to make a decision on
something farther removed from the coastal area where most of the
voters are, and it's a very big concern to me, too, not that this
particular project in itself is (sic) worthy of passing at this moment in
time.
But let's talk about what we have in front of us right now. We
have a number of different entities that we're looking at. We heard
you mention the fact that if this was allowed to go forward with the
commercial in it, it would jeopardize the stability of the other project
we're looking at at Randall if we approve that; is that correct?
MR. SCHMIDT: It is.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So in other words, the
two projects in themselves, ifboth of them are approved in the
ultimate time that you approve them, be it at the adoption, that there
could be a conflict. Meanwhile, we've got a project that has turned
around, come up with some different directions, something modified
it. They don't have all the answers yet.
There's the transportation issue that hasn't been fully vetted, I
don't believe so. When it comes down to it, how are they going to be
able to mitigate it? Can they mitigate it in such a way that it will be
meaningful for the people that are going to be traveling on Wilson and
Immokalee? We don't know these things.
Also, too, we don't know how these uses might be able to conflict
with the other project that we're looking at at Randall, because there's
going to be some sort of conflict. Is there some way we might be able
to address this, if not now, at adoption part where, if commercial is to
go into both sites, that we could go ahead say, okay, this would be the
perfect site for an elderly care facility. The other place on Randall
wouldn't be. And we'd be able to weigh one against the other so that
we can avoid this possible conflict.
Page 43
January 19,2010
And I have a problem with this also, government stepping in and
telling who can open a business. It should be motivated by the profit
motive. It should be motivated by the people knowing that there's a
market for it. And I see our role in it a little more limited than what
staff had suggested.
But I agree with Commissioner Henning to a point, is that if we
go ahead and we transmit it this time with the understanding that this
is far from a done deal, that when it comes back to us again, we need
to see a lot more flesh on the bone. We'll also know if the Randall
project is a viable thing as far as this commission's concerned and if
that's also going to be coming back for consideration, at which time
we can start to take a look at both of them in their entirety and be able
to see what can be done that would serve the public good if the public
good is to be served by either one of them.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. My light is on now, if you don't
mind.
You know -- I'll wait till I have the attention of the staff.
COMMISSIONER COLETT A: You've got my attention.
MR. SCHMIDT: Sorry. Excuse us.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. The problem with incompatibility
with the neighboring properties is not a problem with this particular
request in my opinion. The government is making those locations
incompatible for residences. Just as the expansion of U.S. 41
eliminated most single-family residences from U.S. 41 and on Pine
Ridge Road and dozens of other heavily used highways, this area is
going to transition to commercial from residential no matter what
happens.
It's the improvement and the widening of the roads and the
increased traffic that will move this area ultimately to commercial.
And the question is, when do we start recognizing that? Do we
recognize it now and begin planning long-term for that, or do we close
our eyes and say, no, this is always going to be residential here?
Page 44
January 19,2010
People might want it to be residential there. But I'll tell you that
history tells us that that doesn't happen on heavily traveled highways.
We're the ones expanding Wilson Boulevard. We will solve the traffic
problems, whatever they are that exist there, by our improvement to
Immokalee Road and Wilson Boulevard.
So I don't see the issue here with respect to transitioning the
neighborhood, because the neighborhood is going to transition no
matter what once we made the decision to expand those roads.
Now, the other problem is that we're apparently saying, right now
we don't want to let anybody do something here, but 15 years from
now when we've got an overlay and we really understand what is
happening as far as transition in this neighborhood is concerned, we
might consider it.
Well, what does the property owner do in the interim? You
know, we're the ones who are expanding the roads. We're creating the
traffic. And it's not an area suitable for residential anymore, but we're
going to make the property wait.
I also should point out -- it's not a tactic that I recommend -- I
have recommended in the past. I've opposed it -- but we always have
the option of saying you can't begin construction there until the
transportation problems are solved, end of story. That's an issue that
can be made somewhere else.
But I will say to you that in my opinion, it is a difficult bar to get
over when the staff and the Planning Commission have unanimously
disapproved this project, or disapproved the transmittal of this.
So I think it is a difficult issue to deal with. But it seems to me
we have to give some consideration to property owners who already
know that this area is transitioning, and buyers are not going to buy
there for residential while it's transitioning. So the property owners
are sort of stuck in the meantime. We need to find a way to deal with
that.
Commissioner --
Page 45
January 19,2010
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Fiala.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: -- Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'm going back to -- my start
was going to be just about the way Commissioner Coyle started, and
that is compatibility. And as I look at this and trying to look at it
fairly and openly, its location, especially on Immokalee Road and
Wilson Boulevard and close proximity to Randall Boulevard, seems to
me that the compatibility for that area would be to approve this to go
forward, because I would think that it would be more aligned to
something a little more -- not commercial so much as just, you know,
give it some other uses rather than residential.
So I'm inclined to go along with Commissioner Coletta's and
Commissioner Henning's suggestion that we move forward.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. When I look at what is on
our agenda for today and I look at this large piece of property on
Randall that's going to be proposed for commercial and looking at all
the other commercials that are already approved there, maybe that's
why we have concerns that the populous in this state may vote in favor
of Amendment 4, and that is that we don't seem to want to bridle
growth.
I think the other thing that we may run into, as we transmit this to
DCA, they're very concerned with urban sprawl and where we're
going with that. So if it's -- if it comes down to a large piece that needs
to be approved or a small piece, I'd be in favor of the large piece
because, when you set both of these up there, I think it might raise a
flag, and that's just my feeling.
And we have yet to know what the legislature plans to do this
year in regards to growth management 360. So I think we have the
ability to make sure that we do the right thing.
And if we continue to expand out there or give the possibility of
expansion out there, I think all we're doing is feeding fuel to the fire.
Page 46
January 19,2010
And I can't, myself, I can't go along with the approval of this
particular spot because I think it's going to weigh heavily on the other
item that's going to be coming before us this evening. And if I have to
pick and choose between the two, I would probably look at the
Randall Road (sic) as something that would be more favorable at this
point in time than a piece of property that we really don't know what's
going to be done on that piece of property. And then also looking at
all of the other commercial that has already been approved up in this
area, which is a huge amount.
So I'm not sure what's the right approach here. But I'll just tell
you that -- and then we're looking at possibly another area of
expansion for commercial in this particular area.
And I think that when we put all of this together, however it all
goes down, it may have a big effect on how the state looks at this as
far as urban sprawl. So -- and if you've got a lot of people out there
that are not in favor of some of the areas that are trying to change to
commercial, all that does is puts more fuel on the fire for something
that we really don't want in this county.
So you've got to be careful what you address. Okay.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. And I understand what
Commissioner Halas is saying. The nicest part about this process is
that this is going to go -- this would go to the state and come back to
us. At that point in time, if the state said, you know -- and I don't
think they will. But if they said, and the Randall Boulevard project
met muster later this evening, they take a look at it and they may say,
you know, there's no justification for large centers, and this would be a
fallback.
Who knows what the state's going to do. I don't think we're
going to have two big of a problem with them -- with this on that, but
they're going to do what they're going to do. DCA's just going to
Page 47
January 19,2010
follow their own particular direction.
We transmit it, we get a chance to be able to look at it again, they
get to put a little more flesh on the bone. I'd like to see it when it
came back with some sort of understanding, if it does come back with
both of them being approved and if it passed state muster, that we
have some sort of understanding between the two entities out there if
they're both still going forward, of course.
Who would be able to do what so there wouldn't be some sort of
conflicting interest in there and we'd bring down the whole area?
There's a lot of possibilities.
With that, I make a motion to transmit.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'll have to close the public hearing.
Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, I'm sorry.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Commissioner Henning, are you going
to second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, just a clarification --
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- because the original request is
commercial. Revised is conditional use. So I'm just kind of wondering
what Commissioner Coletta's thinking.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Wait till they close the public
hearing.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Mr. Anderson, you have rebuttal?
MR. ANDERSON: No, I just want to make one statement. We
are not asking today for approval of a church or day care or any of
those other uses. What I am asking for is the ability to ask for at a
subsequent time, where there will be full opportunity for public input
and detailed review.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Anderson, in my opinion, the ideal
situation here would be, in order to give the owner of this site some
economic benefit for this site, it would be just great if there was a way
Page 48
January 19,2010
that the Randall Boulevard center could swap a viable business
location in the Randall Boulevard center for this property if it made
economic sense for both parties, and that way the current buyer can
get an economic advantage for his property and have a business in the
Randall Boulevard center if it's approved and everybody would be,
hopefully, happy, depending upon the business arrangements. But it
that was a way do this, it might be a way to solve both problems. Just
a thought. Okay.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Thank you. Any other questions of staff
or petitioner?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: And I'm going to close the public
hearing.
Okay. Commissioner, are there motions?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to transmit as the
applicant has amended his application to read.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to transmit the amended
application by Commissioner Coletta.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Second by Commissioner Henning.
Is there any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All opposed, by like sign?
Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It passes, 3-2. Commissioners Henning,
Page 49
January 19,2010
Coletta, and Fiala in the affirmative, and Commissioner Coyle and
Halas disapproving.
Okay. It's time for a break.
MR. SCHMIDT: Thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ten-minute break. We'll be back here at
10:46.
(A brief recess was had.)
MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, you have a live mike.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. We have a quorum. So let's
begin with the next item. Now, I will-- I have to leave here in about
ten minutes, so we will still have a quorum. You will continue the
hearing.
Okay. You had a question?
MR. BOSI: Just a comment I wanted to put on the record. It was
related to -- and it re-echoes what David had said at the beginning of
the hearings.
This is Mike Bosi, comprehensive planning manager.
Okay. Now, Commissioner Coletta had brought up the issue as
well. From the perspective of comprehensive planning staff, we're a
rather conservative group. And with the number of requests that have
been made of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, with your 'OS cycle,
'06 cycle, '07, and '08 cycle, we think those number of requests would
suggest that it's ripe for revisiting.
And the recommendations you found within your executive
summaries and the staff reports were motivated by what's currently on
the books for the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, and all of the
amendments that come forward are changes that go against the grain
of what's currently accepted as what the Golden Gate Area Master
Plan is calling for.
But we do recognize that -- as staff, that as times have changed,
conditions have changed; the future roadway networks, as we had
Page 50
January 19,2010
mentioned in these last petitions, will change and influence the area;
so will the considerations of what's appropriate for the area.
So each one of these amendments that have been through, as
Commissioner Coletta had mentioned, very, very rigorous public
vetting are appropriate within factors for the boards to consider as to
whether these are appropriate changes for the Golden Gate Area
Master Plan and with the backdrop knowing that these decisions will
set a new tone and a new direction.
We just wanted -- and I just wanted to put forth from a staffs
perspective as kind of the situation that we're faced with when we're
presented these amendments on these individual bases, but we do
recognize that there are -- there is a public vetting that goes on with it
and when -- it's the Board of County Commissioners' discretion as to
whether it's appropriate to make the changes as requested.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, very good. Thank you very
much.
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You know, we talked about that a
little bit this morning. It's been mentioned a few times during the
deliberations to this point that there are other things already approved.
But you know what, we never see them. And I think that every time
we meet -- and I think right now we should have this, we do not, but
we should -- we should have a map showing us everything that has
already been approved. It's very difficult for us to make decisions
when we have no idea what's going on down the line, how many other
things have been approved, and the same with everything that is up for
approval. Maybe a map that indicates not only things that are -- have
been approved in one color, but things that are about to be -- or that
are being requested in another color so that we get a whole picture of
what we're actually talking about.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: That's okay. I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry. So -- and I don't know if
Page 51
January 19,2010
that's -- if that's something that you can do or not.
MR. BOSI: Well, Commissioner Fiala, we have heard the
request. We have -- and there's been some changes over in
community development/environmental service. We are changing the
course of how we're doing business, and we're -- and Mr.
Casalanguida is really beefing up the GIS operation side to support all
the divisions and the departments within the division.
Hopefully that will be something that we can -- and with the
acknowledgment of your request as we move forward in the future if,
when we're dealing with individual sub-districts within the Golden
Gate -- or within the GMP, hopefully we can put together a map such
as that that gives you a better -- a road map as to how we got to this
point and how the question being called has a bearing upon where that
area may --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Right. I just want a map that shows
what we've approved. I mean, that shouldn't be too difficult because
we already know what's been approved and what is about -- you
know, or what is being requested. So thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Just a quick question or
comment.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, go ahead.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Don't we have a map in this
document, or is it one of the other books that does show all
commercial out through the Estates?
MR. BOSI: We have -- and we've done a very -- we, as
comprehensive planning staff, made sure that we tried to give you a
prospective, all the changes that are being requested within the general
-- within the general area. That was strictly isolated to the Golden
Gate Area Master Plan. But for the adoption hearing, we will have
that map that shows as in detail as Commissioner Fiala had requested.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Thank you.
Page 52
January 19,2010
Item #3F
PETITION: CPSP-2008-7, STAFF REQUESTING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TO
ADD A NEW POLICY 4.11 , PERTAINING TO ALIGNING
PLANNING TIME FRAMES IN THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT
PLAN (GMP) - MOTION TO TRANSMIT - APPROVED
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Now, the next petition, I think, is
CPSP-2008-7.
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Staff petition requesting an amendment
to the Future Land Use Element to add a new policy, 4.11, pertaining
to aligning the planning time frames in the Growth Management Plan.
This is a petition where the staff and the CCPC unanimously, by the
way, has approved -- has recommended approval.
Is there a petitioner for this particular change, or is staff
sponsoring it?
MR. WEEKS: Staff is petitioner.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Can you tell us briefly. And I am
going to have to leave here in six minutes. If we could do this one, it
would leave us with only one item left for the entire day.
MR. WEEKS: Sure. We can do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Until the evening session.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, the genesis of this was back in
2006 Cycle of Comprehensive Plan amendments. Staff was proposing
to amend transportation element maps to push them out to a further
timeline.
Department of Community Affairs expressed concerns about that
and, in fact, an objection to that amendment; and their concern is that
we have different planning time frames in the Growth Management
Plan. So here where we're proposing to have future transportation
Page 53
January 19,2010
maps out to 2030 -- we had a Future Land Use Map. It only had a
ten-year horizon and so forth. They told us that this is internally
inconsistent. You need to have consistent timelines.
For -- the staff perspective was, that's more than we can bite off
at this time, so we deferred any action we recommended to you and
you did not approve the changes to those transportation maps.
What we're proposing in this policy is that we are approving -- or
proposing a policy that says, we will recognize in our next Evaluation
and Appraisal Report, which is due a year from now, that this
alignment of time frames is an issue, and we're furthermore
committing in this policy that in the subsequent amendments based
upon that EAR, we will amend those time lines to be consistent.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much, David.
Any questions by Commissioners?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. I'll close the public hearing.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Move to approve.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Second.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Motion to approve by Commissioner
Henning, second by Commissioner Coletta.
Any discussion?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: All in favor, please signify by saying
aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Any opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: It is unanimously approved.
Page 54
January 19,2010
Item #3G
PETITION: CP-2009-1, REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO
THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE
MAP AND MAP SERIES (FLUE/FLUM), TO CREATE THE
DADE-COLLIER CYPRESS RECREATION AREA DISTRICT
WITHIN THE CONSERVATION DESIGNATION, FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED ALONG THE MIAMI-DADE/COLLIER
COUNTY BORDER, IN SECTIONS 13, 14, 15 &16, TOWNSHIP
53 SOUTH, RANGE 34 EAST, CONSISTING OF 1,608::1: ACRES
MOTION TO TRANSMIT W/AMENDMENTS - APPROVED
Now, we'll go on to item number G, 3G, CP-2009-1. The
petitioner requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element
and Future Land Use Map and Map Series to create the Dade/Collier
cypress recreational area district within the conservation designation
for property located along the Miami-Dade/Collier County border in
Sections 13, 14, 15, 16, Township 53 south, Range 34 east, consisting
of 1,608 plus or minus acres.
David, do we have a petitioner?
Okay.
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, just for your information, I have
two speakers on this one.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Two speakers, very good.
Okay, sir. Your name for the record?
MR. ASHER: My name is Kevin Asher. Thank you, Mr. Chair
and County Commissioners.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: I'm sorry, Mr. Asher. I failed to follow
the process of getting everybody sworn in.
So anyone who is going to provide testimony on this item, please
stand and be sworn in.
Page 55
January 19,2010
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay. Thank you very much. Now,
please continue. We're going to change chairs right now because I
have a meeting I have to go to right now, as a matter of fact. So
please continue.
(Commissioner Coyle left the meeting.)
MR. ASHER: Very good, sir. Thank you very much.
Again, my name is Kevin Asher. I represent Miami-Dade
County Park and Recreation Department. The application before you,
CP-2009-01, has gone through many of the same iterations in terms of
the public hearings and public meetings, as many of the others, and
we've provided a brief presentation so that you may benefit from the
same background that others have.
Essentially the -- just to give you an idea, the Miami-Dade Park
and Recreation is -- governs recreation open space in Miami-Dade
County. Essentially we manage approximately 12,000 parks and about
17,000 natural areas. Much of it is prompted by general population.
Miami-Dade County is approximately ten times the population of
Collier County. But by virtue of our department, we manage both
local and area-wide parks. Area-wide being those larger
resource-based type of parks.
And as population grows, so does the need for parkland. There is
a master plan for the acquisition of open space in Miami-Dade
County, some of it to address local needs, some of it to address
area-wide needs, and one part of it that the county is embracing is a
plan to essentially acquire the entire outer edge of the urban area as
kind of a buffer to place some limits on development and preserve
recreation open spaces and of values.
We also recognize that different parks serve different people.
And I will go a little quick just for your benefit.
Different parks serve different people. In this particular case,
while we do acquire certain smaller spaces, we also acquire certain
Page 56
January 19,2010
specialized areas. And we were faced, starting in about 2005, with a
growing recognition that we weren't really serving motorized
recreation at all. We saw that there were an estimated 7.6 million
riders in the United States, many of them young. In Florida, in
particular, there was a good number of them. The problem is is there
are very few areas for them to ride so that in Miami-Dade County we
see that thousands of environmental and private-owned lands are
impacted by people riding motorized recreation.
And in fact, the state has recognized that our area is among the
highest priority in needing motorized trails as in safe, secure
environments.
We looked at -- Miami-Dade County, there's a little over 12,000
title vehicles throughout the county. We similarly looked at Collier
County. There's almost 5,000 registered vehicles. Now remember,
you have one-tenth the population but almost half compared to us. So
there is a good population here that is underserved.
When we looked at working with the state, this is the State
Division of Forestry, we looked at -- there are other -- there are
opportunities for places to go, but they're very few and far between. In
fact, from South Florida, the only legal, supervised, certified area is
Croom, which is in central Florida. It's 300 miles.
Now, that isn't to say that there aren't certain race tracks that
allow motorized vehicles, but not the type that are trail vehicles. So
both Collier and Dade are faced with an issue that there are a lot of
demand and insufficient supply.
Miami-Dade County went through a process oflooking at
alternate sites, as in those that can feasibly and viably support
motorized recreation, not solely that, but in part of a larger
recreational spectrum. We went through and we identified about 15
different sites.
We also worked more recently with Collier County, your own
staff, who looked at alternate sites. You, too, have recognized the
Page 57
January 19,2010
same need, high demand, low supply, and looked at some of those
areas. And ultimately, by virtue of Miami-Dade County looking at
what they recommend, Collier County, what they recommend, for the
most part, given the criteria, one particular site, which is the training
and transition airport in the middle of the state which straddles the
Dade/Collier line, seems to be the preferred -- certainly is the
preferred site for Miami-Dade County, and possibly is a preferred site
for Collier County, if only a short-term site.
Weare aware from staff conversations that Collier seeks a
long-term one that they may own and occupy themselves, but in the
short-term this particular property represented an opportunity for your
residents to recreate safely and under certain supervision.
The area in question is a 1 ,608-acre portion. It is the
southernmost 1,600 acres ofa 24,000-acre property. This was the
jetport that was purchased through F ederal Aviation Administration
monies back in the late '60s, funded by Miami-Dade, Collier, not--
no. Miami-Dade, Monroe, Broward and Palm Beach as a jetport. It
ultimately failed because of its -- both its political repercussions and
just didn't make economic sense. But for all of these many years it
has lied fallow out there only serving a very small number of planes.
We recognized it was an opportune time to think about beginning
to use a property whose intact resource values were lovely, I mean,
allowing public access to a property that now had none, allowing a
degree of public resource management that now had none, but still
recognizing that there was no intention of impacting, adversely
impacting the property.
Remember, one of our premier goals in this application is to
move a property that principally serves aviation purposes to one that
serves park purposes.
We looked at, right now, the permissible uses on the property as
in what the land use already allows. It allows hiking and camping and
bicycling, fishing, wildlife viewing, archery, other conservation uses,
Page 58
January 19, 2010
and OHV transportation, meaning that you can ride a swamp buggy or
a motorcycle if you're going to use hunting or fishing or if you're
going to do camping out there. As a means of that, it is perfectly
permissible and is used and has been used for over 50 years.
In this particular case what is not allowed on this property, and
among the two most important points for our amendment item are, that
we propose to introduce a visitor orientation center, i.e., a nature
center that will allow certain supervision, guidance, and education for
people to use the site and not abuse it; and second, to transition OHV
merely for transportation but for recreation, as in people who can ride
it in a limited way.
Just to reinforce, this is -- the proposed area is on the county line
on the Tamiami Trail, as you see it right there. It is proposed to create
a future land use district, meaning to carve out a certain area. We're
still -- it's still a conservation area and we still envision it to remain
espousing conservation values. We're looking to expand the range of
permissible uses, commit to an adaptive comprehensive management
plan at the time of zoning and to demonstrate compliance with county
and state regulations, all of which we would have done anyway.
In terms of the existing use, and this came up that -- in prior
discussions with the neighborhood, prior discussions with your
environmental board and your planning council, we discussed that at
present you're allowed swamp buggies out there; there is hunting.
This is one of the many camps out there. All of this is permissible and
takes place all of the time now. Now, it isn't a huge use, but
nevertheless, this is principally what the area is permitted for.
It's also important to understand that in 1969 this property -- they
began the construction of the airport in about '67. They constructed a
runway, which is the second longest runway in the State of Florida.
It's an alternate site for the space shuttle, and they largely impacted the
runway area and certain areas on this subject site, i.e., the borrow pits.
But even then, even before then, there was a historic pattern of
Page 59
January 19,2010
camping and gladesmen's use, some of which you can see on the
north, some of the trails that go out there. Some of the same trails
were on the south in 1980 and even visible today when we mapped
this and we brought some of your environmental staff.
Right now there's about 45 acres of trails out there, some that are
heavily impacted, some that are just peripheral trails as in the grass
stays bent year-round. But nevertheless, it was a condition that -- one
of which we sought to correct.
We're proposing to tremendously moderate the number of trails,
in fact, to reduce them by over half, and of that half we're going to
modify the remaining half portion to OHV and a portion just simply
for pedestrian. So the density of this project will go down, the
permissible density; the type of uses will improve measurably; and
we're only using the most impacted area of the property for other
things in the form of camping and hiking, retaining all those things.
It's important to understand that the proposed site use -- what this
amendment is designed to forward is, we're looking to convert
aviation land to recreation land, introduce public access to a property
that now has little or none, provide for supervision and resource
management, as in our natural resource crews.
Our department has 70 individuals alone who do nothing but
manage natural areas. We're looking to expand the recreational
opportunities, use the impacted areas only. It's important to
understand that we recognize this is an area of critical state concern
designated by the state as a Big Cypress area of critical state concern.
So our impact will be far less than 10 percent of the property. In fact,
we don't believe we're going to impact any area that isn't already
impacted, either roads that exist there or fill areas or fill pads.
And I mention again, we're going to eliminate one-half of all
existing trails and the legacy camps. What we're looking to do is,
there are permitted campsites. People have dragged out mobile homes
out there that exist that they use for periodic campsites, and we would
Page 60
January 19,2010
look to remove those. We'd look to convert the remaining trails, as in
that portion that we want to maintain, and to stabilize them so you
don't get these mud holes that run now with, you know, people using
or abusing.
We're looking to restore the natural sheet flow, meaning
wherever there is a trail it will be built no higher than grade so that the
natural sheet flow is retained and the storm and the water hydrology is
improved.
Important, we're going to eliminate hunting, campsites, and
swamp buggies. Those will essentially be relocated to the north only,
because we don't believe that hunting is really compatible with park
use. So I'd really like to make certain that there is a compatibility --
an explicit compatibility with adjacent uses, meaning Big Cypress
and/or Everglades. It will be much more compatible than it is now.
And last, we're going to limit programming to areas and time that
don't impact panther and bear populations. In our application, you
know, we had the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation staff out
there. There has been, you know, population cited. Our plan or our
amendment is consistent with our management plan, and they have
taken no exception to it.
But we are very certain, we are very careful as a parks
department that we want to improve endemic populations and not
disturb them. So everything we've put -- loaded all the way to the
west so there is no programming at times or in locations that's going to
impact some of these important populations.
I just want to reinforce that we're going to attempt to retain
archery, fishing, RV, you know, as in pads, but there's no dumpsites.
If you look down at the bottom, we already conduct eco-tours out
there, as in swamp tromps and those type of things. Our staff brings
out a very interested public. And if they can come from Miami, well,
they can come from Collier. It's a very interesting site, and it's just
really gorgeous. And we're looking, you know, proud to bring it into
Page 61
January 19,2010
public venue.
It is important to note that Miami-Dade County has committed to
this project both to protect people who ride, protect the environment as
in a transition from aviation to parks, and has passed a resolution in
support of that project. It's also important to note that your board has
taken a similar position by looking to promote this project and support
the establishment of this type of property.
So at this time, as this thing moves forward, we do envision
entering into an interlocal agreement that will allow essentially an
equal opportunity for both counties to forward this type of
development and to provide this recreational experience to all people.
When you look at this as a wilderness park -- at least for the
county it would be a wilderness park -- 1,600 acres of which less than
one-tenth of one percent would be provided for any type of motorized
trails, you begin to see how that forwards a very good conservation
and recreation agenda by preserving this property for the public.
With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Are there any questions?
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, is there going to be staff
presentation? Because I think I'd like to wait until after that and then
maybe ask some questions of staff.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to put it
on so soon, but I just wanted to make sure I didn't forget where I was.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Has staff got a report on
this?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could I just have a question?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You just said something about
one-tenth of one percent. Is that of the 1,600 acres?
MR. ASHER: Yes, ma'am.
Page 62
January 19,2010
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So how many acres are you actually
talking about then?
MR. ASHER: Well, 1,608 acres is the entirety of the property.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
MR. ASHER: Because almost entirely the only concerns we've
had is motorized vehicles. So when -- in our application we have
demonstrated that one-tenth of one percent would be allowed as in the
trail amount, the amount ofland that the trails occupy, one-tenth of
one percent. The other 99-plus percent would be retained as
conservation area for non-motorized use, i.e., what is the exact
underlying existing language of your GMP.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: The question she asked is how
many acres, not the percentage. Can you come down with the actual
acres?
MR. ASHER: We did.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We're looking at 15 to 20 acres.
MR. ASHER: Fifteen to 20 acres of the 1,608 acres would be
provided for OHV trails. The rest would be explicitly non-motorized,
aside from a small parking lot for people to drive there.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Staff, do you have a
presentation?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. Again, for the record, David Weeks of
the comprehensive planning department. And Commissioners, I'll be
pretty brief.
Staff acknowledges that there is a lot of good things about this
petition, and we certainly acknowledge that the applicant has
demonstrated a need for this land use. This body itself has a history
going back to, I believe, 2003 with the land swap, that's what we can
call it, with Golden Gate Estates, the south blocks to the South Florida
Water Management District, and that requirement that the district
ultimately find a section of land for A TV users.
And I'm well aware, as Mr. Asher mentioned, of the resolution
Page 63
January 19,2010
that this board passed as well, generally offering an endorsement of
this site.
However, staff asked the question, is this the appropriate location
to fulfill that need? And our opinion, it is not. The applicant's
information shows that 93 percent of the site is wetland. The other 7
percent of the site consists of borrow pits and fill areas going back to
the construction of the jetport just to the north of the subject site.
So it's staffs opinion, what we're dealing with is environmentally
sensitive land of high quality that is not appropriate to have a use on it
that could, in our opinion, be destructive of those natural resources.
And again, we certainly acknowledge the relatively small amount
of the site that might be impacted, but nonetheless, we believe that a
viable use of the property exists that would not necessitate the impacts
that the OHV trails could cause.
As Mr. Asher has noted in his presentation, there are a variety of
park-type uses, conservation uses that are allowed on the site today;
and staff believes that those types of uses are viable, the archery, the
trails for pedestrians, and actually we would say that a visitors' center
would be allowed in conjunction with the conservation use without
this plan amendment itself.
I think Mr. Asher has accurately summarized the key opposition
that staff has, and that is the OHV use on the site.
So, again, we believe there's a viable use on the site today under
the existing designation, that the Miami-Dade County Parks and Rec.
Department could operate a park on the site. That would be consistent
with the existing designation; that they have the authority to cease the
swamp buggy and other OHV vehicles from using the site as they
presently do, including the cessation of the hunting that also occurs on
the site; and they certainly have the ability to commence restoration
efforts on the site if they so chose as well under the existing
designation.
I would point out that the Environmental Advisory Council did
Page 64
January 19,2010
recommend approval of this petition by a vote of 3-2. The Planning
Commission effectively had no recommendation, as they had a split
vote 4-4. There was a motion to approval (sic), but it failed by that
4-4 tie vote.
I would also note that the Bureau of Emergency Services for
Collier County has written a memo from the director, Dan Summers.
It is in your executive summary. It is referenced there. And I believe
it's the last attachment to your executive summary in which Mr.
Summers identifies four stipulations for your consideration.
None of those would actually be -- should you choose to
incorporate them with a recommendation of transmittal, none of those
would actually be incorporated into the Growth Management Plan
text. So what they function as at this point is to let you know that there
are some concerns from their perspective and then how that agency
believes that those could be addressed during a subsequent
development order review process, most particularly the rezoning
process that would follow this plan amendment if it is successful.
Finally, I would suggest that for your consideration, if you should
choose to recommend transmittal, that you look at the text, the
alternative text drafted by staff, that is, taking the applicant's language
and making some changes to it, which also incorporates the
recommendation of the Environmental Advisory Council and the
failed motion by the Planning Commission. That text is located at the
back of your binder. I think it's the second to last document in your
small binder that includes all of the staff documents.
The very last document is the EAC staff report; just prior to that
is the Planning Commission staff report, and the language is found on
Pages 26, 27, and 28 of that staff report, Planning Commission staff
report.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have a question for Mr. Asher
before I turn this over to my fellow Commissioner Coletta.
What was interesting is that you're saying that what they would
Page 65
January 19,2010
be able to recreate on would be 15 to 20 acres of land and yet you
came up with some statistics about how many licenses there are for
OHV vehicles.
My question is, how are you going to administer this so that
those people only recreate on those 20 acres and not advance out to
someplace else? How do you plan to control it? Because I think it
would be like controlling -- herding cats.
MR. ASHER: Commissioner, that's an excellent question, and
we, ourselves, kind of pose it as a challenge.
One is, understand that there -- on adjacent properties, Biscayne
National Preserve, there are already OHVs that are confined to trail
use, and the way they do it and I think the way we would use it is that
we've proposed a visitor orientation center.
We believe that if you're going to be allowed to ride here, you
have a license to ride, as in a Florida license. Two, that you have a
permit to operate on the property, meaning you've gone through a half
an hour, an hour orientation that prescribes the good and the bad. If
you stay on the trails, that's fine. If you go off the trails, you're
evicted.
And the third is that we have acknowledged -- and there is even
some of this in some of the letters that are attached to this -- that we
would assist -- be assisted by third parties as in kind of, you know,
some of the same groups that want to ride usually provide
ambassadors. So between our staff and the ridership, I think you will
find a very strong peer presence to have people stay on trails, because
if you leave the trails and you're seen, you're going to be evicted.
It's no different than were you to do any other either illegal or
adverse impact to a county park, be it here or in your jurisdiction,
there are rules to follow. We will do our very best.
Now, it has been raised, too, how will we stop people from
getting off of our site and uninvited to Biscayne -- to Big Cypress,
because at Big Cypress you have to come in, you have to fill out a
January 19,2010
permit, and you're required to stay on certain roads or trails.
Well, in some ways, the property is partially fenced, and it's
likely we'll have to fence more of it because we want to be good
neighbors not only to ourselves, but we can't allow people to get on
the runway. It is an active airport.
It's also important to recognize -- they didn't make this too much
of a point -- that our use of the property would not negate us doing
anything that would eliminate or undermine federal aviation use.
For example, some people have asked us, why don't we take the
borrow pits that are now sheer and make them into littoral edges to
attract wading birds. Well, the federal government looks very badly at
birds at airports. So our intent is, for the most part, to leave them in
their present state, which would allow fishing and water overlooks but
doesn't invite that many other wading bird populations.
But getting back to your point. There is a very clear need for a
level of supervision, orientation, education, and I think that's going to
carry the day, as well as -- I think because the area is wetlands,
because it is subject to, you know, cycles of water and dryness, we're
also going to put time limits as in when people can go, by both day
and season. There's no expectation when it's really wet or really dry
that we're going to allow it. But the rest of the property can go on.
I mean, we program -- when it's really wet, we do, you know,
swamp tromps. You're up to your knees or your waist, and people
love it. When it's dry you can go hiking, and the bird population is
wonderful. But it is an important question to ask and have answered.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I'm going to ask my fellow
commissioners, do they want to hear from the public before --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I do.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: -- before we start. Okay. I'll open
the public hearing at this time. Sue, if you would --
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. The first speaker --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How many have we got signed up?
Page 67
January 19,2010
MS. FILSON: Three.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MS. FILSON: The first speaker is Rich Varela. He'll be followed
by Alan Farago.
MR. VARELA: Good morning, County Commissioners. Rick
Varela, Collier County citizen. I want to take the time and say thank
you.
As you well know, I've been here many, many times in trying to
get a legal ATV riding area for the children of the county.
The only problem that I have -- and by the way, thank you very
much for going through all this. I also worked with Commissioner
"Pepe" Diaz on trying to make this a possibility. The only -- the big
issue or the big -- there's two issues that I'm concerned about. One, I
want to make sure this does not satisfy the agreement between the
county and South Florida Water Management, that's the first thing, or
that the state sees it as the agreement having been satisfied.
I think the county should file an injunction against South Florida
Water Management and the Army Corps, and I guarantee you you'll
be having people flying in here talking to you once that -- if you can
get that to stop.
The second thing, the biggest -- my biggest concern is the fact
that you're taking, like you said, one-tenth of one percent -- you're
actually taking essentially anywhere from, what is it, ten miles of trails
is what you're going to be putting in there?
MR. ASHER: We would be reducing -- right now there's about
45 miles of existing trails both dug out and ephemeral-type trails, and
reducing it down to what -- Andy, ten--
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: About 10 to 15 and also 10 to 15
miles.
MR. ASHER: Ten to 15 miles.
MR. VARELA: So somebody's going to drive from Collier
County to ride for 30 minutes and be -- see the entire property? That's
Page 68
January 19,2010
my biggest thing. How are you going to fit 15,000 ATVers in a
IS-mile trail, in a 10-mile trail? I just don't see it.
I mean, I honestly believe there's a need for it. I think that the
place looks good, but I think that you should keep all those 45-mile
trails or possibly even expanding on it. I don't think it's just enough to
satisfy the need of both counties in this situation.
MR. ASHER: Let me see if I can answer -- I mean, it is an
interesting question. I mean, we did look at, will this fully satisfy all
the demand in both the respective counties? No. Do we believe that
this particular site with high resource values should bear the entirety
of it? No.
We believe that there is a balance that -- part of the balance is
science driven. There is only a certain amount of area that we would
want to allocate to this. That doesn't mean that yourself, your family,
may not go elsewhere. As a matter of fact, we would encourage
Collier County to continue seeking an additional site.
We believe that if you look to consume the entirety of the
property, then we're no better than aviation. We're not going to be
aspiring to preserve a property or to retain value.
So it is an appropriate balance for this amount of acres. It would
be governed by a permit, as in, there's not going to be upside, capacity
controls based on the resources. So it is -- unfortunately, we're not
going to be able to fully answer your question, but I guarantee you it
will go a long way to partially resolving what is a larger issue.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is not a place to have
dialogue. Just bring forth what you're concerned about. But I think
that this is a start, Rich. It's not everything you want.
MR. VARELA: No, of course.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I think it's a start. So at this point, I
don't think you wanted to be greedy. At least it's an opening, okay.
MR. VARELA: I understand, Commissioners. And thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Who's the next public speaker?
Page 69
January 19,2010
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Alan Farago. He'll be
followed by Matthew Schwartz.
MR. FARAGO: Thank you very much, Commissioners, for
giving me the opportunity to appear before you today.
My name is Alan Farago. I'm conservation chair of Friends of
the Everglades. I drove over this morning from Miami-Dade.
You know, I was listening to the thorough presentation of the
parks department of Miami-Dade and just taking a look at the
well-prepared documentation that you've all had a chance to look at,
and I was thinking to myself, I make a much -- I make nowhere near
as good a person to testify before you as Marjorie Stoneman Douglas
would have, who founded Friends of the Everglades 40 years ago over
the issue of the Everglades jetport, which I'm sure you're all familiar
about that.
So I apologize for Marjorie. She was well over 100 years old
before she passed. She'd be 110 or 120 if she were here today. But
she would basically support the position that Friends has taken that
we've submitted to you in a letter. It's probably in your packet or
you've seen it, and it's a position that's also supported by Tropical
Audubon, the local group in Miami opposing this CDMP amendment
and hoping that you vote to deny and not to transmit.
While it's true that it's only a tenth of one percent of land space,
you need to remember that 40 years ago it was an entire Congress of
the United States and it was the President of the United States who
became involved in the disposition of this property.
It was supposed to be an airport. It was recognized at the time as
how environmentally sensitive it is, and that designation and that
importance of this property continues to be iconic, not just for the
people of Collier and Miami-Dade, but for the people of Florida and
for the nation.
Along those lines, I would suggest that the area of critical state
concern designation can't be used to sacrifice -- can't be sacrificed
Page 70
January 19,2010
simply to address a deficiency in recreational access.
So the point is that you couldn't find a worse place to address a
deficiency in ORV use. On a scale of one to ten, how would I put this
in terms of Friends of the Everglades, the environmental community
where one -- where we have this kind of issue of how seriously do we
think this needs to be fought where one is, you know, we agree, where
ten is we disagree. This is pretty much a ten for us.
And, you know, we concur with the -- what your staff has
recommended. So we urge you to really look at this. And I know
you've got a lot of pressure to provide for recreational space.
But thank you for exceeding my time, and I appreciate this hard
choice that you have to make, but we really hope that you deny and do
not transmit and let this be settled right here, right now. Thank you
very much.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Matthew -- did I
mispronounce your last name, sir?
MR. SCHWARTZ: Matthew Schwartz.
MS. FILSON: Schwartz. And I have an additional speaker,
Commissioner, Michael Ramsey.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Matthew, make sure that you
mention your name on the mike there.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Okay. My name is Matthew Schwartz. I'm
here representing the Sierra Club, and I live in Broward County, came
over here from Broward County.
I'm trying to think where to begin with this. I guess I would like
to reiterate what Alan Farago talked about, about the jetport, about
what this site was, about the Big Cypress National Preserve, and I take
issue with the comments that were made by Mr. Asher that the jetport
failed because of political and economic reasons.
It failed for environmental reasons. It failed for environmental
reasons. Gaylord Nelson, the founder of Earth Day Center from
Page 71
January 19,2010
Wisconsin said, if we build this jetport here, we're basically admitting
that we're destroying Everglades National Park in the process.
The area -- and I have here an aerial view of the area we're
talking about.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You can bring that over here and
they'll put it up.
MR. SCHWARTZ: If they'd put it up here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, so everybody can see. Do
you have any other documentation you're going to submit?
MR. SCHWARTZ: I have a lot, but I'm going to just talk
because I only have three minutes, and it's not going to be possible for
me to do this, you know, visually.
The jetport site is located inside Big Cypress National Preserve,
not outside. It's part of the preserve. It's an in-holding within the
preserve. I want to get this out right away. This is the general
management, this is the Off-road Vehicle Management Plan for Big
Cypress National Preserve. It was written over a five-year period in
response to a lawsuit in 1995 that stipulates how off-road vehicle use
can take place within the preserve so as to preserve the natural
resources of that very important property established in 1974 after the
jetport was rejected on environmental grounds.
It stipulates a maximum number of 2,000 off-road vehicle
permits that was reached for the first time in this past year for over
700,000 acres and 400 miles of off-road vehicle trails.
I'm down to a minute left. It's hard for me to get this all out.
The idea that the -- just counting up the acres of trails is the issue,
one-tenth of one percent. I think if you added up the acres of
interstate highway of the United States, it would probably be a lower
percentage of our land in the United States.
This book is an encyclopedia of the negative impacts of off-road
vehicles in this property, because it is part of Big Cypress. And 93
percent of this land is wetland. It's flooded up to ten months out of the
Page 72
January 19, 2010
year, as the hydrologist for the Big Cypress Natural Preserve made
clear in the staff report.
This book also says that when this ground is flooded, that's when
all the damage takes place. I could show you just a few photos of
what -- this is a newly opened trail.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: On the overhead, please.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Would you like to see the photos? I mean,
do I have time to show them to you?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, you better hurry.
MR. WEEKS: You can talk over here.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. You can talk over here.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: His time's up.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll let him finish these pictures.
Make it quick, please.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Is this going up? This is a trail in the Bear
Island section of Big Cypress, the northwest corner. This is before
they opened it up. This is just for the National Park Service's own
swamp buggy going through this area and what it created.
Here's the area after it was opened up to off-road vehicle use.
This is what -- let me see if I can get it in the center there. This is --
well, it's kind of -- yeah. This is after less than one season of use.
Here's another picture from about the same time. This is what
off-road vehicle use looks like on a wetland at Big Cypress. This area
was established for preservation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Just -- please continue with your
pictures so that we can get that in.
MR. SCHWARTZ: This is what a stabilized trail looks like. This
is what it looks like when you basically -- when they're talking about
stabilization, this is what it looks like. This is not conservation. This
area is heavily utilized by Florida panthers. I have other pages here.
There's -- three panthers have been killed on Tamiami Trail in the
vicinity of the jetport. Three studies have shown that panthers are
Page 73
January 19,2010
aversive to off-road vehicle use. We've had 17 panther deaths in the
last year.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. SCHWARTZ: I think this is a devastating project, and the
Sierra Club strongly recommends non-transmittal of this project.
Thanks for letting me go over.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much. Okay.
MS. FILSON: And your final speaker, sir, is Michael Ramsey.
Michael.
MR. RAMSEY: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is
Michael Ramsey. I'm the president of Ramsey Inc., Environmental
Consulting.
In my history with the Florida Wildlife and Fish Commission
(sic), when I was in their employ, was assigned specifically to the Big
Cypress National Reserve and, in specific, the jetport.
I have almost traveled every square foot of the jetport. And I was
listening to this petition and I'm offering up this -- my opinion based
on my professional activities down there. It is an opportunity for this
commission to provide an alternate or an additional recreation site for
the people of Collier County.
In my opinion it would be a way to offer a -- either something to
complement our existing recreational resources, and it is also a
resource, a jetport that is highly underutilized.
You need to remember the wetlands are not so sensitive that you
can't use them. They do have opportunities during the season where
they can be used, and they can be used very effectively with a lot of
well-crafted management. It offers a great opportunity for recreation.
And the jetport, in my opinion, in all my time on it, has not been
utilized fully for the residents of Collier County, and this is an
opportunity for it. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Is that our last public
speaker?
Page 74
January 19,2010
MS. FILSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll close the public hearing at this
time.
Commissioner Coletta's been waiting here patiently.
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's quite all right. I do have
some issues that I wanted to be able to cover.
We knew about the size of the A TV trails. We all wish that it
was a lot more than it is. The truth of the matter is, this is totally
inadequate for what was needed -- what is needed. The truth of the
matter is, we can't write it off and say, let's not do it, because then the
inadequacy is even more than it was before.
But I have one question I'm going to direct to the county attorney
just to make sure, no shape, way, or form is the state going to be able
to say because Miami-Dade is opening this park over there with 15
miles of trails that it's going to negate our lawsuit?
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I can't say what they're going to say,
sir, but I will tell you that my position is going to be, in essence, on
the threat of eminent domain, okay. They took Collier County
property, that being the roads, and they agreed to pay us for that
property in lieu of eminent domain. Part of the consideration paid was
640 acres. I don't really care if it's an A TV park or something else.
They're going to give us the value of those 640 acres.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, Rick brought up about an
injunction. Is that something we could possibly consider at a future
meeting?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, there's no -- there is no, at this point in
time, legal basis for an injunction. We have a breach of contract suit
pending against the water district and, you know, that is the recourse
that we have.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you for that.
Now I'd like to cover some of the issues where staff came up
Page 75
January 19,2010
with an alternate suggestion of what's going to be done. And I'll be
honest with you, I want to maximize this limited resource out there
rather than limit it, so I'm not too particularly fond of some of the
suggestions. Some of them I don't think are of any real consequence.
But I'd like to make sure that we have a full understanding what
the difference between the two proposals are. If we could go down
that piecemeal, whoever wants to -- Mr. Weeks, you want to go
through that and tell us what it is you're recommending that they do or
don't do over what they planned -- they would like to do?
MR. WEEKS: Well, simply put, our recommendation is don't
approve this amendment.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I understand that. But
then you said, if we did approve it, these are what you'd like to see
different.
MR. WEEKS: It is not a removal of any of their uses. It is a --
some slight modifications of their text.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's go ahead and make sure
that this is something that's going to still work as we move this
forward.
MR. KLATZKOW: David, could you put that on the overhead,
please, so that the public can see it?
MR. WEEKS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Then if the petitioner could--
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Could you relate to what page
you're at?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. Starts on Page 26. It will be three
different pages, 26, 27, and 28, from the Planning Commission staff
report which, again, is the second to last document in your small
binder.
And then the Planning Commission's failed recommendation
made actually only one change to that, which I'll get to when we get to
that page.
Page 76
January 19,2010
And, Mr. Chairman, I would ask that after we've completed the
review of these three pages if we might ask Mr. Asher if, as the
petitioner, if they have any objections to these changes. They've seen
these before.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: You can see the first change is just a
housecleaning matter, an edit. The last paragraph on the page is
adding a prohibition from operating during the peak season, the peak
wet season and peak dry season, in conformance with an approved
adaptive comprehensive management plan, and that management plan
would be brought to -- would be made part of the rezoning application
to the county.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: As we go forward, if the
petitioner would please comment on this, because ifthere's no
objections, we'll incorporate it. If there's objections to it, I want to
hear it, and I'm going to hopefully be able to make the motion to be
able to make this all work.
MR. ASHER: Miami-Dade County came out in -- as a part of
our application, acknowledging that there would be some temporal use
restrictions, meaning that we would not operate those recreational
activities that are going to be contrary to the property during very
high-water season or very low, as in fear of fire. Most of those are
OHVs. There are high grounds that even during the wet season, you
can still go to the visitor entertainment center, you can still fish for all
practical purposes, but certainly there are going to be a number of
recreational activities and a number of recreational uses on the
property that will not be permitted at certain high-wet season and
certain low-dry season.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Do we have to really
identify it, or is common sense going to be able to just kick in on it?
MR. ASHER: I think that common sense as a part of the
adaptive management plan will prescribe those, and it's, honestly, no
Page 77
January 19,2010
different than Big Cypress. I mean, we're going to -- as Mr. Schmidt
-- Mr. Schwartz acknowledged, they've spent a considerable time and
effort going through a process where certain things were permitted and
permissible and both advocacy groups and affected interests were able
to arrive at a certain consensus. My hope is that we will have learned
from that and we can essentially spin off of that.
So the adaptive management plan will largely prescribe those
activities that may be permitted year round versus those that have a
very restricted time period.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Staff, you want to continue?
MR. WEEKS: This is Page 27 of the Planning Commission staff
report. And, again, the first few changes are just minor -- what I
would consider minor modifications, but something of substance, in
particular, as you see, is we do add acreage figures, maximums, not to
exceed a certain number of acres for certain types of uses.
MR. ASHER: David -- David and his staff have talked with us.
This is straight out of our amendment application, so we don't see any
issues. He has struck out one item, which is wildlife viewing platform.
It wasn't consequential. In fact, you know, Everglades does it, but it
doesn't mean that we have to. It just gives people different
perspectives. That's fine.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Why -- wait, wait. Hold it. I'm
sorry. Why do we want to strike out wildlife viewing platforms? I
mean, if anything's going to give value to this place, it's people being
able to see what they can see. There's some people that, because of
physical impediments, would not be able to walk the property, but
they would enjoy a view of it. You see them all over the place.
You've got it down at Wiggins Park down there, Wiggins Pass Park.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, it's been deleted as a separate
entry. It's struck through as Paragraph G and added to Paragraph F.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, so it's still there?
MR. WEEKS : Yes, sir.
Page 78
January 19,2010
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. It says, viewing platforms
and overlooks.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Does the petitioner have any
comment to make on these items?
MR. ASHER: No. I have a comment on the next item after
David reads it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: I think the next paragraph down I wanted to draw
attention to is -- that starts with the phrase, the drainage and
stormwater management systems. You can see that the staff
recommendation was to change the word may to shall in three
different locations.
And on the final sentence of that paragraph that reads here, lake
edges shall be improved, the Planning Commission recommendation
-- again, it was a failed vote, but their motion recommended that the
word may remain; that the word shall not be inserted in that last
sentence.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, but once again, too, we
just heard from the petitioner about conflicts with the FAA as far as
improving the littoral zones around the lakes and attracting birds.
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. And that's why the recommendation by
the Planning Commission to leave the word "may" in there, leaves it
as optional as opposed to staffs recommendation, which was
mandatory. So that puts it into the discretionary category by using the
word may.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How about if you change to shall
not be improved in the shallow littoral zone?
MR. WEEKS: Then you're mandating that there will not be
littoral zone improvements.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, if it's an airport, you don't
Page 79
January 19,2010
want wading birds, and if the airport is still active, like everyone says,
the people practice touch-and-goes there.
MR. WEEKS: Right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Then I think maybe you should put
something in there to make sure they don't improve the littoral zones
to encourage birds. That's just my take on it.
MR. WEEKS: Sure. And, Commissioners, 1'11-- of course this
ultimately is up to you to decide.
By leaving the word may, it defers it till the time of the rezoning
and probably even after that until the time of actual site plans, until we
get closer to the actual development property and the applicant is able
to submit data to the county that may show that we should not
improve the littoral zones. On the other hand, it may be that it will
show that it's acceptable in some locations but not all.
And again, we -- by leaving the word may in there, it lets us defer
until a time when we have more information specific to the project
development.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yep. I think that's more
realistic. What else is here?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You got anything else,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, I'm still waiting to go
through the rest of this.
MR. WEEKS: Nothing else I wish to particularly draw attention
to, I don't think, is particularly substantive on this page.
We do state under number -- Paragraph 1 that OHVs will be
limited to ATVs and motor-cross vehicles and prohibit swamp
buggies, but that's exactly what the applicant has presented in their
petition is that it will just be ATVs and off-road motorcycles.
Page 28, please. Paragraph 10, here's another change. This--
what you're looking at, again, is the staff recommended text. And you
can see we recommended deleting the phrase, where deemed
Page 80
January 19,2010
appropriate. So, again, this was going to make it mandatory for the
littoral zones around the lakes. Planning Commission's
recommendation in their failed motion was delete that phrase which,
again, leaves it as, where deemed appropriate. It leaves it in the
optional category, coincides with the earlier change we were just
discussing. So that when we get closer to the time of project
development, it could be determined whether it's appropriate or not to
improve the littoral zones.
That's all I have, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How about the petitioner? Does
the petitioner see anything on there that raises some concerns?
MR. ASHER: No, sir. All ofthese had been previously worked
out at the staff level, and we were generally consistent with those and
appreciated the comments of the planning board as it related to not
forcing one county department to unnecessarily knock heads with the
aviation department so this project could go forward.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, one other thing, too.
Absolutely no restrictions as far as Collier County residents? We're
treated as equals with those from Miami-Dade?
MR. ASHER: Yes, sir. All Miami-Dade County parks, meaning
local or area-wide, have no residential restriction. You're -- everyone
is invited.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: How -- I know we can't
guarantee anything forever, but how can we be assured that a park
within Collier County, that somebody won't try to change the
admittance rules six months or six years from now?
MR. ASHER: Commissioner, I think that your assurance is
pending this going to the state and getting a consent on the ORC
Report, then we would move into an interlocal agreement that would
codify exactly your consideration and your concern.
MR. KLATZKOW: Oryoucould--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And interlocal agreement would
Page 81
January 19,2010
fit in somewhere before that point, maybe zoning or whatever, or
would you guarantee us this?
MR. ASHER: We would do an interlocal before zoning. In
other words, as soon as we hear back from the state, because there's
certain statutory timetables. It's not going to be all that long, that --
and you can speak with your park and recreation director who's in the
audience, but we would establish -- we would codify that before we
would go into zoning.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay, good, because that's very
important to me --
MR. ASHER: Absolutely, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- to be honest with you.
MR. KLATZKOW: Or you could put it right in here where
Collier County residents shall have the same rights as Miami-Dade
residents.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
MR. ASHER: Yes.
MR. KLATZKOW: You can just put it right in here.
Would the petitioner agree to make that change?
MR. ASHER: Yeah, sure. That's not a problem.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll wait till the motion then.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, I have a few questions.
How much of your property is in Collier County, or is it all in
Collier?
MR. ASHER: My recollection is this. Of the 24,000-acre
property owned by Miami-Dade County, approximately 15,000-plus
acres are in Como (sic) -- are in Collier County. So more than half.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, okay.
MR. ASHER: This application is solely within Collier County.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, okay. Thank you.
The 15 to 20 acres that we've spoken of, that one-tenth of one
Page 82
January 19,2010
percent -- you know, 15 or 20 acres doesn't sound like a very big area
at all for off-road vehicles to be riding in. Is that a compressed
amount, taking all of the trails and compressing them down to figure
15 to 20 acres?
MR. ASHER: I would like to show you the map, but it's not
coming up on the screen right now. I'm not quite certain -- hold on a
second. Okay. That's not going to work either.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, if I might comment while he's
looking. Remember that the trails are linear and they're rather narrow,
and so your measurement is a long, skinny line throughout the
property .
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's what I -- that's what I
wondered. I mean, we're not talking just a long, skinny line over 15 to
20 acres. We're talking about all of those things compressed to make
15 or 20 acres; is that correct?
MR. ASHER: Yes.
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
MR. ASHER: And you'll see, looking on this plan here, the
yellow is essentially what are OHV permissible trails. And what we
have done is, some of them, yes. They're border trails that we
otherwise would introduce for fire suppression because they're what --
this is a wetlands, but there's certain areas that are fire dependent. So
there is an -- there is essentially a perimeter trail, there's some other
areas. But it's very important for us. We're moving OHVs away from
hammocks and cypress heads, which are the more sensitive areas.
We're moving them away from any, you know, cultural areas. And
there are cultural areas, the Miccosukees have been involved with.
The Miccosukees have -- in fact, in our early plans, they attended our
early meetings, as did Big Cypress, as did Department oflnterior,
Corps of Engineers, and water management. And water management
has very nicely agreed to help us permit this project should the state
approve it.
Page 83
January 19,2010
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I see. And so then, actually the
acres that we're talking about, we're going to be traversing all of the
1,600 acres?
MR. ASHER: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: It's just that -- when you calculate it
down?
MR. ASHER: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, fine. I think that that makes
it a little more understandable. When you say 15 or 20 acres, I mean,
I can't imagine fitting two people on 15 or 20 acres and giving them
any recreational use. Okay, fine.
Then you say right now the OHVs are using this property?
MR. ASHER: Yes, ma'am.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And you say -- how long have they
been doing that? How long have they been using it?
MR. ASHER: Swamp buggies have been utilizing this property
since the early '50s. There is a prevalence of them now, and
Commissioner Coletta can attest to it, as members of the audience.
But we find that while OHV access is important, it's less important to
have swamp buggies. They are much more difficult to manage. We
think that the smaller -- the smaller vehicles really are the ones that we
really want to deal with. But there has been a pattern of almost 60
years of continuous ridership in this one area alone.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, about 60 years. Well, then if
we -- if you take some of these trails away and you restrict certain
areas, as long as people have been using it for 60 years, what makes
you think that they're not going to continue to use those trails that you
don't want them to use?
MR. ASHER: The people who use them are the swamp buggies.
The swamp buggies are access -- the access is property (sic) only by
permit. We're going to cease their permit for the south. They can
continue to use the northern 16,000 acres, which it still remains
Page 84
January 19,2010
permissible, but we will convert this to a park use that is not going to
be -- not going to essentially have to deal with the adverse
consequences of the swamp buggies and a lot of the hunting that
usually comes with it.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: You think you can actually control
all of that?
MR. ASHER: Yes, ma'am. The -- everyone who is a -- rides a
swamp buggy accesses the property solely by a permit. Most of those
people are in a club called the Jetport Swamp Buggy Club. And most
of them are very nice. I mean, these are -- this is not a -- you know, an
out-of-control operation.
But having said that, we look at the north, and we see a level of
destruction and damage that really is just unacceptable to us. We're a
park and recreation agency, half of which is conservation oriented.
We would prefer to improve properties, increase the diversity, and
make them a little more sensitive to a wider variety of demand than
just one or two items.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: And I noticed -- this is for staff.
EAC said -- EAC voted 3-2 in favor of this?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And then we had a split vote
on CCPC, right?
MR. WEEKS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Any other questions?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Entertain a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes. Motion to transmit and to
restore the language on what's -- staffs recommendations regarding
the restrictions to dry and wet season to the petitioner's original
wording, to change the reference as far as the littoral and all that to
may from shall, and strike shall from it, to -- what other issue was
Page 85
January 19,2010
there on there that was troublesome?
MR. ASHER: There was just some minor housekeeping -- again,
I don't want to speak for David, but just some housekeeping in terms
of text that we did not object to.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. That will take care of my
motion.
MR. ASHER: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Second.
MR. KLATZKOW: There was also the residency issue.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, sir?
MR. KLATZKOW: The residency issue.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Oh, yes, the residency issue to
be taken care of prior to the zoning approval, the memorandum of
understanding, the interlocal agreement.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I think, I think --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do I have a second?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it, but we need to
clarify that last condition. The recommendations were, if you want
equal access and equal treatment for this is to put it in the Growth
Management Plan not to put it in the Growth Management Plan of a
memo of understanding. So, therefore, ifthere is not, the use goes
away. So the question--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I have no problem with that.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So I will second it based
upon Mr. Coletta's motion to add into the Growth Management Plan
that the Collier County residents will receive equal treatment as Dade
County residents.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It still does not negate the
interlocal agreement you've got to do that covers a lot more issues
than that.
MR. ASHER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
Page 86
January 19,2010
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Any further questions?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hearing none, all those in favor,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Those opposed, by like sign?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion carries, 4-0.
MR. ASHER: Thank you, Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Would you please extend our
appreciation to Commissioner Pepe Diaz for his leadership on this
issue?
MR. ASHER: I will, sir. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do we have any other items that
need to be discussed at this time?
MR. WEEKS: No, sir. You're all done.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So we're in recess until five
o'clock.
(A recess was had until from 11 :55 a.m. until 5:00 p.m., with all
commissioners in attendance until noted otherwise.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Ladies and gentlemen, our growth
management hearing is in session.
David, it's all yours.
MR. WEEKS: Thank you. For the record, David Weeks of the
comprehensive planning department for Collier County.
Commissioners, I'd like to walk through the introductory remarks
Page 87
January 19,2010
the same as I did this morning, most particularly for the benefit of the
public that was not here this morning.
First of all, a reminder of why we're here. These are
Comprehensive Plan amendments that are under consideration, not
rezoning or other types of land use petitions.
This is a two-step process. This is specifically the transmittal
hearing by this body. Should you so choose to transmit these two
petitions tonight, they will be sent to the Florida Department of
Community Affairs, DCA, and other state agencies for their review.
And upon their review, they will render what is called an Objections,
Recommendations, and Comments Report, commonly referred to as
an ORC Report, in which DCA will identify any concerns or issues
they see regarding the statutory compliance of these petitions.
Then after that has occurred, we would hold adoption hearings,
back to the Planning Commission, and then to this body for final
action, at which time you can adopt or do not adopted these
amendments.
Should you choose not to transmit one or both of these petitions,
then that would constitute a denial; they are done.
Out in the hallway on the table, outside these chambers, is a
sign-up sheet for any interested party to receive notification from
DCA once they have published their notice of intent to find the
amendments in compliance or not in compliance with state law. That
would occur after the adoption hearing and the subsequent review by
DCA. But we are required to provide that sign-up sheet at both the
transmittal and adoption hearings.
As noted this morning, Commissioners, we would appreciate if
you would, either here or in your chambers, leave your binders that
were provided to you by staff. We will reuse those to provide to the
state agencies for their review.
Something new --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: David, just one question.
Page 88
January 19,2010
MR. WEEKS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Same with this binder. I've got
writing all over it and highlighting and stuff like that. Is that okay?
MR. WEEKS: Certainly. Whether we use the contents or not
would depend on the condition of those, but literally we could use the
binders. And, Commissioners, those are yours, of course. We would
not be surprised to see that you've marked up the pages or even
removed some.
Something new. This round of petitions is House Bill 697
approved in the legis- -- by the Florida legislature in 2008, and it
pertains to greenhouse gas reductions and reduction in vehicle miles
traveled. That is something that will be discussed a little more
specifically with each of the two petitions, but in short, it's an effort to
do just that, reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And one way to do that
is to provide mixed-use development, provide commercial
development close to residential and vice versa to shorten trip lengths,
vehicle trip lengths.
It is a requirement for all Comprehensive Plan amendments to
include a needs assessment to include data and analysis to support the
amendment. This would include empirical data to identify that there
is no unacceptable impact to public infrastructure. It would include
specifically a needs assessment to demonstrate that there is a need for
the petition to be approved.
And the two petitions tonight are both requests for commercial
land uses, so the needs assessment specifically would entail
demonstrating that there is a need for additional commercial
development at or near the subject property's location.
Provided as an attachment to your executive summary -- it's the
third attachment -- is a document titled the Florida Senate Interim
Report 2010-107, October, 2009, and it specifically talks about the
issue of a needs assessment, and it all began with a case in Marion
County, Florida, in which that county government approved a
Page 89
January 19,2010
Comprehensive Plan amendment that was subsequently found in
compliance by DCA but was challenged.
And the administrative law judge issued an opinion that the
petition had not provided that adequate needs assessment -- had not
demonstrated that there was, in fact, a need for that petition and,
ultimately, that amendment was found not in compliance by the
governor and cabinet as well. As a result of that, and some other
approvals around the state, this document was written.
Also provided in your executive summary as an attachment is a
summary of that document. I'd like to walk through that now to try to
narrow it down to try to get more specific and hopefully provide some
enlightenment to the commission.
The interim report identified a primary issue of a needs
assessment in determining whether a Comprehensive Plan amendment
as submitted by the local government provides more land than is
needed to accommodate the anticipated population growth.
The needs analysis explained in that interim report includes a
market factor, planning time horizon, and population projections. The
planning horizon in Collier County is ten years.
The population projections we use are the medium range
projections as provided by the Bureau of Economic and Business
Research out of the University of Florida. They're under contract with
the State of Florida to provide those projections for all counties
throughout the state.
And in this third item is the market factor. Simply put, a market
factor is a numerical figure that represents the ratio of supply to
demand. The supply of commercial development that includes what's
already built, what is zoned, what is designated, which would allow
for the zoning and development of commercial compared to the
demand for that or the need for that, which is based on population
projections over that ten-year horizon.
Specifically, the numerical factor is a matter of taking the square
Page 90
January 19,2010
foot of the commercial that has already been approved and you divide
that into the demand. And I've provided three fictitious examples in
the summary provided as an attachment to your executive summary to
try to explain this.
The first example would be if there is a supply of 1.25 million
square feet of commercial. Again, that's all that's been approved in
whatever form, Comprehensive Plan amendment, rezoning, or actual
development on the ground. And if there was a demand for only one
million square feet, that is the amount of population within that
ten-year horizon multiplied by the demand per capita, and every
person -- we can calculate this and determine each person needs a
certain square footage of commercial to meet their commercial needs,
services, retail goods, and so forth.
And when you do that division in my example, you come up with
a ratio of 1.25 or 125 percent of the demand is provided in the supply.
The supply exceeds the demand.
And the Department of Community Affairs has notified local
governments that a 1.25 ratio is the appropriate ratio. That is, up to
125 percent of the demand should be provided on the supply side. You
should exceed your demand by 25 percent. That's to allow for
variations in the market, for fluctuations in the market for various
circumstances where one somebody's closing and another one's
opening and other types of conditions in the marketplace.
That -- back to that interim report, it refers to that 1.25 market
factor, and it says, you should not exceed the 1.25, but that is one
consideration. An important one, but not the only consideration in
determining that a need has been demonstrated or not demonstrated.
If the market factor exceeds 1.25 or exceeds the 125 percent of
the demand, then other factors can be considered, can and should be
considered. Those other factors include things such as the suitability
of the property for a designation change, locational criteria,
community desires, job creation potential, urban infill, form of
Page 91
January 19,2010
development, or the promotion of development in areas where it is
most efficient to promote growth.
So, again, the market factor of 1.25 is the first consideration, but
if it is exceeded, that doesn't mean there is no need for the amendment.
There are these other factors that can and should be appropriately
considered.
And briefly, how is it that we determine what the demand is?
We use the Collier interactive growth model. It's a planning tool that
has been publicly vetted and approved by this hearing body. It is -- it
is not a market study in and of itself. It is simply a population-driven
model. We identify a particular geographic area, in this particular
case, the identified market areas for the two petitions being discussed
tonight, and that model projects the population in that geographic area.
That model also has a calculation for the commercial demand per
person, per capita, by the three different types of commercial centers;
neighborhood centers, community centers, and regional centers. And
regional's not applicable tonight, so we won't discuss that. But the
neighborhood community commercial centers are applicable to our
discussion tonight. And as we get into each of these particular
petitions on your agenda, staff will go into a little more detail
identifying some specifics in our analysis of the petitions and their
needs assessment.
The final thing I wanted to mention, Commissioners, is about the
Golden Gate Area Master Plan history, since both of these projects lie
within Golden Gate Estates and are, therefore, part of the Golden Gate
Area Master Plan.
When the county's current Growth Management Plan or
Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1989, it included a policy that
called for the preparation of three master plans, one specifically being
for the Golden Gate area, which encompasses all of Golden Gate
Estates, Golden Gate City, and what is known as the rural settlement
area, which is comprised of the Orangetree PUD and the Orange
Page 92
January 19,2010
Blossom Ranch PUD or planned unit development.
That master plan was adopted in 1991, and Commissioner
Coletta was the chairman of that citizen committee that the board at
that time appointed to assist staff in the preparation of that master
plan.
The rules really changed with the adoption of that master plan.
Provisions for conditional uses that, prior to that, would have been
allowed in any location throughout the Estates now suddenly were
subject to very stringent locational requirements.
One of the desires of the community was, they wanted to know,
where are these nonresidential uses going to locate? The people were
concerned about the idea of, I buy a piece of property, I build my
home, and suddenly look what pops up next to me, some
nonresidential use that I was not aware of.
Similarly for commercial, the provisions are rather stringent in
the Golden Gate Master Plan, and they're also very limited in scale.
The neighborhood centers that are provided for in the master plan,
with some exceptions, are limited to about five acres per quadrant at
the respective intersections -- there's only four neighborhood centers --
the use intensity is limited to C 1, C2, and C3 zoning districts. That's
our lower level intensity commercial districts.
The Golden Gate Master Plan does not allow large-scale
commercial development. There's no provision for it. There was not
in 1991, and there still is not today.
The master plan has been reviewed. In 1996, the county adopted
its Evaluation and Appraisal Report, a requirement of every seven
years for local governments to evaluate their entire comprehensive
plans, and subsequently we adopted amendments to the master plan,
but those amendments did not significantly change the rules for
commercial development in the Estates.
From about 2001 to 2003 a board-appointed citizen committee
worked with staff and conducted a restudy of the Golden Gate Master
Page 93
January 19,2010
Plan. And, again, out of that effort, there were some amendments to
the master plan in 2004 and 2005. But, again, they did not
significantly change the provisions for commercial development. Still
limited to the neighborhood centers and one or two other locations that
are accepted as the neighborhoods centers, but all of which, again, are
relatively small in size and limited in scale.
I specifically mention these points because both of the petitions
before you tonight are proposing development of a greater intensity
than presently allowed in the master plan and a far greater magnitude,
square footage and acreage, than the master plan presently allows
tonight, and staff will discuss this in a little -- in a little more detail as
we get to each specific petition.
Commissioners, that's the end of my introductory remarks. And
at this time, unless there are any questions or comments by the board,
we can move to the very first petition on your agenda.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, very well. Thank you very much,
David.
Will all those people who will give testimony in this petition
please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn in.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Mr. Y ovanovich, you may proceed.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Fred?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Fiala
would like to make a statement before we begin.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Only a moment, not on this subject
at all. I just wanted to say that this afternoon I attended a ceremony at
the Marco Island City Council while we were on our recess, and they
were honoring Jim Mudd. And they read a proclamation into the
meeting, and then they presented him with a key to the city, only the
fourth key in their existence have they ever presented, and I just
wanted to say, because I know Jim is watching, congratulations, Jim,
and we all love you. Thank you.
Page 94
January 19,2010
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman, would you like us to read the
petition title into the record? We usually do that.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Yes, please, yes. And Commissioner
Henning, did you want to ask a question now or --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, I don't know. I just don't
want to forget. It's about when you consider population densities and
market conditions.
I guess the question is, you're doing a demographic study. Is that
radius? Is that a radius study when you do those -- the market needs
or commercial?
MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, those can vary. And, in fact, some
of the information that's been provided in your executive summary
packet shows two different scenarios. One is a radius from centric
circles around a subject site. Some professional market studies are
prepared, and there's one of those, again, in your packet that is based
upon drive time, so how much time it would take to drive to the site,
and they're two very different types of studies. Both are
professionally accepted as methodologies.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Did both of these studies, when
they considered the -- if it's a distance or drive time, did they consider
all the other commercial square footage in that time, in that area?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, absolutely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: That is part of the consideration to look both at--
because we're looking at the population, existing and projected, which
is the demand side, but we also have to look at the supply side. You
can't ignore one or the other.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay, great.
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Okay, thank you. Go ahead and read the
introduction.
Item #3C
Page 95
January 19,2010
PETITION: CP-2008-1, REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO
THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN AND GOLDEN
GATE AREA MASTER PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND
MAP SERIES, CREATING THE ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER
SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW A MAXIMUM OF 210,000 SQUARE
FEET OF COMMERCIAL USE OF THE C-4 ZONING DISTRICT,
WITH EXCEPTIONS, AND SOME USES OF THE C-5 ZONING
DISTRICT, WITH A REQUIREMENT TO CONSTRUCT A
GROCERY STORE, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD EXTENDING
FROM WILSON BOULEVARD WEST TO 3RD STREET
NORTHWEST, IN SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE
27 EAST, CONSISTING OF :1:40.62 ACRES - MOTION TO
CONTINUE INDEFINITEL Y AND PLACE THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENT ON THE NOVEMBER, 2010 BALLOT AS A
STRAW MEASURE, TO BE VOTED ON BY THE RESIDENTS
OF GOLDEN GATE ESTATES; PETITIONER WILL BEAR ALL
ADVERTISING COSTS AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH
PUTTING THIS AMENDMENT ON THE BALLOT - APPROVED
MR. WEEKS: Yes. The first item is actually agenda Item 3C.
This is petition CP-2008-1. Petition requesting an amendment to the
Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan
Future Land Use Map and Map Series, to create the Estates shopping
center subdistrict to allow a maximum of 21 0,000 square feet of
commercial uses of the C4 zoning district, with exceptions, and some
uses of the C5 zoning district, with requirement to construct a grocery
store for property located on the north side of Golden Gate Boulevard
extending from Wilson Boulevard west to 3rd Street Northwest in
Section four, Township 49 south, Range 27 east, consisting of
approximately 40.62 acres.
Page 96
January 19,2010
MR. YOV ANOVICH: My turn?
CHAIRMAN COYLE: Again.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good evening. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich on behalf of the petitioner.
David, can you turn on the visualizer? Thank you.
With me today to talk about our petition are Wayne Arnold with
Q. Grady Minor & Associates who will address any planning and
comprehensive plan related issues; Mike Timmerman from Fishkind
& Associates, to talk about briefly our market analysis and our
demand analysis; a gentleman named David Stevens, who is a
commercial Realtor. He's not associated with this project. He's not
the Realtor for the project but is very knowledgeable on the economics
of shopping centers and can talk to you about the current market and
how shopping centers work, and then we'll be done and able to answer
any questions you may have.
I've put on the visualizer one of the documents that's in your -- in
our application, and that is the -- what we call our conceptual master
plan, which is part of this Comprehensive Plan amendment.
And as you can see, our request is for 41 acres, and that's a little
bit misleading on the high side, because within that 41 acres is the
right-of-way for 1st Street, the right-of-way for 3rd Street, and some
right-of-way for both Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard.
So of our 41 acres, approximately five acres of that is existing roads
that we have to count as part of our application.
So when you're looking at what land are we really talking about
as part of this application, we're talking about a 35-acre parcel ofland
that we want to place our shopping on, and that is comprised of two
parcels. The parcel to the east, which is right, is about 11, and the
parcel to the west, to the left, is the remaining 30 acres.
As you can see from our conceptual master plan, the brown area
is the area that really is where the development will occur. The
remaining green area and the blue area is green space and open space
Page 97
January 19,2010
that we will use as buffers and also as part of the water management
system for this area.
So that area is approximately 15 acres in size, and Wayne will
take you through greater detail when we go through the detailed
master plan. So we're really talking about a IS-acre development area
in this area. So I wanted to focus that -- a little bit on that discussion.
As some of you may know, this request was originally part of the
2006 Comprehensive Plan amendment cycle; however, the current
team was not part of the original team and, therefore, we didn't have a
lot to say as to what was originally -- what was originally submitted.
There was some phraseology bringing 5th Avenue out to Golden Gate
Estates, and Wayne and I quickly realized that that's not appropriate
for Golden Gate Estates. Fifth Avenue is not Golden Gate Estates type
of development.
So we worked on revising the application and taking out any
residential uses and focusing on what we understood through the years
of living in Collier County, the real needs and desires of the residents
of Golden Gate, which was a grocery-anchored shopping center, so we
modified that application material.
We went to the neighborhood information meeting during the '06
cycle, and it was very clear from the residents that they wanted more
detail, that the typical Comprehensive Plan amendment, where you
ask 225,000 square feet on 41 acres was not enough information for
the residents.
So what we did is we asked our client, or persuaded our client to
get out of the '06 cycle and go into the '08 cycle so we could provide
much more information for the residents to address a lot of the very
valid concerns that they raised in the neighborhood information
meeting regarding what exactly do we propose to put on this project.
That's why you have in front of you a Comprehensive Plan
amendment that is very detailed regarding the permitted uses, the
prohibited uses, some of the development standards, and a conceptual
Page 98
January 19,2010
master plan that you would typically find in a PUD rezone. We're
including that in the master plan because the residents told us they
wanted those detailed -- those details in the Comprehensive Plan
amendment.
So we -- so we have worked hard to address the concerns in a
detailed manner in the Comprehensive Plan amendment. What we've
also done is apply for the PUD rezone so that people can see at the
adoption hearing exactly what the Comprehensive Plan amendment,
should it get adopted, will result in regarding the development, and
that is to allay a lot of fear and concern of the unknown associated
with this particular petition.
There has been a tremendous amount of public involvement in
this process. Your comp- -- your staff report says that they wish there
would be more, but if you've read the supplemental information, there
have been many, many meetings regarding this petition to get -- to get
further community input.
During the first cycle, we held our required neighborhood
information meeting. During the first cycle we sent out a survey to
people in our market area. The survey went out 5,795 people. We
hired an independent firm to do the mailing so nobody could accuse us
of not mailing out the survey to everybody in the area. So we hired an
independent firm to do the mailing.
The mailing went out to almost -- like I said, it went out to almost
5,800 people. To assure that all votes were counted, the surveys were
returned to an independent accounting firm so that all the votes were
counted whether it was a yes or a no, and an independent accounting
firm tabulated the results of that survey.
There were 1,632 surveys returned, which is a rate of 28 percent.
That's a pretty good return rate for surveys. Of those 1,632 surveys
that were returned, 1,351 of them, which is an 83 percent rate, said
yes; 217 said no. That's a 13 percent rate of return that said no.
Now, as you know when we're doing petitions, we always say it's
Page 99
January 19,2010
hard to get people who are in favor to respond, but it's very easy to get
people who are opposed to say no. When the survey went out, it
already had return postage on it, so it was free to vote no. So if people
in this area didn't want this, it doesn't cost them a dime, and it was a
very simple question, yes or no, they checked the box, no, we don't
like this, we return it, and it would have been very easy to register a no
vote. There were only 13 percent that voted no. Ironically there were
actually 4 percent of returns of survey that didn't vote, so that's why
the numbers don't actually add up exactly because there was a 4
percent return rate that just didn't vote.
The survey was prepared by Dolly Roberts who was on our team.
She came up with the question. The question was very
straightforward. It says, do you support the concept of this center, and
we defined the center. The center was a 225-acre center at the corner
of Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard and it was 40 acres.
So the question was, do you support it? Yes or no. Very
straightforward. I gave you the results.
There were also other questions, if the center goes forward, what
do you want to see in that center, and not surprisingly, the
overwhelming response was, we want a grocery store in this shopping
center. So we naturally included in the Comprehensive Plan
amendment language that the grocery store has to be a real grocery
store, it has to be at least 27,000 square feet, which is the current
smallest prototype for the major grocers in the marketplace. We're
hoping to attract a bigger one, but it will be the -- it will be the -- it
will be a real full-service grocery store, and it has to be first use that
gets a Certificate of Occupancy.
So if we can't deliver the grocery store, we don't have a project.
So we made that commitment to the residents, and we're willing to bet
that we'll be able to deliver a grocery store.
Now, I can't tell you for a fact who that grocery store is going to
be. But when people said to me, you know, Rich, we don't believe
Page 100
January 19, 2010
that Publix is really interested in this site. Well, Publix has sent us a
letter. And I think I brought enough copies for everybody on the
commission. And Publix usually doesn't write letters before you have
your zoning, but they clearly say that they've been monitoring our
zoning and they've been monitoring our Comprehensive Plan
amendment and that they've been interested in this site for years.
So we're confident that we're going to deliver a grocery store. It
may not be Publix. It may be someone else. But we're willing to bet
the entire project on delivering the grocery store, because that's what
the residents want.
After our NIM -- and as I said, we pulled out of the '06 cycle and
went into the '08 cycle -- we engaged a firm called Fathom, and what
Fathom does is Fathom interviews people, and it's an
hour-and-a-half-Iong interview process, where they ask them very
detailed questions about, not only what do you want in the center, but
how do you want the center to feel. You want green space, you want
large buildings, you want small buildings? Tell us, if the center's
going to go in, what do you want it to look and feel like?
And we interviewed 46 people from Golden Gate Estates to come
up with; what do people want this center to feel like. And not
surprisingly, they told us they wanted large buffers, they wanted a lot
of green space, they didn't want your big typical one-building
shopping center, break up the buildings into smaller buildings, make
this fit into the rural community which, as Wayne -- when Wayne
takes you through the detailed PUD master proc- -- PUD master plan,
you will see that we've delivered on all of those, and we delivered in
the master plan that's in your backup.
If you look up at those buffers, we have a 50-foot required buffer
along Golden Gate Boulevard. We have enhanced buffers along 1 st
and 3rd Street, and if you'll see where we -- we really put all of our
vegetation next to the residential neighborhoods to address the
concerns that were raised in the Fathom study.
Page 10 1
January 19,2010
After we collected the Fathom information, we started having
voluntarily neighborhood information meetings. We started closer in
with the 1 st and 3rd residents because they were our most closely
affected neighbors, and we gradually expanded out to where we had
larger community meetings with the entire community. We even did
meetings in Spanish to address people in the area that English was not
their primary language.
So we had four, at least four, of those voluntary neighborhood
information meetings to get the word out as to what we're proposing
and to get feedback back from our residents. Each step of the way, we
incorporated that feedback into what you see today regarding the uses
as well as the draft master plan.
(Commissioner Coyle left the meeting.)
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Starting in February of2009, we
collected almost 2,000 letters of support for the center, and that's after
the second petition was in the hopper. So we've got 2,000 letters of
support after the 2008, the second petition you'll hear tonight was in
the hopper, so people were aware that there were two centers out
there.
You have in your backup -- and I'm sorry it doesn't show up very
well on the visualizer. If you -- I don't know if you can go in close
enough to blow it up.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, blow it up.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: You will see that there is a lot of support,
not only very close to the center, but as you get further out in our
market area, and we only limited ourselves to the market area. We
didn't go out beyond our market area to see if we can get people from
Golden Gate Estates who aren't going to use our center to write letters
of support. We looked and focused our support on those who we
believed would actually use the center.
So you've been provided with the names and addresses of all of
the letters of support that we've received.
Page 102
January 19,2010
The Collier Citizen also conducted a survey between February 2,
2009, to March 6, 2009. There were 2,365 total votes. Of those total,
65 percent said, yes, they want the center, which is 1,537 votes; 35
percent said no, which is 828 votes. There was about a two-to-one
ratio to the Collier Citizen survey.
I -- and I believe that one of the opponent's letters cites this
survey for the basis of some of the no votes. But if you're going to
cite the survey for the basis of some of the no votes, you also have to
cite the survey for the basis for some of the yes votes. So the Collier
Citizen survey was a two-to-one margin in favor.
So as you can see, the word has been out there about this center,
and the public did know what was going on.
We also met with representatives of the 1 st and 3rd Group who
was a group that organized right from the get-go against this project.
They have a website. They attended every neighborhood information
meeting. They took their shots, and they were very vocal in their
opposition. But eventually we got to sit down in a room and talk
about what their concerns were, and how could we address those
concerns.
And I know that -- I don't know if everybody got the letter, but I
know there was a letter sent by the 1 st and 3rd Group to
Commissioner Coletta saying that the 1 st and 3rd Group now supports
this Comprehensive Plan amendment. And the reason for that support
is not because we're the big, bad developer, as some of us would --
some people would portray us to be. It's because we sat down and we
addressed their concerns.
They said, we don't want the following uses, and we said, we
didn't ask for those uses. We want big buffers. We want to make sure
that we're not going to really see this project. You see the master plan.
We've laid this master plan out to address their concerns.
Frankly, I think they have the gun to my head more than I could
ever have to theirs because it's important to have community support
Page 103
January 19,2010
to get anything through the County Commission. So the 1st and 3rd
Group, who was a vocal opponent, has now written a letter of support.
We also met and -- with the owners ofE's. E's is the country store
directly across the street from our center to the east, and they're
located on the north side of Golden Gate Boulevard.
I received today -- let me take a step back. At the Planning
Commission meeting, E's authorized me to speak on their behalf that
they supported the center. They've put that support in writing, and
they wrote it again, wrote a letter to Commissioner Coletta, and I'd
like to provide a copy to all the commissioners. And it's a very short
and simple letter from Burt Eisenbud (phonetic) that supports the
shopping center that we're requesting.
So we have worked closely with our neighbors to address their
concerns and make sure that we're not going to be a bad neighbor.
And we have letters of support from all adjacent property owners that
I'm aware of regarding this project.
Have I made every resident in Golden Gate Estates happy? No.
But we've made a lot of people very happy, and I think the
overwhelming community support is for the center and not opposed to
the center based upon the survey, the letters of support, the Collier
Citizen survey, and the specific letters of support from the adjacent
property owners.
As I previously mentioned, we -- we've gone one step further.
The legislature adopted legislation which would allow us to do our
PUD rezone concurrently with the Comprehensive Plan amendment.
The reason we did that was to allay -- to get more of the detail out
there for the community that could not get into the Comprehensive
Plan. That PUD document has been drafted with our neighbors and is
consistent with our commitments to those neighbors and consistent
with their letter to you.
To quickly summarize the request, the request is for 210,000
square feet on our 35 developable acres, and in that -- the footprint of
Page 104
January 19,2010
the development area. The request is -- it requires that the grocery
store be the first CO to be issued. As I previously said, we're betting
that we're going to get that grocery store or we don't have a project. If
we don't have a project, then nobody's got anything to worry about.
Some people said that they've heard this before. Nobody else has
put it in writing. The other neighborhood center that's caddy corner
that really started this was supposed to -- it was either going to be a
Publix or Albertsons. It never happened, and there was no
requirement that that five-acre neighborhood center have a grocery
store.
The project's phased. We can do 100,000 square feet first, in the
first phase. The remaining square footage can't be done until the
intersection at Wilson/Golden Gate Boulevard is built.
We're providing our share of the right-of-way for the intersection.
Mike will take you -- Mike Timmerman will take you through the
need analysis, but there's no question that there's a need for a grocery
store now, and there'll be even more need in the future. The
foreclosures will get bought up, and there's clearly a need for this
project.
There's been statements that we're somehow going to destroy
Golden Gate Estates by bringing -- God bless you. Don't hold that in
-- that we're going to bring a shopping center into Golden Gate
Estates, we're somehow going to destroy the Estates. Well, the Estates
will -- the Estates will always be a minimum acreage of
two-and-a-quarter acres. We're not changing any of that. The fact
that you bring some urban services into Golden Gate Estates doesn't
make it an urban area. And the argument that if you let this one in,
you've got to let a whole bunch more in is not based on either fact or
the law. So, just, you know, the Pandora's box argument, you know,
is, I don't think, a fair argument to make and, frankly, is not accurate.
The intensity of this center is less than half of -- or about half of
what you would find in the urban area, and the urban area, if I had a
Page 105
January 19,2010
40-acre center -- and you know I've brought many 40-acre centers to
you. I'd be asking for 400,000 square feet. We're not asking for an
urban intensity because we know it would not be appropriate.
By the way, I forgot to point out early on, on the western piece --
I mean the eastern piece -- five acres of this is already labeled
neighborhood center, so already five acres of our request is allowed to
have retail. And your staff says that approximately 30,000 square feet
can go on that. So 30,000 square feet of my retail is already allowed
under the Comprehensive Plan. What we're simply trying to do is
have a real grocery store, and with that, a grocery-anchored shopping
center.
Our -- I don't think we dispute staff's demand numbers. What we
really have a hard time with is staff's supply numbers, because if you
could show me which one of those five-acre neighborhood centers can
really be developed with a grocery-anchored shopping center on it,
okay, but I think your staff acknowledges that it can't.
So the supply side -- there is no supply for a grocery-anchored
shopping center under today's Comprehensive Plan. That's why we're
before you, and that's why we have to go through the process that
we're going through.
And your staff agrees with that. If you look at your staff report,
they will say there are no parcels in Golden Gate Estates appropriately
sized to provide what we're requesting to be -- to provide.
On Page 9 of the Planning Commission report, staff focuses on
two existing goals within the plan, and I think we meet them. Goal
number three states, provide for basic commercial services for
purposes of serving the rural needs of Golden Gate Estates, shortening
vehicle trips, and preserving rural character.
We're clearly shortening trips by putting this project where we're
putting it. These are trips that are already on the road traveling west to
get these services, so we will be shortening the trips. They won't have
to drive to 951 anymore to get those needs met. And our master plan,
Page 106
January 19, 2010
we believe, assures the -- preserves the rural character.
In addition, as David mentioned, we had to address the reduction
in greenhouse gases. We've done that, and shortening trips clearly
does that.
And then the final goal they refer you to is, it says, future
development within Golden Gate Estates will balance the desire by
residents for urban amenities with a preservation of what the --
preservation of the area's rural character. Again, we believe we've
satisfied that through our master plan and our types of uses.
And finally, before I turn it over to Wayne to go through the
master plan, I want to read from you -- from your East of 951 Horizon
Study. We didn't prepare this. This is something that your consultants
prepared.
And what it said -- and what I've done is I've highlighted -- you
know, I've highlighted an applicable portion of this. It said, during the
recent amendment of the Golden Gate Master Plan, four additional
neighborhood centers, which average five acres in size, were created.
Unfortunately, due to the size, location, and the regulatory demands
related to landscaping, parking, open space, setbacks, drainfields,
and/or on-site package plants and environmental preservation
requirements, the neighborhood centers are not anticipated to meet the
commercial demands of the Golden Gate Estates residents.
In order to adequately address commercial needs in the Estates,
commercial activity centers or sub-districts of a minimum 40 acres
will be necessary in numerous locations. Additionally, the increased
commercial centers would provide destinations which would
significantly reduce the trip lengths in the localized area around the
commercial centers.
So your own 951 -- East of 951 Study concluded what our own
analysis concluded, is that there is a need for this type of center in
Golden Gate Estates. There is community support for this.
I will turn it over to Wayne to go over a little bit more of the
Page 107
January 19,2010
compatibility analysis as well as the planning issues. Followed by --
Wayne will be followed by Mike Timmerman, who will talk about the
needs analysis, and finally David Stevens, to talk about shopping
centers.
And with that -- unless you have questions of me, I'll turn it over.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can I ask you one question? Is the
next presentations going to be as long as this?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, great.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Am I under a time constraint?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, it's just that we have two
very contentious items, and I don't plan -- I hope we're not here all
night long.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, no. I think we probably don't have
another 20 minutes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, great.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I just wanted to get into the community
aspect of it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning, did
you have a question, or did you want to wait?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I have a question. If your
existing designation for commercial in the GMP supports 27,000 --
30,000 square foot and you really want to put a grocery store of
27,000 square foot, why don't you just do it on the five acres?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, that's a good question. And first, all
we're hoping to get a bigger grocery store than 27,000 square feet.
But I don't know of a developer out there who is going to build a
stand-alone grocery store that's not within a shopping center. The
only one I know of in town that's tried it was Albertsons, I believe, up
on Livingston Road. There was a stand-alone Albertsons. It had its
little convenience store out front, and it's dark.
In order for a grocery store to really work, it needs to be in a
Page 108
January 19,2010
shopping center, and that's why we're asking for the shopping center.
A stand-alone grocery won't make it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: There wouldn't be -- that
Albertsons store that you're talking about wouldn't be because there
was a Wal-Mart, Super Wal-Mart that moved right across the street?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm fairly certain that it was -- it was a
failed concept. You tell me of another one that you know of that's a
stand-alone grocery store. I don't know of one. And the developers
are telling us that's not what's going to make it.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Doug's Buy Rite.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: What's that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Doug's Buy Rite.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Doug's Buy Rite. I don't know who
Doug's Buy Rite is.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You have to be from Golden
Gate to know.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, do you? Is it 27,000 square feet?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Never mind.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: 2,000 square feet, okay. And that was,
frankly, the 2,000 square footer where people were concerned about
that, that we would put 2,000 square feet in there and say it was a
grocery store, and that's why we came up with the 27,000 square foot.
Any other questions of me before Wayne gets up there? Thanks.
MR. ARNOLD: Good evening. I'm Wayne Arnold with Grady
Minor, and I was going to take you through some components of our
master planning effort. And I know Rich has shown you the
conceptual plan that's in our packet.
I guess to reemphasize the amount of community input we've
had, I wanted to try and walk you through other components that led
to the master plan that we have. We spent a great deal of time trying
to develop buffers and show compatibility with our neighbors that led
ultimately to the master plan that has more detail than the one Rich
Page 109
January 19,2010
was showing you.
One of the benefits of us doing both the zoning and the
Comprehensive Plan amendment at the same time is that we do have
the luxury of showing you more detail than we otherwise would be
able to do. I know that your staff, for instance, is not used to seeing
the level of detail that we currently have in there. To have a long list
of uses that are permitted and a long list of uses that are prohibitive are
not common for your Comprehensive Plan, but it was essential to the
residents of Golden Gate that were talking to us to know exactly what
they were going to get.
So we've provided a lot more detail than you normally see in that
effort, and I think some of the exhibits that I'm going to show you will
demonstrate that we've taken that at almost every level to more detail
than you're used to seeing at this stage.
I'm not going to spend a lot of time talking about these, but this,
for instance, is a buffer treatment that we worked with the neighbors
on 3rd Street to demonstrate to them that we can provide a
well-landscaped buffer showing a cross section across the property so
that they don't see the project. We've oriented the buffers, the lakes,
so that we'd bring the buildings further away from them.
On 1 st Street, for instance, some of the neighbors said, we don't
want to feel like we're driving through the middle of a commercial
shopping center to get to our homes. And we said, you don't have to.
We can make this feel like a nice boulevard, we can do an enhanced
buffer, we can put up hedges, larger trees, we can make your entry
experience into your community a pleasant one. It doesn't have to
look like you're driving into a commercial neighborhood.
We also looked at just various buffers around our community and
looked at what people are doing with native vegetation to make these
look natural. The focus, as Rich said, with this study that was
conducted by a company called Fathom found out that even people
who didn't necessarily support the shopping center felt that to make it
Page 110
January 19,2010
fit in with the community, it needed green spaces, it needed native
vegetation, and it needed to feel soft, a welcoming place for them to
go and utilize. So we showed them some buffer examples. I think
they're pleased with what that can look like.
What that led to initially was this plan, and it doesn't look a
whole lot different than the plan Rich was showing you until you lay
them side by side. And you'll quickly see that we added a large
component of green space. We reoriented the green space that we
have to make it more functional and more compatible for the
neighbors when we sat down and had further discussions.
And that's the plan that Rich showed you which, again, shows
very wide buffers, 50-foot wide buffers on Golden Gate Boulevard, a
large buffer to the north, wider than the 75 feet that your master plan
calls for.
What Rich didn't really tell you is that adjacent to our site to the
north is a single-family home that our client currently owns and did
not include. So we can control that piece of property. We also have
Comcast to the north of this that separates us from our nearest
neighbors. And then on the eastern parcel, the whole northern half of
that is water management and buffer, responding to the fact that we
have neighbors to the north.
But our process didn't really end there. And what has happened
is, we decided to take this to the next level with the planned unit
development zoning process. And what you really start to see now is
when you insert buildings into the mix and why we can tell you
definitively how much acreage can be devoted to each of these
breakouts of acreages that Rich alluded to is that we can break this --
the square footage of the proposed shopping center up into various
components that lead you to have a series of smaller buildings.
We can orient those buildings so that they're the most compatible
for the residents. They're functional to make a successful center. And
we've had community input into this from the residents, we've had
January 19,2010
other professional shopping center developer's look at this. We've
also talked to other grocery store developers about this concept, and so
far everybody believes this is a really workable design.
You received a letter from the I st and 3rd Group, and one of the
-- they attached this plan because we worked with them extensively on
developing this plan, and one of the issues they had, for instance, was
trying not to have the 3rd Street access a main access point for
delivery trucks or the general public using it. Let them use our main
access point on the Boulevard if you're the general public that's on the
Boulevard anyway. Makes all the sense in the world.
They didn't like a straight access from 3rd. We put a dead-end
isle, and we can do that through our PUD master planning effort to
show them that level of detail, and we can make those commitments in
our PUD documents.
Some of the other things that have been discussed with them that
aren't necessarily Comprehensive Plan elements but they're important
to the process are not only the permitted and prohibitive uses, but
talking about hours of operation and operational characteristics of this
project. Because at the end of the day, as Rich said, it needs to fit into
the community. And I think from what we heard from most people,
they want a grocery store, they need it to fit into the community, it
needs to have big buffers, lots of open space, and it needs to be at a
scale that doesn't look like it's something in the urban area. That plan
is not something you'll find in the urban area. You can't find an
example -- I know it was asked of us through the process, well, tell us
what shopping center this looks like. Well, it doesn't look like any
you have in Collier County, because I can't find one that has 50-foot
wide natural buffers, that has 400- foot setbacks from its properties to
the west, and has this 210,000 square feet over what's essentially a
35-acre site when you less out the right-of-ways.
It's a really low ratio of square footage to land that we have, and
it isn't something you find in the urban area.
Page 112
January 19,2010
When you look at the green space that's there between our on-site
water and wastewater facility and the green space that goes with that,
the large preserves, the lakes and things of that nature, you don't find
those in the urban area. I mean, it's important that we fit in. And
we've listened to everybody who will talk to us to develop that plan.
And I know we're willing to continue to listen between the
transmittal and adoption process if more people want to provide input
into this planning exercise, because that's how it's been. It's been very
open and transparent from day one with us, and we've responded to
every critical comment that we've heard.
We also started to look at just the feel of the center. We haven't
developed architectural concepts. We've heard from people they want
it to be old Florida, and that means something a little different. We do
have an architect that has been engaged to start working on that
element for us.
That was an early concept that we developed for the neighbors
and showed in our neighborhood informational meetings to kind of get
the idea that this is going to be low scale. As Rich said, it's one story.
We know we can bring the old Florida elements into this, whether
they're a combination of landscaping, roof materials, colors, whatever.
We're very open to that, and I think that we acknowledged on the
record at the planning Commission that that's something we're happy
to do.
That's sort of the evolution of the plan that we have, and I can go
into a lot more detail if you have questions about it. Like I said, I
know that our neighbors are pleased with the effort. And I think that
you'd be hard pressed to find another example that has the amount of
green space and open space for a shopping center.
A couple of the other things that we've talked about -- and I just
wanted to touch on them because Rich mentioned it near the end of
the presentation -- and that is somehow that bringing a shopping
center into Golden Gate Estates is going to change the character of
Page 113
January 19,2010
Golden Gate, that it's -- it's going to change it from some sort of rural
community into something else, but I look at it that when you have a
population concentration that you have -- I mean, we have over 5,000
households in our little trade area that we looked at, and that's just in
our trade area. That doesn't even count the numbers of people who are
using Golden Gate Boulevard or Wilson as the commuter road and
pass through that busy intersection. It's at the intersection of what's
going to be two four-lane major roads serving as arteries to Golden
Gate Estates.
You've responded to requests from the people who have moved
out there into the semi-rural environment. You have other services.
You have fire stations, you have schools, you have libraries, parks. So
I mean, it's not as if the natural thing isn't to provide other services that
people need. You know, people need grocery stores. They don't need
to drive nine miles to get them if you have a population that can
support that type of land use in this area.
You have -- when you look at characteristics of what people look
for when they develop commercial properties, they look at rooftops
and population. They look at amounts of money that people have to
spend on goods and services, and in this case we're focusing on the
essential services that people need. These aren't highly disposal
income dollars that go toward your food and other, sort of, daily
purchases.
You also have to look at traffic patterns, and we have those. We
already have a master plan that established commercial at all four
quadrants of this intersection, albeit, a lesser scale than we're asking
today. It already is commercial.
What you heard is that commercial just doesn't work on five
acres. You can't put a grocery-anchored shopping center on five
acres. But what you can do, when you have about 15 good,
developable acres, you can make a real viable shopping center work.
And like Rich said, we put a minimum of27,000 square feet in
Page 114
January 19,2010
there, because that's really about the size of the grocery store that was
developed recently at Ave Maria. It's one of the smallest prototypical
stores I can find in our inventory of shopping centers and grocery
stores that have been built. So that's why we used the minimum. That
was meant to say that it is a minimum because that's what a real
grocery store can be, and that's sort of the size you need to deliver the
full-service model that people have said they want.
As Rich said, they don't want a small couple of bays of tenant
space to be the grocery store. It needs to be something that can fulfill
the demands that's out there so that you don't drive the nine miles back
to town.
One of the things that has been more important in the state statute
referenced earlier by David and Rich are vehicle miles traveled, trying
to reduce those, put commercial in closer proximity to where people
live.
So in doing that, we had another consultant look at some of these
numbers, and the annual reduction in vehicle miles traveled based on
the households in our study area was over four million miles reduction
because of reduced trips that you don't have to make somewhere else,
and that was based on an assumption of maybe making one trip here
per week. It's a huge number.
You know, that trans- -- you can look at those numbers in a
different way, but you can look at, you know, how many gallons of
gas you save. A couple hundred thousand gallons of gas saved in a
year. It adds up to a significant number. And I think those are all
factors that the Department of Community Affairs says we need to
start looking at as a community, and we have.
I think one of the things your East of951 Study clearly
recognized is, you're going to have to deal with this issue. You need
more services east of 951. You need services to satisfy the population.
Golden Gate Estates is semi rural, but you have this large population
concentration. I mean, it was considered sprawl, and the planning
Page 115
January 19, 2010
efforts that have been done have been good, but I think your own
studies recognized that they haven't done enough with regard to
delivering commercial opportunities for people in this part of the
community.
And I think we heard early on from your transportation staff that
these types of things can really have significant impacts to the benefit
of your transportation network when they're well located, and I think
we've delivered on that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are you about ready to wrap it up?
MR. ARNOLD: I can wrap it up, yes, sir.
And I just wanted to end with saying that what we've tried to do
is bring all the successful elements together into this as one -- one
shopping center with one application to deal with all the aspects from
compatibility to need, and I think we've delivered on all of that.
And I'll be happy to answer any questions.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Coletta, did you
have a question now, or did you --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yes, I do, if! could ask it now
because we just got through discussing the Fifth/Third group (sic).
MR. ARNOLD: 1st and 3rd.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And their involvement's, of
course -- their support is -- if this is ever going to go forward, their
support is absolutely critical, no doubt about it, because this
commission does not approve projects if we have the immediate
neighbors in opposition to it, uniform opposition.
You went one heck of a long ways to bring them around, but I
understand there was a compact that was made or an understanding of
some type that's -- that needs to be entered into the record at some
point in time?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I can answer that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, whatever one of you want
to address it.
Page 116
January 19,2010
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Commissioner, the letter that was handed
to you by the 1 st and 3rd Group is the agreement we have reached,
and we are bou- -- we are willing to be bound by the terms of that
agreement as we go through the comprehensive planning and the PUD
amendment process.
We've put it in writing with that group, and we have already
submitted documents consistent with that agreement.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And there will be -- if -- it
would be tied into what we're doing today if we go forward with this
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- in such a way that it would
become binding upon --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It is binding upon us, and everything that
we do needs to be measured against that agreement.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Yovanovich, you have to
understand, one of the reasons why some of the people here have
reservations about so-called Publix or a supermarket going in is
because of the -- what we went through back --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- 10-plus years ago with the
Golden Gate Civic Association. At that time I believe I was the
president. We had beautiful presentations about the shopping center
that was going to go across from what was G's at the time. And we
even had a letter from Publix attesting to the fact that they had strong
interest. And basically the letter was written in such a way that it left
nothing to guess. So we strongly supported it, the civic association at
that time and, of course, Publix didn't go in and the whole thing took a
different dimension.
So the insurances that are needed to make sure that this same
mistake isn't repeated twice are going to be very, very strong.
Is this from, what I understand -- and I'll have to ask the county
Page 117
January 19,2010
attorney. Is this worded strong enough in such a way that there isn't
some way that some entity down the road would -- be it the present
owner or new owner, could renege on it because of some sort of clause
that's in the contract or something?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. Actually the requirement that we
deliver a grocery store is in the Comprehensive Plan language itself.
It's not in a side agreement with the residents. It's in the
Comprehensive Amendment Plan language which is, as you know, the
Bible as it applies to this particular piece of property.
So I have no out in that language. It says I must deliver the
grocery store as my first CO in the Comprehensive Plan language.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Klatzkow, could you
comment on that?
MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. I was speaking with Mr.
Casalanguida earlier today on this issue, and there is some -- there's
some issues within this agreement that staff's going to want to get with
the petitioner and the community on to tighten it up.
So by -- this is the transmittal phase, so on the transmittal phase, I
think it's fair to look at this as a strong working document. By the
time -- should the board send this out for transmittal, by the time this
comes back for the adoption phase, staff will have had the ability to
work with the community and the petitioner to tighten this up. And
this will become part and parcel of any adoption.
So to answer your question, yes, this will be as concrete as you
can make it by that time.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, and just one other thing,
too. The reason why we're meeting here at five o'clock tonight is very
simple. I requested this time. My commission very graciously agreed
to do it. Evening meetings aren't the normal course of events, but I
knew there was many, many people, residents of Golden Gate Estates,
that wanted to weigh in on this, and so that's why we're here at five
o'clock tonight, and I appreciate every one of you for being here.
Page 118
January 19,2010
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm going to --
(Applause.)
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm going to skip over a speaker and go
right to David Stevens to talk about shopping centers.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I've got -- another commissioner
has a question.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Oh, I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Just a planning question.
Actually, David? David Weeks, can you--
THE AUDIENCE: Turn the microphones up.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: -- tell me what other commercial
has been approved for this area, for this Golden Gate Boulevard area?
And was there a grocery store approved for the corner of Golden Gate
Boulevard and 951 ?
MR. WEEKS: Starting backwards. There's been no commercial
project approved. There is no commercial zoning or designation on
the master plan for the Collier Boulevard/Golden Gate Boulevard
intersection. Does not exist.
And the first part of your question, you're asking about other
commercial locations?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: (Nods head.)
MR. WEEKS: The other three quadrants of the subject site
intersection, Golden Gate and Wilson Boulevard, further to the east at
the intersection -- all four quadrants of the intersection of Everglades
and Golden Gate Boulevards -- I'll place on the visualizer the Golden
Gate Area Master Plan that shows the commercial locations.
This shows the subject intersection, and I guess the bluish color
is the subject property, but you can see all the three quadrants all in
the red square. And then to the east here, that I was just speaking of,
Everglades and Golden Gate Boulevards, is a neighborhood center.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: So all four -- all four corners of that
neighborhood center have been approved?
Page 119
January 19,2010
MR. WEEKS: They are designated on the master plan for
commercial. I believe only one has been rezoned to date.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And David, those are all five acres in
size, correct?
MR. WEEKS: That's correct. These neighborhood centers,
quadrants are five acres in size. Up here to Everglades Boulevard and
Immokalee Road, just two quadrants, and one of them, I believe, is
less than five acres, if I'm not mistaken.
And then by far the largest neighborhood center is over here at
Pine Ridge and Collier Boulevard, and you're probably familiar with
the Brooks Village project in the southwest quadrant there.
The only other commercial that comes to mind in the Estates
would be the Randall Boulevard center which is, I believe, at or less
than 10 acres presently, and then within the rural settlement area, you
have the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD, which has -- I believe it's in
the neighborhood of 40 acres, I think, of commercial in that PUD, and
in the Orangetree PUD presently has about 22 acres zoned
commercial.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you very much.
MR. WEEKS: I think that's all of it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: David, while you're on that subject,
on the or -- orange ranches, what is the square footage of commercial
that's already been approved for that site?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: It's 200,000, Commissioner, for Orange
Blossom Ranch; it's 200,000.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: So Orange Blossom Ranch you've
got 200,000 already approved. What do you have for Orangetree?
MR. WEEKS: That one is an acreage figure. It's 22 acres.
There's, I believe it's 60,000 square feet, plus a hotel.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: And if! may, there's presently -- I believe it's
Page 120
January 19,2010
presently pending an amendment to that PUD. If it's not, then it's
anticipated to greatly enlarge the amount of approved commercial
square feet in the Orangetree PUD.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And how much -- the other issue
that we're going -- hopefully we can address tonight -- what's the --
how many square foot is that commercial going to be?
MR. WEEKS: That's a -- it's a little over 400,000 square feet.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's 400,000 square feet?
MR. WEEKS: A little over.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And how far is Golden Gate
Boulevard to Immokalee Road; how far is that away?
MR. WEEKS: Approximately three miles.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Three miles, okay. And do you
know offhand if the Golden Gate road from Wilson to 951 is
politically constrained to four lanes?
MR. WEEKS: Well, I better defer to Nick.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I know at one time there was quite
an argument over that because they wanted to widen it, and --
MR. WEEKS: I was thinking five lanes but, again, I'll let Nick
speak.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: This is just some of the things that I
need in my head to process.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. Good evening, Commissioners.
For the record, Nick Casalanguida. It is constrained to four lanes,
Golden Gate Boulevard.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. And do you know offhand
when we expect to widen from Wilson to DeSoto?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: No, sir, Commissioner. It's not in our
five-year work program right now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, thank you.
If there's no other presenters, we'll --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no, no. I've got one more. I just
Page 121
January 19,2010
wasn't sure if you were done with your questions. I have one more.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. STEVENS: Good evening. I'm David Stevens with the
firm of Investment Properties Corporation.
I just learned of this project recently, and actually just a couple of
weeks ago Rich asked me to just look into the application that he was
making, and maybe it's my mild lack of knowledge ofthe property can
give me some objectivity to it.
Rich just asked me to address kind of what the status of the
shopping center development business is at this time, and I would
probably call it the chickens and eggs of the business right now. And
I'll make it quite brief.
Not alarmingly, the commercial real estate development business
has been -- enjoyed a little setback over the last few years, like every
other business. And I think the thing that is probably the only thing
that's kind of keeping a heartbeat right now is the grocery-anchored
shopping centers.
The idea of an unanchored center, what we would typically
called a neighborhood center, 20-, 30-, 40,000 square feet
non-anchored, is not only seeing no interest from the development
community, the leasing community, the financing community, with
very few exceptions, that's just a -- that's a product that's struggling
right now and, in fact, facing many foreclosures, and that's kind of
where that business has led right now.
In the anchored-center business, it seems that the only active
anchor in the business is, in fact, the grocery anchor, or the grocery
operator. It probably speaks to the fact that we all still buy groceries,
and other -- the other -- the other uses are in a -- not a moratorium, but
you'll find most of the larger big boxes, junior boxes we also call some
of them, are really not looking for any new development for the next
few years; 2012 seems to be a popular answer when we call some of
these boxes.
Page 122
January 19,2010
And when I am asked to speak sometimes at the
sort-of-what's-going-on-in-Naples, I tend to find that there's ten or 15
of those stories going on. Well, Home Depot's looking at this, and
there's a new Bed, Bath, and Beyond looking here, and so forth. And
at this time, it's pretty much a goose egg of activity.
And within the grocery community, it's also a very quiet -- quiet
bit of activity. That's why I found it very fascinating when I heard
about this contingency. And I guess the chicken-and-egg dynamic I
would speak to is, if you're able to get a company like Publix to, on
their own, determine that there is sufficient residential demand,
neighborhood demand, competitive distances from other opportunities
and they determine that this site is -- would be supportive of their
operation, I think that you'll find that it's going to be a great success.
Publix has an outstanding track record in this market.
And to speak briefly to a question that you had, Commissioner
Henning, a 27,000-square-foot store in some markets, particularly
some of the urban markets where they will do parking garages and the
like, will fit on a site that small. But as Rich pointed out, the
development community is looking for a little bit more critical mass. I
would be surprised if Publix, if they were the -- sort of the winning
grocer or the grocer that came to this site, would -- I would expect
them to look more like a, maybe a 35- or 40,000-square-foot Publix.
Perhaps slightly larger, but not a 27-. And in order to go out and
handle the delivery and parking requirements, you're typically going
to need a site that's a fair bit larger.
I liken this center or the development of this center, although it's
not designed necessarily the same, but I think it's sort of the same
dynamic as the Kings Lake Shopping Center. I find that to be my best
example, at least in my business, of a neighborhood center. That's a --
39,000-square-foot Publix, has been there a number of years. It is the
highest grossing Publix per square foot in the market; not in gross
dollars, but per square foot, enjoying over $600 a square foot in
Page 123
January 19,2010
volume. And I really think it is the ultimate epitome of a
neighborhood center. It's very well supported, it's well buffered, I
think, and offers great access to the neighbors, et cetera.
I mostly wanted to be able to answer questions, but I wanted to
just comment that if a grocer determines that this site is worthy of
their presence here, I think that they will do their own analysis. And
for the developer to put that as a contingency, I think, is quite bold. I
don't think that you're going to find any other boxes at this time that
are going to step up.
I would see this, if someone were to engage me to consult on it,
as a fairly modest first phase, a grocer; maybe 10,000, 12,000 square
feet of small services. The development and financing communities
are not supporting projects larger than that.
I think you also are going to have a very limited list of grocers
that will look. So if a grocer shows up, I think that sort of casts a clear
development picture for the site.
But I also wanted to answer any questions you might have about
the shopping center business, fascinating as it is.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Any questions from the
commission? Ifnot, we'll open this up for public hearing now.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'll reserve my questions until after
the public.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, okay. Let me put your light
on. Put your light on.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay.
MS. FILSON: Okay. You ready for the speakers?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, we're ready for speakers.
What we'll do is -- how many speakers do we have?
MS. FILSON: Twenty-five.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. At this time we won't be
taking any more speaker slips. What we'll do is we'll start the public
hearing process. You have three minutes. I ask if somebody's
Page 124
January 19,2010
covered those same details, to speed up the process, if you have
nothing else to add, if you would just waive as you're called. And
we'll start the hearings, and at 6:30 we'll take a break for our
stenographer.
MR. WEEKS: Mr. Chairman?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MR. WEEKS: Before we start public speakers, would you like
to have staff presentation?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Why don't we do that, yes.
I'm sorry.
MR. WEEKS: Thank you.
MS. MOSCA: Good evening.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Who's got a cell phone ringing? If
you'd be so kind as to mute that, please. Thank you.
Are you ready?
MS. MOSCA: Yes, thank you. Good evening, Commissioners.
For the record, my name is Michelle Mosca with the comprehensive
planning staff.
Commissioners, staff evaluated the proposed amendment to
determine first if there's a need for additional commercial acreage
within the applicant's defined market area as well as within Golden
Gate Estates two miles east of Collier Boulevard consistent with the
needs analysis criteria outlined by the Department of Community
Affairs.
Specifically, staff evaluated the market factor ratio of 1.25 to
determine the area's over- or under-allocation of commercial square
feet, and evaluated other policy factors such as the community's
desires and job creation potential.
Additionally, staff reviewed the submittal to determine if the
proposed project furthers the goals, objectives, and policies of the
Golden Gate Area Master Plan.
Based on the applicant's submittal and staff's analysis, including
Page 125
January 19,2010
an assessment of the population and commercial figures derived from
the Collier interactive growth model, or CIGM, staff concluded that
the proposed commercial development of up to 210,000 square feet
will exceed the market factor ratio of 1.25 for community commercial
in the market area for years 2010 and 2015 but will go below that
same figure in 2020 at the end of the county's 10-year planning
horizon.
These same results occur when evaluating the inclusion of the
project's square feet to the commercial supply and demand for Golden
Gate Estates two miles east of Collier Boulevard, including the
settlement area; however, when evaluating the project and the
potential square feet proposed by petition CP-2008-2, the Randall
Boulevard commercial sub-district expansion of approximately
370,950 square feet, the market factor ratio significantly exceeds the
1.25 ratio specified by the state through the county's adopted planning
horizon year 2020.
Additionally, the proposed commercial evaluation and the
resulting market factor ratios do not account for already existing
commercial provisions allowed by the Future Land Use Element, such
as provisions for future commercial development within the rural
fringe mixed-use district and within the Rural Land Stewardship Area,
specifically the Big Cypress DRI, which will potentially provide a
portion of the eastern Golden Gate Estates with various types of
commercial opportunities.
This analysis also does not include an additional 272,000 square
feet of retail and office development authorized by the DCA in a
binding letter for the Orangetree PUD. All these areas referenced
would provide the Estates residents with future commercial
opportunities and employment.
Staff's evaluation of the petition also included the review of the
goals, objectives, and policies of the master plan. Staff concluded that
the request may not be deemed consistent with certain goals,
Page 126
January 19,2010
particularly goals three and five, which require the balance of
providing basic commercial needs, shortening the trip -- vehicle trips,
and preservation of the Estates' rural character with the overall vision
of the master plan.
Staff has determined that the proposed development intensity and
scale is not consistent with the existing neighborhood commercial
nodes as envisioned by the area residents for the master plan. And the
increased noise, traffic, lighting, et cetera, expected to get at the site
and surrounding area will likely alter the rural character of the area.
Finally, staff believes that a change of this magnitude to the plan
should be looked at comprehensively with community-wide
involvement as was done with past reviews of the Golden Gate area.
Commissioners, this completes my presentation; however, I
would like to put on the record that staff recently received a letter of
objection from an area resident, Susan Mason; received a cover letter
and petitions with approximately 200 signatures from Patricia
Humphries; and finally, yesterday, received an email from the
president of the Waterways of Naples Homeowners Association--
excuse me -- John Sullivan, opposing the petition as well.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Who was first? Commissioner
Henning?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Commissioner Henning was
first.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can you put on the last graph,
please?
MS. MOSCA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 2020 -- 2020 graph. Now, that's
-- what's your demographical area that you're looking at when you do
that? You said a two-mile?
MS. MOSCA: Right. David, if you could also -- could you put
on that map of Golden Gate. Well, first put on the map of Golden --
Page 127
January 19,2010
that one, of Golden Gate, and the boundary map.
The Golden Gate Estates, that would be two miles east of Collier
Boulevard, and actually I have a better graphic.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Two miles east, wouldn't that be
at Wilson?
MS. MOSCA: Two miles east of Golden Gate, no, no. Two
miles -- I'm sorry, two miles east of Collier Boulevard along Golden
Gate.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. How far out does that put
you?
THE AUDIENCE: 17th.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: 17th, right by -- yeah, not even
-- way before Wilson.
MS. MOSCA: Right. And the reason why we chose two miles
east of Collier Boulevard is because the likelihood of those individuals
backtracking using Wilson is probably unlikely.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Maybe I misunderstood
the graph is -- how far out of Golden Gate Boulevard did you do your
MS. MOSCA: Well, it would include all areas of Golden Gate
Estates, two miles east of Collier Boulevard, including the settlement
area, Orangetree, as well as Orange Blossom.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I see. And you included -- and
you included all of the proposed commercial and the ones that are
designated for rezone?
MS. MOSCA: Well, what we did is we categorized -- we won't
know exactly what this community -- what this center will develop as.
It is likely that it will develop as a community shopping center with a
grocery-anchored tenant as well as some junior retailers, which you
would consider a community center.
What staff analyzed was only the 200,000 square feet of
community commercial that's within Orange Blossom Ranch in order
Page 128
January 19,2010
to determine the community/commercial ratio for supply to demand.
And then -- oh, go ahead.
MR. WEEKS: I'm sorry. I just wanted to stress that point.
When Commissioner Fiala, in response to her question earlier, I
walked through the various commercial designations, those
neighborhood centers, and also made reference to the Orangetree PUD
commercial and the Orange Blossom Ranch commercial.
What Michelle is saying is staff did not include any of that other
commercial. The only commercial considered in this analysis was that
200,000 square feet approved in the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD.
The rest of that commercial out there is too small to constitute
community-scale commercial. It will be your neighborhood scale.
MS. MOSCA: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. So we're dealing with
two different things, neighborhood versus bigger (sic)?
MS. MOSCA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is it realistic that in the
settlement area these people would drive to Golden Gate Boulevard to
shop? Would you?
MS. MOSCA: It probably is unlikely. What will probably occur
is that those individuals driving along Golden Gate Park- -- Golden
Gate Boulevard, rather, going home will continue to use 951 if they're
coming from the coastal area.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Or Immokalee in the settlement
area, they probably use Immokalee Road and maybe the Publix up at
Pebblebrooke.
MS. MOSCA: That's correct, at Collier Boulevard and
Immokalee?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Right.
MS. MOSCA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I have a question. I was --
Page 129
January 19,2010
I'd be surprised if being a grocer, such as any grocer whether it's
Albertsons, Winn Dixie or whatever, why wouldn't they look at a
place where there's schools and off ofImmokalee Road and Oil Well?
We've got three schools there, I believe.
And it'd seem to me if they had a grocer in that area, because of
the traffic of parents taking their kids back and forth to school, that
that would be a drawing card.
MS. MOSCA: There's the ability for that developer to develop a
grocery store at that location. There is approximately 44 acres with
200,000 square feet zoned at that location. I don't know if that's the
ideal place for a shopping center. I don't know.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm just -- okay.
Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, thank you.
Okay. I'm still trying to get a grip on what you're saying. So
basically what you're saying, the five-acre activity centers really aren't
figuring into this equation? They aren't, right?
MS. MOSCA: They're not. Not in this instance when you --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And that's only justly so
because they can't possibly do what has been proposed here or down
to Orange Blossom Ranch and some of the other places that we've
seen. The whole thing -- I'm sorry. Commissioner Halas?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry. I had told him I'll wait
until after the speakers but I just said, yes, I will. Excuse me, I'm
sorry .
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Am I getting in front of you,
Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: No, no, no, no, no.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: No, no, no, no, no.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So what you're saying is,
Orange Blossom Ranch, which is fairly far removed from this center
there at Wilson that -- and Golden Gate, that that would be able to take
Page 130
January 19,2010
care of the slack for this whole area, correct?
MS. MOSCA: No. I don't believe that's what I'm saying. Right
now predominantly the Estates is a commuter community, so what
happens is those individuals are shopping along Collier Boulevard or
Immokalee Road. So what I'm saying is, based on Golden Gate
Estates as a whole, your market factors are indicated within the years
2010 and 2020. Are you referring to both projects or just the single
project?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you're looking at
everything in its total --
MS. MOSCA: Uh-huh.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- going across the board. My
concern is the actual locations for the area itself, and how far people
have to travel. I mean, we were -- we felt blessed as anything when
they built a Publix shopping center down at Pine Ridge and 951. Til'
that point in time, we were going all the way down to the one down
Pine Ridge near 75. It was great to have one a little bit closer.
Would we -- if we didn't have that one, would we travel the
distance? Sure, we would, but it made a big difference.
So you're saying that this probably wouldn't be economically
viable because of these other --
MS. MOSCA: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay.
MS. MOSCA: No.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It has nothing to do economic
viability. It has to do with --
MS. MOSCA: With the total supply versus the demand.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And the supply is
determined by what people need or what we think they need?
MS. MOSCA: The supply is actually what is zoned, what can
occur in terms of development within the Estates and surrounding
areas, and the demand is what people need in terms of the square feet.
Page 131
January 19,2010
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. It's a little difficult to
follow this map with all the lines on it. Would you take the time to
explain that one more time, red lines versus blue lines versus the half
circles that come off from the proposed someday-possible Big
Cypress?
MS. MOSCA: This is actually probably a better graphic. The
blue and green lines, those are the primary and secondary boundaries
of the Randall Boulevard commercial expansion project. The red line
is the market area for the proposed project at hand for the Estates
shopping center district, and then you'll see Big Cypress to the east.
And what we did is just simply draw out those radial distances.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. I see what you're saying.
I don't quite agree with it, but I do see what you're saying.
MS. MOSCA: Okay.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, the point here -- maybe it's
obvious, but just in case it's not. The point of this graphic is to show
the market areas for the two petitions before you tonight as well as the
proposed and pending Big Cypress, but most particularly focusing on
the two proposed so that you can see the overlap when they're --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is -- Big Cypress has already
been approved then and --
MR. WEEKS: No, sir, it's pending.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So that's pending, and
this is before us now, and -- okay.
MR. WEEKS: Correct.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So if everything was approved
at one time, there might be possibilities of a conflict?
Now, also, too, your numbers that you came up with -- and if you
would put them back up again, too, please, showing 2010, which is
today's date. No, I think it's the other one, or is it up rather towards the
top? Okay, I see now.
Okay, 2010, you're showing an association ratio of 1.8 for the
Page 132
January 19,2010
year 2010. That's now.
MS. MOSCA: And that would be based on neighborhood
commercial. So the sizing is very different. When -- the sizing and
the types of uses that you would find in a neighborhood center are
very different from the -- well, not very different, but are different
than the community center uses. A community center is larger in
scale and a neighborhood center is smaller.
I have some standard Urban Land Institute information if that
might help. A neighborhood center typically draws from a radius of
1.5 miles. A community center draws from a radius of approximately
three to five miles. A neighborhood center typically is 50,000 square
feet of gross leasable area, ranges from 30,000 to 100,000 square feet.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Fiala, you had a
question.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And then what we'll do is, after
Commissioner Fiala gets her questions answered, we'll take a short
break of ten minutes for our stenographer.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. And I'll just keep it to -- I
have a dozen questions but, I'll mostly wait til' everybody speaks. But
I just wanted to say a few little things.
Rich was talking, or rather Dwight -- Wayne was talking about a
real viable shopping center, but there are real viable shopping centers
all around the area. It doesn't -- I don't know that one has to be right
here in the middle of a rural community, especially when the people
have wanted to keep that rural community rural.
I can see peripheral on Immokalee, 951, Randall Boulevard. I
can see those, but I think that -- do you know that this area, in my
heart, is so unique to most anything we have in the whole United
States of America? Where can you go in Collier County and be in a
rural setting?
Page 133
January 19,2010
And I don't think we should get in there and destroy that, and I
think by going right down the center of it with something like this is
just wrong.
(Applause and boos.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hold on.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: That's all right, that's, that's all right.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: You'll have your chance, okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Now, let me say, one of the things
that we haven't talked about, along with -- everybody talks about the
grocery store. We haven't talked about restaurants or music,
amplification, delivery times to the shopping centers.
Now, we all know that this shopping center, the big trucks come
in, beep, beep, beep, beep, beep at 4:30 in the morning. They call that
the morning. They don't call that the night. I call that the night, by
the way. And they start delivering then. That's going to be disrupting
things.
The lights that are on in the shopping centers -- they have to keep
lights for security all during the night. Those are things that bother
me.
I'm just throwing a few of these things on the table. Somebody
else had told me -- I've been talking to a few people -- they were
worried about a big box coming in. They said they would just hate to
see a big box. It doesn't say anything -- it does say no homeless
shelters or soup kitchens, but it doesn't say no big boxes.
And let's see. There were a few other notes I had here. Well, I'm
going to leave it at that for now. I'll come back to the other things,
okay.
MS. MOSCA: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay, thank you, and after the
speakers.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All right. We'll take a ten-minute
break and then we'll start the public speakers. And if you could be
Page 134
January 19,2010
back by 6:40, I'd appreciate it.
(A brief recess was had.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Please take your seats so we
can get started here with the public speakers. Please take your seats.
Thank you very much.
Sue, if you'd like to call the first -- oh, Commissioner Coletta has
a couple of questions. We'll make it short so we can move on here.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'll make it very short. I
appreciate it.
Mr. Casalanguida? Nick Casalanguida, are you here? Is
somewhere in the audience that we have Nick? There he is. Okay.
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Yes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I appreciate you coming up.
Just one thing. There's a lot of discussion going back and forth. And
before we get to the speakers, I think this is something that we need to
get on the record.
Assuming that Collier County Commission makes a policy
decision to allow a grocery-anchored center in Golden Gate Estates,
does this location make good land planning sense and transportation
planning sense?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: For transportation purposes, it does,
sir. You have two commuter roads east and west that come out of the
bedroom community Estates, Immokalee Road and Golden Gate
Boulevard.
One of the issues that we had come up with when we did our
impact fee study back in 2008 was the trip length and vehicle miles
traveled study that -- we found out that the Estates residents travel
almost twice as far as urban residents do. So they're traveling twice as
far. So, you know, centers like this reduce that.
And they provided a vehicle miles traveled study, because that's
part of House Bill 697. And what we've determined is, your
interactive growth model that you use right now that comprehensive
Page 135
January 19,2010
planning staff uses does not take into consideration traffic patterns or
roadways.
So the fact that you have two commuter roads, this is a good
location to put a center like this for transportation purposes.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Now, would this center be an
attractor where it would draw traffic from all over, or would this be
mainly traffic that's already there? Would you explain how that
works?
MR. CASALANGUIDA: Sure. You get a certain amount of
pass-by that happens and directional traffic that attends centers like
this. When you do a traffic study, you look within an area for similar
sites and how far they typically travel to use those sites. If you use
951, for example, usually within two or three miles you have your
shopping centers up and down 951.
Now, as you travel east on Golden Gate Boulevard, you have
nothing but these neighborhood centers that don't really serve as a
locational point. So the fact that it's located in the heart of the Estates
would attract mainly from the Estates.
Now, those three-mile circles that you see, they don't -- they
don't go as the car drives, as they say. So you are going to get a draw.
And when looking at this, you talked earlier about this being a --
having another center on Randall Road. From a transportation
perspective when you model it, they really serve two different
demographics. Golden Gate Boulevard and south and along the
boulevard, Immokalee Road and south and north of Immokalee Road,
two different areas. So that attraction that happens back and forth is
more localized.
So you're going to get more traffic at Golden Gate and Wilson.
That's one of the reasons why we requested a stipulation, only 100,000
square feet be allowed until that intersection is improved, but you are
going to get a general reduction across the board.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, Nick.
Page 136
January 19,2010
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Sue, would you call the first
speaker?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. We have 26 speakers. And I'll call two
names, and I can ask both of you to please come up and stand at each
podium.
The first speaker is Judy Montgomery. She'll be followed by
Leonard Montgomery.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And as I said earlier, if it's -- if
somebody's covered those particular subjects of interest, if you'd just
waive your time so we can move forward.
MS. FILSON: Judy.
MR. MONTGOMERY: She's coming.
You stand there.
MS. MONTGOMERY: That's what happens when you're
number one.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Usually I don't get a chance to tell her
what to do, but today okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: My wife would have made me
move.
MR. MONTGOMERY: Well, it didn't work that way this time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Please give your name.
MR. MONTGOMERY: My name is Leonard Montgomery. I
live on 570 3rd Street Southwest, pretty close to the shopping center.
I believe it should be there. I see no reason it shouldn't.
Right now I'm driving six miles to go to the store; 12 miles round
trip to get a cup of coffee or anything else. I don't even have a -- G's
(sic) doesn't serve my purpose.
For some reason I want to go to a big store. I want to go to a
shopping center. There's no movies to rent. There's just nothing in
our area that attracts me, all right.
I looked out there, I bought out there, because I had to afford it. I
lived on the Gulf before, and the county taxed me out of the area I
Page 13 7
January 19,2010
lived in, and the insurance company inserted me out of the area that I
lived in. I had no choice but to find someplace else. And it happened
to be on 3rd Street.
I like it there. I'd like to have a box center there, a store. I would
like to have a grocery store. I'd like to try and keep most of the fires
out of there, if possible, and no loud music. But people that live in
communities that have 140 square feet of -- 140 foot of frontage don't
understand what we have out there.
Yeah, it's nice. It's quiet. It's dark. But it's inconvenient also.
People who like it do drive it. You have to. I spend a lot more on gas
than I ever did before. I used to live down in Gulf Harbor. And when
I lived in Gulf Harbor, Wiggins Pass, there was nothing past us. Now
look at it. It's full all the way up to Bonita Beach Road.
The area, I think, needs a shopping center. It needs people to be
there. And I'll guarantee you that probably 85 percent of the people
here want it, 15 percent don't. I can't see a person who lives in a
development telling me that we can't have a store because it's nice out
there, but sometimes that happens.
I thank you very much for my time.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Judy Montgomery. She'll be
followed --
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: She'll be followed by Michael Schoeller.
MS. MONTGOMERY: My name is Judy Montgomery, and I
live on 3rd Street and have been involved in this process from the
beginning when the very first card came out and we were asked, did
we want it or did we not want it, and what did we want if we were, in
fact, in favor of it, and we have been in favor of it from the beginning.
We received many info sheets from the 1 st and 3rd Group saying
how this would negatively impact our lives out in the Estates. I was
not in agreement with that at that time, and I am still not in agreement
with them.
Page 138
January 19,2010
What overwhelmed me today was to hear that they have, in fact,
sat down with the developers and come around to a working
agreement and are now in favor of this.
The amount of returns on the surveys was very, very high. Your
average run of return is 2 to 3 percent, and we had a much higher rate
than that with approximately 2-1 in favor.
The other thing that has tremendously impressed me is the
diligence with which the developers have worked with the
community. I believe that if you have attended the meetings that have
gone on, not only have we heard the things that will be provided
today, including the first CO being a grocery store of27,000 square
feet or more, but there is a list of prohibited uses, and that is also,
perhaps, as important, if not more important, than the list of allowable
uses.
And I think when we have the quality developer that we do who
has sat down with the people who were negative and have turned them
around and have met with the individual people and have worked so
closely with the community, that we are, indeed, blessed to have
somebody who is putting -- in whose hands this development is being
given, hopefully, by these commissioners. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Michael Schoeller. He'll be
followed by Scott Murphy.
MR. SCHOELLER: Hello. My name is Michael Schoeller. I
live off 840 Jung Boulevard West off of Wilson. I've lived there for
22 years. I drive by this project. It's way too big for Golden Gate
Boulevard, way too big.
Number one is, you have a strip store with vacant stores, two
businesses that already failed, and now you're going to put 200,000
square feet in? How many of those stores are going to be empty?
The project up on 951 and Collier Boulevard on Pine Ridge,
empty stores in there, too. I mean, the development is down.
Everything's down. This is a bad time for this, number one.
Page 139
January 19,2010
I brought Walgreens here. I bought the property there, sold it to
Walgreens. Walgreens came in and said they didn't want to do it
because there wasn't enough traffic, there wasn't enough people to
support a Walgreens. Well, I tried to convince them. They did all
their studies. They said, it's really a fine line here. They ended up
going with Walgreens, and I was lucky.
I went down and bought the other corner on Everglades and the
Boulevard. I got that corner. So I just got that approved last week. I
was in front of you in the Planning Commission last week.
Now, what's going to happen to us with -- Richard owns the
commercial piece across from me, Mike owns the piece next to
Walgreens. What's going to happen to our little neighborhood centers
when this goes in? We're broke. We've lost all our money. Our life
savings local people had invested in these neighborhood centers,
which is on the growth plan map, which is what we gauged our
investments on, now you're going to change that because a big
developer comes in here and all my money I've worked all my life for
is gone? It's not fair that he can come in here and send out surveys
and change all this in a wink of an eye, and we can lose everything,
because no developer will develop on our site when there's 40 acres
sitting there with vacant stores. It's not going to happen.
Let me reiterate. It's way too big a project for Golden Gate and
Wilson. The Estates cannot support a project that big. It can't. I
know for a fact. If this developer gets away with this, we'll have other
developers coming in trying to do more.
Like Commissioner Fiala said, Golden Gate Estates is a jewel.
It's a jewel. It's a subdivision measured in square miles, the only one
in the United States this big, and we've got to be careful with what we
do with it. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Scott Murphy. He'll be followed
by James Pratt.
(Applause.)
Page 140
January 19,2010
MR. MURPHY: Scott Murphy, Everwood Drive. I live in the
Estates, and I commute a long ways to work. When I come home, I
would like conveniences in my neighborhood.
Currently a round trip to 951 and back is -- it's irresponsible, I
think, of the county to not let us provide services closer to home. So I
hope today you get this ball rolling.
This developer is a class act. They've satisfied us. We're ready
to go. Let's bring the services out to where we need them. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is James Pratt. He'll be followed
by James Ashness.
MR. PRATT: I am James Pratt of Sheffield Avenue.
Presently my fiance and I have been looking at property within
the area. We don't live at that area. But we're dog lovers. We love to
have large -- we're looking for a large parcel. The property's priced
right out there. We can't really afford, you know, to live on the coast.
And in order to have dogs run, to have the kids run around and play, it
makes sense to us to move out there.
But unfortunately, you know, your dogs and kids can run around
in the Sahara Desert, but you can't survive without an oasis, you
know. And it doesn't make sense to me to move out there, buy any
type of property if there's not something to support my family out in
that area.
You know, and basically -- you know, on the weekend ifI'm
going to drive, say, for instance -- you know, I work in near the city,
you can argue that, yeah, I drive back and forth and we'll stop at the
grocery store after work and whatnot; but there's times you forget
when you drive home, and you're like, oh, man, I forgot that -- you
know, I forgot to pick up apples or I forgot to pick up some yogurt,
something like that, and now you've got to backtrack and head all the
way back in there. And on the weekend, you're tired from working.
You want to stay -- you know, I want to stay away from people, but
Page 141
January 19,2010
you got to have something that's close to your home where you're
going to be able to go, you know what, I need to pick up some buns, I
need to pick up yogurt, I need to do this or that, and it's easier for you.
It's easier for you on the weekend when you're off. You don't
have to drive all the way back another 10 miles just to get a loaf of
bread, you know. You want to rest on the weekend, and you've got to
have some facilities there to support your family and also give your
family an environment where kids can be kids, dogs can be dogs, they
can run around. Your dogs can't run around a golf course, you know,
real close to the coast. And it's not -- just not conducive, you know,
living that close to the coast.
But, you know, somewhere in that area out there -- you know,
like I -- like I said, the property's priced well enough where a younger
family can afford to live within the area. And, urn, you know, I don't
know why anybody wouldn't want to be for having some facilities that
facilitate what they need.
And looking at what the developer is -- you know, I think that's
pretty astounding some of the architecture that they've come up with.
It looks pretty nice to me. I'd like going to a place like that that has
the metal roofs and looks like an old Florida style facility, and it -- I'm
just hoping that, you know, we look at this and actually even create
some jobs within the area, which makes it more attractive for people
to want to stay there and live.
And hopefully the commissioners will vote yes for this, and
thank you for your time.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is James Ashness. He'll be
followed by John Greaves.
MR. ASHNESS: Hi, I'm James Ashness. I live at 170 Wilson
Boulevard.
I watched Walgreens go in and I watched right from the
beginning how little the traffic was in that, and now I see how great
Page 142
January 19,2010
the traffic is. I mean, that was something that was actually needed by
the Estates. And I realize now that that shopping center will be the
best thing that happens.
This is something that people need. They're tired of driving all
around just to get to where they need to go to get these basic services.
I don't see why this hasn't happened before when it should have. I
mean, I've lived in the Estates for 13 years, and of the 13 years, I've
prayed for this, and I don't think we should let this pass by this time.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is John Greaves. He'll be
followed by Karen Acquard.
MR. GREAVES: I'm a resident of the Estates. I live at 190
Wilson Boulevard, Jim's neighbor. And I have to say, this project,
since the get-go when the first cards went out, I was totally for this
thing before they even made the presentations that you've seen here. I
cannot believe a developer's coming in here and taking half of what
he's buying for commercialized property and doing what he's doing to
the extent that he's doing to blend with the community.
And, frankly, if the commissioners had made a lot more of the
meetings, I think you guys would be more in tune, aside from the
statistics of surveys, voting and everything else.
It's good to see that you're listening to everyone here, but I'd be
very surprised if you don't understand that the sentiment of the
neighborhood is that we need this facility in order to get full
enjoyment of the rural aesthetics and services that are really basic
necessities, I believe.
I don't like the idea that I have to leave my neighborhood, I have
to leave Golden Gate Estates, go up Golden Gate Boulevard, past the
school, past the sign that welcomes me home for basic necessities.
That's a bit of an irony.
And when I look at my neighborhood and just stop and think,
besides all the presentations we've heard here -- and I'm sure many
Page 143
January 19,2010
more comments you're going to hear for and against -- that I can sit
there and just stop and look at my neighborhood and say, what's the
biggest intersection in Golden Gate Estates? It's Wilson Boulevard
and Golden Gate Boulevard.
And where's the most natural place for commercial development?
It's on those four corners. Three of them are already developed. And
you know why they're not doing well, because what you allow with
your planning for the development is woefully undersized to put
anything decent in there. Now a decent project comes along, and
we're going to salute it goodbye because we've got a few people -- as I
heard Commissioner Coletta say, you're worried about the ones that
are abutted by this. I'm not so worried about them. I'm worried about
the big picture, because there's a lot more of us than there are of those
few that are bothered by what's being developed there. This is needed
in the Estates. It should go.
THE AUDIENCE: Yes.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Karen Acquard. She'll be
followed by Pat Humphries.
MS. ACQUARD: Good evening, Commissioners. For the
record, it's Karen Acquard.
The Golden Gate Master Plan Committee spent a number of
meetings working on and with the public on future commercial
opportunities in the Estates. Golden Gate Boulevard and larger
commercial areas were discussed.
The committee attempted to earmark other intersections between
951 and Wilson for future neighborhood centers. Our efforts were met
with negativity from the residents. We were told loud and clear they
didn't want anything larger than the five acres that E's used, and no
more areas were to be earmarked than those that we had on the map.
We were to keep commercial to the outside areas. We tried to
increase to 15 acres, and we were told no.
Page 144
January 19,2010
The proposed 40-acre shopping center does not meet the current
master plan in any way. This area of the Estates hasn't been able to
support a five-acre shopping center across the street. More than half
of the areas -- of the stores there are closed.
From past experience we know that prime stores will not locate
where the rooftop demographics are not up to their standards. This is
what has happened across the street from that acreage, and I don't
expect anything different with the 40 acres. You don't have the rooftop
demographics.
The letter from Publix, that's the same letter that Steve Lowisz
was showing us 15 years ago to tell us that we were going to have a
Publix at Orangetree. There still isn't one, and he still has the same
letter.
There are a number of people who want this shopping center.
Not surprising. Some ofthe loudest people that want it live off of
Everglades and DeSoto.
Realistically we know the big name stores aren't really going to
happen.
My grandchildren have dreams and desires of cookies for
breakfast. That doesn't mean they should get them. It needs to wait
until the current commercial area out there is at least moderately
successful.
This is a very trying time, both with building, the economy,
businesses, and the real estate market. Instead of just changing the
current master plan willy-nilly, the county needs to convene a new
committee and restudy this entire situation. And with a lot of public
input -- we had it last time. Obviously we have a different public, and
you need new public input, but you need the plan updated, a survey
that asks more than, would you like a grocery store? That's sort of a
dumb question.
And I ask that you practice patience, because once this area has
been rezoned, there is no way to restore the rural uniqueness of that
Page 145
January 19,2010
community.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Pat Humphries. She'll be
followed by Pam Lacore -- Calore.
MS. HUMPHRIES: My name is Pat Humphries. I live in
Golden Gate Estates.
As a past member of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic
Association and a present member of the homeowners association of
Golden Gate Estates, I have attended many presentations for
commercialization requests of property in the Estates.
We took into consideration the existing developed commercial
and the undeveloped approved commercial in and around the Estates.
The requests that were supported are in compliance with the
Golden Gate Master Plan. The petition before you is not. It is very
much not. Forty acres is way out of line for the intersection of two
residential streets.
The properties on Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard
are zoned Estates residential, and the homeowners on these properties
were led to believe that the four intersecting corners are limited to five
acres commercial with a minimum of five acres of conditional use.
What a slap in the face it would be to see a 40-acre commercial
development approved, not just for the residents, but for the previous
petitioners who complied with the master plan and would be hurt by
the unfair competition.
And that isn't the end of it. Since there is still vacant land on
both boulevards, it is just a matter of time before the owners will be
petitioning for a growth management change, and so ends the unique
rural subdivision of Golden Gate Estates, because when the existing
commercial meets with the development of the pending approved
commercial and collides with the construction of the anti-Golden Gate
Master Plan commercial, you will see how a potential world-class
community turns into an urbanized nightmare, plus lots of traffic.
Page 146
January 19,2010
Do the right thing. Do not approve this petition.
For the record, I am submitting the names of residents of the
Estates who are opposed to this gross -- growth management change
request. More than half these names were collected in a short period
of time. If I had a marketing research company at my disposal, I'm
sure you would have seen an overwhelming amount of negative
responses to this 40-acre shopping center. When I was getting
signatures on my petitions, there were very few who knew about the
other shopping center.
According to the Planning Committee meeting on October 19th,
1 st and 3rd Group consists of 25 homes. There are more than 25
homes on 1 st and 3rd. Six are on my petition not supporting that
shopping center.
As far as the letter from Publix, a lady opposing the shopping
center read it to me over the phone. The last paragraph said, when
you have all the necessary approvals, let us know and we'll send you a
packet so you can fill out an application. In other words, don't call us.
We'll call you. That's not a commitment. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Pam Calore. She'll be
followed by Jim Banks.
MS. CALORE: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is
Pam Calore.
And I was just listening to the last speaker, and I really feel that
we would be so shortsighted by not considering something of this
magnitude.
With just the growth that Naples has been experiencing over the
last years, I just find it hard to believe that people would not be open
to the opportunity to have the goods and services that are desperately
needed in this area.
I'm hoping that they would be open minded to look at this
proposal. It's not like a regular strip mall. It's a beautiful place where
Page 147
January 19,2010
people in the neighborhood would frequent and, perhaps -- and mostly
people who are just passing by may not even know that it exists.
And so I really believe that this is something really good for the
neighborhood and the community, and I think we really need it.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Jim Banks. He'll be followed
by Mark Teaters.
MR. BANKS: Good evening, Commissioners. For the record,
my name is Jim Banks. I am a professional engineer in the State of
Florida, and I'm here speaking on behalf of the 1 st and 3rd Group.
As there's been quite a bit of testimony or discussion regarding
the agreement that was submitted to Commissioner Coletta, I'm going
to keep my comments very brief and to the point.
As stated, the 1 st and 3rd Group -- I was representing the 1 st and
3rd Group -- met with Rich Y ovanovich and Wayne Arnold to
basically develop certain design standards and safeguards that would
be incorporated into the project in order to protect the neighborhood's
interest and to protect the residents' properties.
I'm pleased to announce that we did reach an agreement, and it
was provided to Commissioner Coletta's office on January 14th ofthis
year, and I suspect it was distributed to the other commissioners.
I think the only item that I would like to clarify for the folks that
I represent is there was discussion by Commissioner Coletta as well as
the County Attorney's Office regarding the -- making that a binding
agreement on the petitioner. And with all due respect, we appreciate
that commitment by the petitioner as well as the board's recognition of
that agreement. The only thing that we would ask is that you clarify
that this agreement would actually be binding with the property, and
that's simply in the case that the property is purchased by a third party;
at a later date it might be misconstrued that this agreement did not run
with the property, but simply with the petitioner.
Page 148
January 19,2010
I -- I'm certain that that was not the case, but just to clarify and
assure my clients, I would like that clarified for the record. Thank
you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Mark Teaters. He'll be
followed by Lori Bums.
MR. TEATERS: Good evening, Commissioners. Mark Teaters.
I live in Golden Gate Estates, past president of the Golden Gate
Estates Area Civic Association, and I'm on the advisory council of the
Homeowners Association of Golden Gate Estates. I'm also on the
East of 951 Horizon Study Oversight Committee.
I do have some questions and some challenges about some
information that I found was kind of difficult that they were presenting
about East of951, and I'd like Mr. Bosi to clarify some of that a little
bit later if we can, too, as well.
Also I would like to present this to you -- emailed a copy of this
to you. This is on behalf of the homeowners association of Golden
Gate Estates with regard to petition CP-2008 and 2002. The
homeowners association of Golden Gate Estates reaffirms the stand by
our board of directors and the membership in pursuit of the goal -- of
our goal of a world-class rural community.
We support the current Golden Gate Area Master Plan as written.
We're not rejecting the shopping center. We are supporting it as
written. If they want to build a 10-acre shopping center with
conditional, I'm sure that we can make that happen. We're not -- we're
not saying no.
I'd like to submit this into -- thank you.
Okay. Also --let's see. What else have we got here? Many
people in our community are excited of the prospect of getting
services such as a grocery store closer to our homes.
I've suggested to the petitioner that I could support a grocery
store according to the current Golden Gate Master Plan. He said, but I
have 40 acres. And I said, that's -- in my opinion, that's speculation,
Page 149
January 19,2010
I'm sorry. We have a master plan. You knew it before you got into
this.
Okay. Is there truly a need? In the Collier Citizen on November
19th, Richard Y ovanovich was quoted as saying, the master plan was
originally based on opinions, and opinions change. If that's the case,
then this board needs to reconvene the master plan committee and
needs to go through this process again, okay.
Jay Bishop, who represented himself as the developer of this
project, told me the master plan meetings were poorly attended, and
the people on the committee were anti growth, okay.
What's the impact on the neighborhood? It has seriously divided
this community.
Is it consistent with the master plan? According to the staff
report, members of the committee in attendance, no.
The staff recommended denial in a well-researched and prepared
report. The key findings -- I'm not going to go over all the other ones,
but I will tell you the rural character impact is the killer for the
Estates.
We do have another shopping center that's being proposed that
does meet the vision of the Golden Gate Master Plan. If you have to
drive another half mile to get there, it's better than destroying the
center of the Golden Gate Estates, okay.
Let me think what else. House Bill 697 speaks about greenhouse
gases, but it does not take into consideration carbon monoxide and
other hazardous emissions from idling vehicles. There is the EP A
here, and also several cities in the United States have now enacted
anti-idling carbon monoxide. You know about this. I'd like to submit
this as well.
And I think that's pretty much it. I am recommending denial for
this on the basis of the Growth Management Plan. If they want to
build one within the master plan, then I support it.
(Applause.)
Page 150
January 19,2010
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Lori Burns. She'll be followed
by Peter Gaddy.
MS. BURNS: Yes. My name is Lori Burns, and I live at 2010
3rd Street Northwest, about six houses behind the north border of the
shopping center.
While I respect the opinions of Golden Gate residents who knew
when they moved out there that there was not a grocery store nor a
commercial shopping center like this, now changing their minds and
now desiring one, I want to know who's going to protect my way of
life and my desire to live in a rural community and not 500 feet from a
shopping center. IfI had wanted to live in a -- by a shopping center, I
would have bought by a shopping center. I bought out in Golden Gate
Estates because of its uniqueness, because of its rural character.
And with no past experience with the extent -- what will the
extent of the impact be on the rural character and lifestyle for Golden
Gate Estates residents, especially those immediately surrounding the
proposed center, both during the construction phases and upon its
completion?
I do question its consistency with goals three and five of the
Golden Gate Area Master Plan. I also question it with regards to
objective 53, which specifically provides for the protection of the rural
character and amenities. And for me it also -- it's not taking away the
fact that I can have livestock or crops, but it does say, but not limited
to these things.
And in addition to these things, are not peace, quiet, tranquility,
low traffic, small neighborhood shopping centers part of rural
character and part of rural amenities?
I have sat here, listened, that it -- you know, we travel out in
Golden Gate Estates twice as far as the urban area. Well, we're not
urban. We're rural. That is -- is it reasonable to assume in a rural area
that you are going to have that convenience to every grocery store and
every shopping kind of things that you want? I'm concerned about the
Page 151
January 19,2010
economic viability of it.
I have to ask, there was 74 percent of the population in Golden
Gate Estates working outside the Golden Gate Estates. There isn't a
major artery that leads to the Estates on Collier Boulevard, Pine Ridge
Boulevard (sic), Vanderbilt Beach Boulevard (sic), Immokalee
Boulevard (sic), that doesn't have a grocery store.
My concern with a major grocery store, not that there isn't a need
for one -- I am opposed to one in the interior. It was my
understanding with the Golden Gate Growth Management Plan that
that periphery -- I have no problems. I understand there are people
needing groceries, and if that works for them -- but you're invading on
something that I bought out there for and am not getting now that I
bought out there.
Is there not a system designed to preserve, protect, and guide the
vision and growth of the rural character and lifestyle of Golden Gate
Estates? I thought that was the Golden Gate Area Master Plan.
I don't understand how it can be changed this easily. And if this
can be changed now, what's to say something's going to come in the
future. I am really concerned. I respect the developer. I respect Mr.
Y ovanovich, Mr. Arnold. I have spoken to them with my concerns. I
appreciate everything that they're doing to try to protect the rural
character.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can you wrap it up, ma'am?
MS. BURNS: Yes. But I just don't understand. I want to know,
too, with regards to the recommendation that the Collier County staff
report is recommending not to approve and the Planning Commission
split the vote 4-4, that there has got to be some questions, and I want
to understand why there would not be -- warrant further --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Ma'am, can you --
MS. BURNS: -- research and a restudy on this issue.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
MS. BURNS: Thank you.
Page 152
January 19,2010
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Peter Gaddy. He'll be
followed by Tim Nance.
(Applause.)
MR. GADDY: Commissioner Halas, if it please the Chair, I'd
like to cede my time to Mr. Nance.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. GADDY: Thank you.
MR. NANCE: Mr. Chairman, Tim Nance. I'm going to make a
couple of remarks from the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic
Association.
The conversion of Estates residential to commercial use is
inherently controversial. We're having -- we have members in our
association in favor of commercial proposals, we have many that are
vehemently against them. Estates civic has, therefore, taken no
position on this proposal because it would not be representative or
honest.
The association has, however, strongly advocated in support of
the adjacent residents and property owners. Those most affected
should have the most to say. They're the stakeholders.
Estates civic therefore asks the BCC, should you vote to transmit
this proposal, be certainty (sic) that the strongest possible protections
for those most affected and that these protections and mediation be
formally made part of the plan amendment itself.
I would like to confine the rest of my remarks from Estates civic
because we are highly critical of the process and circumstance we find
ourselves in this evening.
Presently, our growth is advancing by default from proposal to
proposal. This is not planning. Current -- the current state of the
Golden Gate Master Plan and the process is clearly dysfunctional from
the standpoint of citizens, petitioners, and our government.
I'm struck radically by the fact that we have people here
proposing to spend millions of dollars bringing business to our
Page 153
January 19,2010
community. I don't think there's a soul in this room that's happy. I
don't think you're happy this evening having to be here at night. This
needs to be fixed.
For the petitioners, it's risky and costly. The citizens have grown
to feel manipulated, intimidated, and disenfranchised, they feel pitted
against their neighbors, they feel there's no interest in their community
character concerns or respect for rural lifestyle and interest, and many
feel there are not adequate services.
There's an increasing sentiment that property owners don't know
what they can count on going forward in the Estates.
It's also bad for our government because it's resulted in a
widening loss of public confidence in planners, staff, and the local
government in general. In short, the situation is stressful and
unproductive for all involved.
Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association strongly advocates
an immediate comprehensive Growth Management Plan overhaul in
Golden Gate Estates and the adjacent receiving land in the rural fringe
mixed-use district. The goal should be to meet the needs of the
current and future residents of the Estates area and to preserve the
opportunity to preserve a unique rural residential community in
Collier County.
We need a set of standards that specifically address the rural
residential lifestyle. Today we have only urban data and standards to
work from, and that's not going to preserve Golden Gate Estates.
With the growing movement to green, sustainable communities
and business, the Estates area can be a valuable asset to Collier
County in shaping a new vibrant economy and offering an attractive
diversity and environmental-based community.
We urge the BCC to convene a restudy of the Golden Gate
Estates Master Plan and the adjacent receiving lands in the rural fringe
mixed-use district immediately.
Thank you very much.
Page 154
January 19,2010
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Michael Ramsey. He'll be
followed by Melissa Ahern.
MR. RAMSEY: Commissioners, thank you very much for
allowing us to have this opportunity tonight. My name is Michael
Ramsey. I'm a resident of Golden Gate Estates, I'm a board member
of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association, and an ecological
consultant in the Southwest Florida area.
The Estates Civic Association has comments they have to do,
what appears to be lacking in the application process.
Number one, the interactive growth model should not be used to
override the community's desire for rural character stated in the
Estates Master Plan unless the master plan in the process to come to
its conclusions use the model to get to those conclusions. It's our
contention that it's being used without the Estates' knowledge.
Number two, the community's perception of rural character
appears to have been dismissed in the process in the favor of an urban
planning standard. The urban planning standards are fostered by the
interactive growth model.
The civic association recommends that the rural standard for the
Estates be developed so that the Estates community rural character
lifestyle is preserved in the application process. It seems to be
lacking.
And last, one of the things that came out I wasn't expecting was
in the presentation by planning. There needs to be some reconciliation
about community versus neighborhood centers in the calculation of
need, supply, and demand. This seems to me unthinkable that this is
not put together.
These three things we think should be considered and thought
about in the Golden Gate plan update. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Melissa Ahern. She'll be
followed by Norma Marroquin.
MS. AHERN: For the record, Melissa Ahern, and I'm the
Page 155
January 19,2010
governmental affairs chair for the Collier Building Industry
Association. I'm speaking on behalf of our executive board, myself,
and our president, David Eldridge.
I'm here today to support the Randall and Wilson Boulevard
projects. We strongly encourage the commission to approve these
projects. The county is in dire need of economic stimulus on several
fronts. We need to cover the bonds that were to be funded from
impact fees, and an immediate infusion is needed, as has been
discussed by many of you in prior conversations.
The impact fees that have been calculated into the respective
projects' business plans are now needed in addition to the need for
cash flow into community development and environmental services.
On a global scale, Golden Gate Estates has taken an enormous
financial hit as far as appraised values. This is ground zero for value
loss and foreclosure, closely behind Lehigh and Cape Coral. People
built out in the Estates on land that, in many cases, is 25 percent or
less of what the purchase value was back in 2005 and 2006.
We support this initiative because these developments will enable
residents to shorten their drive to shopping centers that are, in some
cases, eight to 12 miles away. These centers will help increase
property values, reduce wear and tear on the roads, and ultimately
create new ad valorem taxes.
By approving the project this evening, you are creating a free
economic stimulus that Collier County and Golden Gate Estates is in
desperate need of. We ask that you consider this positive economic
stimulus on the community and vote to approve these projects. Thank
you.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Norma Marroquin. She'll be
followed by Maria Casanova.
MS. MARROQUIN: Good evening, Commissioners. My name
is Norma Marroquin, and I live at 231 Everglades Boulevard North,
Page 156
January 19,2010
and I am in support of this proposed shopping center at the
intersection of Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard.
With all the respect that I have of you Collier commissioners, I
want to let you know that it's not fair that the east and southeast part of
the Golden Gate Estates seems to be discriminated against.
Why? The project ofI-75 connection with Everglades Boulevard
have been in different sections with no result yet, and also the
completion of the rest of Golden Gate Boulevard from Wilson to
Everglades Boulevard. And now, there even seems to be a question of
whether we are entitled to our community shopping center.
Commissioner, it should be very evident by this time that the vast
majority of north Golden Gate Estates residents want this shopping
center. We want to have the same shopping conveniences as other
areas of Collier County.
I know people like to have big roads, big places, but they don't
want any of them. And, you know, for me, this is progress, and I
could never, never be opposed to progress.
Thank you. Please vote yes.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: Maria Casanova. She must have left.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What's the name?
MS. FILSON: Mar--
MS. MARROQUIN: She's out in the hallway. I saw her
stepping out.
MS. FILSON: Okay. I'll call her name again.
Mario Penichet?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Mario?
MS. FILSON: Elizabeth Agoston?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HENNING: She's not here.
MS. FILSON: Ty Agoston?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: He's not here.
Page 157
January 19,2010
MS. FILSON: Adam Reynolds? He'll be followed by Cynthia
Van Rensselear.
MR. REYNOLDS: Good evening. Thank you to the board.
Bear with me. I have a high anxiety with stage fright, so I'll --
MS. FILSON: Are you Adam Reynolds?
MR. REYNOLDS: I am. I am Adam Reynolds. I live at 130 1st
Street Northwest. I have 680 feet of frontage to the north side of the
eastern part of the proposed development.
In the beginning, you know, 2004, 2005, I was violently opposed
and was vocal with the 1 st and 3rd Group, extremely worried about
the safety of my family; however, I believe that commercial
development in this area is an unstoppable force. Eventually it will
have to be done. If not today, five, ten years from now. And I feel
that I may not get a fair shake if the board is forced to approve
commercial development.
I've met several times with the architects, the brokers, people that
are involved with the development, and I believe that, you know,
pending that it's a binding agreement, that they stick to the buffers that
they're offering, that I'm getting a fair shake.
As far as the people in this room that have a problem with living
in the Estates and enjoying their property, you know, five years ago I
could have gotten here in 25 minutes, but there's a lot of new roads, a
lot of new developments, a lot of new traffic lights. It took me 47
minutes to get here. That's almost double the time.
I can't remember where I'm going with this. But I just believe that
-- you know, I'm also a certified residential appraiser and own a
property preservation company cleaning out foreclosures in Lehigh
Acres, and I can tell you, these homes, whether it be Fanny Mae or
whatever, these foreclosures are not being bought up. The absorption
rate is getting worse.
The only homes that are being bought up are the ones close to
commercial development, and I'm actually, frankly, surprised that the
Page 158
January 19,2010
commercial developer is still trying to build in this area with that fear.
But I believe that by the time it's done, it may be a lucrative thing for
them, and I know it will be used at that time.
So I think it's better to stimulate now than to wait ten years when
we don't have a choice. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And you did fine. You did fine.
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Marie Casanova. She'll be
followed by Cynthia Van Rensselear.
MS. CASANOVA: Hi. My name is Maria Casanova. I am in
full support of the shopping center. I think there is a need in our
community for a grocery store, different banks, a post office,
hardware, things that we have to drive half an hour to get to.
I think this shopping center will be an asset to the community.
Thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: Next speaker is Cynthia Van Rensselear.
Cynthia?
Lora Jones.
MS. JONES: That's me.
MS. FILSON: Okay. You're next. She'll be followed by Valerie
Syren.
MS. JONES: Thank you, Commissioners, for letting me up here.
I'm sorry I didn't bring anything to be prepared for, but I am not for
the shopping center. I feel like it is too big for the area that it is.
I think the Golden Gate Master Plan has been in place for -- you
know, and has been redone. And I feel like it -- I agree with it.
I live on 3rd Street Southwest. I have lived out in Golden Gate
since I was -- 1985. I've -- we used to have -- I was the eighth house
on my street and now we have 85 houses on my street. And -- but I
still -- the shopping center that they're proposing between 1 st and 3rd,
I feel like, is too big. They're talking about 40 acres.
I looked up on the property appraisers, I think that the Coastland
Page 159
January 19,2010
Mall is on 38 acres. I feel like that's just extremely -- I can't imagine
having the Coastland Mall. The Carillon Plaza without the Applebee's
and the bank and all the stuff out front is on 26 acres. That is very
huge to me.
The new shopping center that is on Pine Ridge and 951 is on 20
acres, and that is half empty. Wilson Plaza is half empty. We can put
the -- Blockbusters can go in that one, the post office can go in that
one.
There are banks proposed behind the Walgreens that have not
been bought, and no banks have moved in there, so I don't think we
need the -- between 1 st and 3rd to have all of that housing.
I did hear on one of the last meetings that they said that they were
going to rezone it to a C5, which C5 is industrial and -- which that
means that you can have trucks and oil dripping and all of that kind of
stuff, which I don't feel like is appropriate out there. We're all on well
water, and I think we need to watch for our environment out there.
I do like the rural setting. That's why I moved out there. I knew
I had to drive. Didn't bother me, that's why I moved out there.
I don't have a problem with the, like I said, the Golden Gate
Master Plan. I've always known that the four corners were going to be
commercial. We've all known that, but I never dreamed that it was
going to stretch all the way down to 3rd Street. It's just -- I oppose it.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Valeria Syren. And someone
whispered in my ear that someone was going to speak for Mario
Penichet, but I don't know who's speaking for him. Whoever it is, if
you want to come up. Okay.
MS. SYREN: Okay. First of all, I just want to say, I almost
walked out of this room in disgust when I saw this wave of green
T-shirts, but I had to remind myself that this really is not
representative of the whole Golden Gate Estates area, and I will get
into that later.
Page 160
January 19,2010
But I do want to say to those of you in support of it, I'll make a
bold statement, land development is not synonymous with progress.
So moving on.
For those of you who are in support of this project, you don't
recognize that we have ways to take care of our needs without
bringing the city to our front doors. Just about every household in the
Estates contains at least one person who works in town and who can
do all of the grocery shopping, all the necessities, after work in town.
This is something that's worked for us for decades, and it can continue
to work for us.
And I want to mention something about the greenhouse gas
emissions. If we have these places close to us, we're more likely to
leave the house, drive, and go to these places more often rather than if
we were to make just one single trip into town to take care of
everything.
Now, to get back to the citizens who I feel are not being properly
represented -- properly represented, I feel as though their hopes have
been crushed by some of the decisions that have been made prior to
this where they feel that no matter what they feel, they're going to
lose. And I honestly think that most of these developments have been
built on the broken trust that we've had with our county leaders, and I
just -- I want to say that this is your opportunity to show to us that you
really are concerned about the majority, not just a few people standing
in this room, and that there needs to be further research conducted into
the thoughts of the citizens.
And I am standing here with the last shred of hope that was left
that was not built upon by the developers, and I am asking you to vote
against the shopping center. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: Your next is speaker Mario Penichet, but Mr.
Yonel Vixamar will speak in his place.
MR. VIXAMAR: Thank you. My name is Y onel Vixamar.
Page 161
January 19,2010
I live at 3031 Golden Gate Boulevard East. And I am here to vote for
the shopping center, and I'll always vote for it.
And first, I would like to say that I am very surprised that I have
to come over here and seeing all these Golden Gate Estates residents
here to ask the board to vote for a shopping center that we're going to
use for our needs over there. Because I think with the population that
we have over there in Golden Gate Estates, we should not have been
here to ask for what we are asking for this evening. We should have --
I think our authorities should have seen that we need that over there.
When we are talking about the Golden Gate Estates Civic
Association, my question for the Golden Gate civic association is,
how many people voted for that civic association? That's my first
question. Second one is, when the Golden Gate Civic Association had
written the master plan, based on what population did they write it?
Now, what is the population over there in Golden Gate Estates?
You can't tell me a population of more than 30,000 people over
there, we have to drive that far to go all the way down to buy
groceries. When we look at 951, you have probably six or seven
grocery stores from Immokalee going down to 41. Something is
wrong.
My question is, is it because most of the population over there is
Hispanic and Haitian, that's why we don't have anyone to look for us?
We vote just like every other citizen, and we pay taxes just like every
other citizen. We simply here to be asked to be treated just like
everybody else is treated in Collier County. Thank you.
(Applause.)
MS. FILSON: Mr. Chairman, that was your final speaker.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much. At this time
we'll close the public hearing.
And I believe that there's a couple of commissioners that have
questions. We'll start off with Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Mr. Klatzkow? Community
Page 162
January 19,2010
centers. Is there any diminution of values?
MR. KLATZKOW: I'm sorry?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is there any diminution of
values of people who have existing commercial, if we approve this?
MR. KLATZKOW: No, I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioners, the reason I
was here, I got -- received a phone call at home. I really need to be at
another meeting affecting my son, but I thought this was very
important. I was very concerned about the phone call that I got of a
Realtor accosting a citizen taking a survey at E's. Who's the Realtors
involved in this?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, the Realtor is Jay Bishop, who is
our Realtor.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. Pat? Can you tell me the
story? I know you didn't call me, but can you tell me the story of the
confrontation that took place?
MS. HUMPHRIES: For the record, Pat Humphries. I was given
permission by Walgreens to stand in their parking lot and have
petitions signed against the shopping center across the way. The next
day Mr. Bishop went to Walgreens. He asked permission to do the
same thing and was turned down.
The following -- that was like on Friday. The following Monday
I was getting signatures, and he approached me while I was speaking
to somebody and started holding up his cane and using it as like a
pointer, and he said, I'm trying to read the lies you're telling about my
shopping center. And he kept lifting his cane and putting it down and
lifting it. And the guy said, hey, watch the cane. And every time he
lifted it, we'd back up because he was like kind of wild with it.
So I told him, you know, you're not supposed to be here. The
manager ofWalgreens said you're not supposed to be here.
He said, well, he just said I didn't have to -- that I didn't -- wasn't
able to set up a table. I said, he said you couldn't come here to
Page 163
January 19,2010
promote your shopping center, and that's exactly what you're doing, so
I think you should leave.
Well, we got into it basically, and we screamed at each other and
yelled at each other, and finally he left.
The next thing you know, a lady comes up to me and starts trying
to promote the shopping center, trying to talk me -- tell me what a
great idea it is. And we had a nice discussion.
And the following day, I understand, what sounded like this--
describing this lady, it sounded just like her, called the corporate
office and told Walgreens, what's going on there? You better put a
stop to it. So that's what happened.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, are you through,
Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah. I had other questions, but
I think I already made up my mind.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Go ahead. I'm sorry. I thought you
were --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No. I mean, I think what was
said, it pretty much made up my mind. I'm appalled that somebody
from a developer would be so emotionally wrapped up in this that they
would have a confrontation with a -- one of our citizens.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, you know, Commissioner, I wasn't
there. I don't know what happened. There's two sides to every story.
There is -- there is a tremendous amount of misinformation that
has been provided by certain people who are opposing this project.
And I'm not going to take up the time to point out all of the
misinformation that has been said, but we've been sitting back, we've
been taking it.
And he did point -- I called him, because I got the same call. I
said, Jay, you need to stay away. You're too emotionally involved.
Page 164
January 19,2010
He was pointing at her materials to point out what she was saying
wrong. He walks with a cane. He was upset. She was upset.
I've heard people say things to me when they're upset. And it
happened, I'm sorry it happened, but it doesn't take away from the
validity of this petition and all of the people who took their time and
effort to come here tonight to speak on behalf of this particular
petition and to speak against the petition.
It was -- I'm thankful it was in the evening where people could
come speak. I don't know if everybody's spoken. I know of some
others that I think were registered to speak that didn't get called up
there for some reason -- but are we done with all the speakers or is
anybody --
MS. FILSON: Yes, and I called every speaker slip I had.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Even Bill McDaniels?
MS. FILSON: He was registered for Golden Gate and Randall
Boulevard.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Randall. That's what's on there.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: So he signed up for the wrong one, okay.
Does that mean he's not going to be allowed to speak?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's the one he signed -- that's
the one he signed up for, and it doesn't say anything about this
particular one.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Well, I think --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: If I do it for one, then I've probably
got to do it for everybody else.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I'm saying he made a -- Commissioner, if
you asked him, did he sign up for the wrong one, I'm sure he'll come
up here and tell you I wrote the wrong petition down. I'm not asking
you to let anybody else speak. It's your call.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I've made the decision. He
can talk on the next one.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay. Well, let me -- do I get a rebuttal?l
Page 165
January 19,2010
Do I get a summation? Am I allowed that, or are we going to
conclude, or are we asking questions? I'm not sure where we are.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, that's where we're at right
now.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And as soon as Commissioner
Henning is done, then I'll go on to the next commissioner that has his
light on.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm done.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I got that. That's what I figured you --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, thank you very much.
Earlier Commissioner Fiala brought up some issues that were of
a great concern to her. And it kind of surprised me, you know, that
the issue she brought up -- but they're really issues. In her particular
neighborhood, they have to endure items that we've never had to
endure out in the Estates, the backup noises that -- of equipment,
putting the dumpsters in place, noise, odor. I'm trying to think of
some of the others, Commissioner Fiala.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Lights, deliveries in the middle of
the night.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, and they're real concerns.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, Commissioner
Fiala's been dealing with an urban area for a long time, you know, and
I imagine some of it would be also applicable to the rural area that
we're talking about today. But it deserves your comments.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And she had serious concerns
about it.'
Page 166
January 19, 2010
MR. YOV ANOVICH: And the -- what we have submitted
concurrently with the Compo Plan amendment is our PUD, and every
one of those issues is addressed in the PUD. We've committed to a
night skies standard for lighting, so we're not going to light up the sky
and take away the stars view. We've committed to that in the PUD
document. If you want to move that into the Compo Plan, we can do
that.
We've committed to hours of operation in the PUD document.
All of those issues were addressed with our neighbors because they
had the very same concerns.
We've prohibited outdoor entertainment, and we've prohibited
outdoor amplified anything. All of that has found its way into the
PUD document based upon real-life experiences that have occurred.
So all of those issues that Commissioner Fiala rightfully raised
have been addressed in the PUD document to make sure we're not
going to create a problem.
If you look at the buffers and the distances between our project
and any residential neighborhood, that was a factor that was taken into
consideration.
If you'll recall, there was a lot of opposition to the Publix that just
went in on 951 in Golden Gate Estates in the Brooks Village. It's
adjacent to -- it's in the Estates and it's adjacent to residential. I don't
think anybody's complaining about that Publix right now, because
they addressed those issues, and we have bigger buffers than what was
proposed and built for Brooks Village.
We would like the opportunity to bring the PUD document to
you so you can go side by side to make sure we've addressed every
one of your issues and every one of your concerns, because they're
legitimate concerns that we haven't ignored. We've just dealt with
them in the PUD zoning document because that's typically where you
deal with that. If you want to put that into the Compo Plan, we're
happy to put a night sky standard Compo Plan. We're happy to put
Page 167
January 19,2010
delivery hours and hours of operation in the Compo Plan. We'll put all
that in between now and the adoption hearing to make sure we've
addressed the issues that you've raised that we've also a concern, and
the neighbors have raised.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Let's talk about eventualities.
There was a couple of people that commented to the fact that -- and it
was from both sides of the issue -- that this may happen some day, that
it may not happen today, but it's probably inevitable down the road as
this picks up steam.
I've been -- I was involved with the master plan back in '91/'92,
and we took almost two years with it. And at that point in time, the
population in Golden Gate Estates was less than half of what it is
today. And those little five-acre neighborhood centers were a great
idea, because that was going to meet the needs for many years to
come. We had no doubts about that.
Anybody ever suggested a commercial of 40 acres, we would
have laughed them out of the room. And they never would have,
because at that point in time it was so rural that Golden Gate Estates
wasn't even on most maps. It stopped at 951.
But the whole thing is, is things move forward. And the reason
why we're here today and why this discussion has taken so long is
there has been a community shift as far as opinion goes. If we held
the same meeting back five years ago, six years ago, we would have
seen the majority of people, vastly more people than are here now,
that would have been totally opposed to this. And I've seen this shift
going forward as the years went forward, and I still see it going
forward, and I think it's going to continue as time goes along, too.
Now, let's just play what-if. Now today we're going to make a
decision, very shortly -- probably not quick enough for some of my
commissioners and some of the people in the audience that have been
waiting so long -- whether to transmit this on. And if it's transmitted, it
means that it would go to the state, the state would review it at
Page 168
January 19,2010
community affairs, they would analyze it to the point that they would
see if it meets the criteria that it needs to meet to be able to fit within
Collier County. They may come back and reject it. But in any case, it
would come back again. How many months later?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Dave? Four or five, I hope, at the most,
we'll be in front of you again.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, you know, four or five
months it would come back again, and it has to go first to the Planning
Commission.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: The Planning Commission gets
to view it one more time to see what's changed, if it fits in better to
what it was before, how are all the other entities out there for it.
And the Planning Commission didn't deny it. It was a split vote
between them. And so, what we got from them was less than
guidance.
But here's one of the problems is that, I'm sure that if it doesn't
take place today and doesn't move to the next step, that the master
plan will convene. And I can't tell you when that will be. It depends
on when we can get enough staff people together at one time to be
able to issue it through. It will convene and it will move forward, and
at that point in time it would happen where this would come up, and it
will be a bigger issue than ever. There would be many community
meetings, and it would take a process of -- before you can convene, it
would probably be about six months. I don't think it's going to be
much sooner than that, but it would take maybe a year, possibly year
and a half for them to go through the process, so you've got two years
on that.
Plans would have to be submitted back and forth. This would go
on for a little while before you got to the point in time that this would
come back in a different forum, recognized by what's known as the
master plan, Golden Gate Master Plan, the one that I was father of in
Page 169
January 19,2010
the very beginning. The first one that came out failed, and I issued it
through.
And the master plan is the will of the people. And what it is is it's
where you get all the people together in the same place, and you have
numerous meetings over and over again. Well, one of the good things
about this commission and the county government that we have today
is this has been an ongoing process. This hasn't stopped with the
Golden Gate Master Plan.
We had the East of951 Study that came out that Bill McDaniels
-- who couldn't even put the right name on the slip -- was -- that's
okay, Bill. I didn't mean to put you down on it, but I appreciate the
fact you did come, like I appreciate everybody being here today.
No, I don't want to get in trouble with Commissioner Halas by
asking you to come up and make comments on it. But the truth of the
matter is, this was a continuation of the master plan as far as the
process went. And the process was involved with the community all
over again, and then the final findings of that -- I wish they were a
little more specific than they were, but they were guiding principles
that were passed by that 951 oversight group and the Collier County
Commission, and it mentioned about the need for commercial. Once
again, the momentum's picking up as you go forward.
Now, here lies the problem. Ifwe don't go forward today, if we
bring this whole thing to an end, the world won't come to an end. The
sun's going to rise tomorrow, our lives will go on, we'll be
inconvenienced in some cases, in other cases we'll feel some relief
with the fact that the inevitable hasn't happened today.
But the delay in time before the next window of opportunity will
open up is probably, conservatively speaking, probably over five years
if it does open again. You've got to remember, the landowner -- and I
don't know what his capability is to hold on to holdings of this nature.
The only good thing is, he purchased them outright, if I remember
correctly. He didn't buy them on condition that everything would be
Page 170
January 19,2010
approved. Whether they can hold this whole thing together for some
future time, that's iffy.
So think about this as we go forward. And this is one of the
issues. I mean, there's a lot of options that are available to this. This
thing never ends. It's ongoing forever. But I will say that the master
plan -- I will ask. I'll ask staff, I'll ask the County Commission to give
consideration over to get this thing back on a track. Whether this
thing passes or not, that's not part of it.
I can only -- I can tell you right now what the final results will
be. It will be endorsing projects like this. There's too many people in
this room, too many people I've talked to that are very vocal about the
fact they're looking for this -- these types of services. I've heard it too
much. I know it for a fact. That's one of the reasons why we're here
at five o'clock tonight.
And I'm really surprised so many people in favor of it showed up
because generally it's a lot easier to get -- a lot easier to get the people
out that are in opposition than are in support of it.
Would staff like to comment on this time line I'm talking about?
MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, comprehensive planning manager. And
I wouldn't disagree with you on the timeline.
One of the most critical importance, based upon recent staff cuts,
would be identifying the staffing and then the direction and the
organization. And the process would be an 18- to 24-month process
and -- which would be, how would you like to see the Golden Gate
Area Master Plan modified based upon these issues we spoke about.
And then after that 24-month process, we would have to actually
go back to and transmit whatever proposed amendments were to come
from the Golden Gate Area Master -- or restudy process. That would
have to be transmitted, and that could take up to another six to 12
months.
So then an actual zoning petition could -- could fall roughly four
to five mon- -- four to five years, as you stated, if we were directed
Page 171
January 19,2010
over the next course of six to 12 months within the allocation of staff
that has been diminished recently because of the evaluation.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. And since I got your
attention for the moment, this process that's been ongoing, there's been
public meetings? There's been numerous public meetings, correct?
MR. BOSI: From the applicant's standpoint, he has indicated that
he's held a number of public meetings to vet this specific issue,
starting with the first proposal back in '06.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And these meetings were also--
and Mr. Yovanovich, if you'd help me with it. You've taken these
meetings once or twice to the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Been to --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- Golden Gate property owners
association, these have been ongoing affair?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Been to the Golden Gate Civic
Association twice and HOAGGE once, because HOAGGE wasn't
around the first go-round. So we've been to the two associations as
well as regular NIMs.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And this is where the mystery of
life comes in to be. I belong to both associations. In fact, when I go
to these meetings with the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association, I'm
the senior member in there. I've got close to 25 years membership in
that organization.
I can tell you something, the acceptance by the membership in
the audience -- and this is one of the things that the -- they were
careful, and they did allude to to a point -- there was tremendous
acceptance by the members of the -- or the people that were in that
room.
Same thing with HOAGGE. At no time did either one
organization get to vote on that. This is the board of directors acting
on their own that's coming forward with these particular items and
Page 172
January 19,2010
directions. No problem with it, with the exception is, is that as a
member of those organizations, I greatly resent the fact that they're
speaking for me as a member. They got no right to do that. And I
hope to God in the future we never have this happen again.
Bring it to your membership as a vote and see what happens.
That's what the membership will give you directions for in the future,
and we'll get it going. You got wonderful organizations out there.
But one of the things that we have to talk about just a little bit --
let's also play this game. We're talking five years out. Let's add
another element to it. It's called proposition four. Anyone know what
that is?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Amendment four.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Amendment four, excuse me.
Amendment four is going to, if it passes -- and right now it does have
probably enough support to happen -- these items will have to be
voted on by the total electorate of Collier County. So what does that
mean? God help us out there in District 5, far removed from the coast
where the votes are and the power is. They're going to determine your
future once that thing kicks in.
I can't tell you what's going to happen past that point. But when
you go to the ballot in the future when this -- if this thing passes, and it
looks like it will, you're going to see about 30, 40 different items
attached to the back side asking for you to check off whether you're in
favor or against it. Most likely anything having to do with changes,
new development, your coastal people are going to say, we don't need
it and they're going to check it off with no regards to the fact that
80-some percent of the population lives to the west (sic) of951.
So if you like life the way it is and you want to maintain the
status quo, all you have to do is let this thing come to an end tonight,
master plan will go forward, a lot of things will happen, this thing will
be in limbo, and we'll keep a whole bunch of people gainfully
employed and a lot of people busy moving this forward to the next
Page 173
January 19,2010
level.
Anyone want to comment on that that's knowledgeable about
what's taking place in the real world out there? Am I totally wrong on
this?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Can we stay to the topic?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I am on the topic. But I have
finished what I have to say. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I'd like to -- I'm going to
step in front of Commissioner Fiala. I have a couple of questions.
A statement was made that there was a Golden -- there was a
Golden Gate Master Plan, and we're supposed to pretty much adhere
to that; is that correct?
MR. WEEKS : Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And this was put together by the
people out there in the Estates?
MR. WEEKS: I'll explain it this way, Commissioner. The
original master plan was created by a board-appointed -- at that time
board-appointed citizen committee, and we've already mentioned that
Commissioner Coletta was the chair of that committee, working with
staff and, yes, created master plan.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And this was approved in 2005,
updated in 2005; is that what I heard?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, sir. I think the last amendment was in 2005
based upon the restudy committee that convened from 2001 to 2003.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I have concerns that if what we do
is -- if we approve this project, aren't we circumventing the Golden
Gate Master Plan that people wanted to make sure that was addressed,
the issues that they had at that time?
MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, of course, ultimately, that's for
this body to decide, but the staff position is -- is exactly that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Fiala?
Page 174
January 19,2010
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. An odd question that
nobody's asked at all tonight, nobody's even touched on. Can a large
shopping center of this size, a 40-acre shopping center, function on
septic and well water?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let me answer -- you're right. We didn't
get into that detail. We're not functioning on septic and well. Weare
-- we are doing our own package plant for water, so we'll be big
digging lower and outside of the aquifer that the residents currently
use for their water, and we will be doing our own package sewer
treatment plant, not a septic system, to treat the sewage.
And we have the engineers here who can get into the details of
that, which is adding expense to this project to make sure we do
nothing in any way to contaminate our neighbors' drinking water or --
through sewage, and to diminish their water through -- coming
through their same well.
So we've addressed that by package plants on our site, and they
were shown on the master plan.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I'm sorry. I didn't see them.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah. But I mean, we didn't get into that
detail, but we're not doing well and septic is the short answer.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: What about fire hydrants? Isn't the
fire department going to demand that you have fire --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We -- we will have to meet all of that,
and our water package plant will address the capacity we will need to
address our firefighting requirements.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'm done.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Coletta?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. Just a couple comments.
The package plants we're talking about, Commissioner Fiala,
they also are used by the schools that live out in that rural area, and
they're without comments. You never hear anything from the
Page 175
January 19,2010
neighbors complaining. They're self-sufficient and take care of
themselves.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah, I don't have a problem with
them, yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. The -- the master plan
itself, going back to that. Once again, this is -- the master plan that
took place that we're talking about now was set up in 2001 to 2003.
That's when these -- everything was put together.
At that point in time -- I don't know what the Estates population
is growing from then, but there's been a lot of change in attitude. Has
anyone got any statistical data of what it was back in 2003 when they
finally convened the master plan to what it is today? I don't know the
answer to that, that's why I'm asking it.
MR. WEEKS: Commissioner, I don't have the figures specific to
Golden Gate Estates east of951, but as I think you're aware, the Rural
Estates Planning Community encompasses almost all of the Estates
east of 951 and also takes in the North Belle Meade area.
In 2003, was that the question?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah. That was the end of it.
By then they'd made the decision. Take 2002, if you got that number,
because that would have been when the process was really underway.
MR. WEEKS: The population at that time, 2002, was
approximately 23,600. The latest estimate we have is 2008, and that
has a population of approximately 36,000.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. So 36 -- from 23- to 26-,
that's even a lot more than I thought. The population went up by over
a third. It's been quite a -- quite a large amount.
So let's talk about what we're going to do now. This item would
come back before us if we agreed to be able to move this forward for
adoption. It has to come back, go through the Planning Commission,
it's got to come back to us for evaluation. And meanwhile, we can
hear more from the residents that have some concerns.
Page 176
January 19,2010
And I got a feeling that when they realize what they're on as far
as the precedent of the ability to be able to have what they're looking
for and where it's going to be in the future if this thing goes away,
there's going to be a lot of concerns.
Mind you, what we're talking about out there at Randall, which is
a wonderful project in itself, will not serve these people. These people
aren't going to drive to Randall Boulevard. They'd just as soon go all
the way back to 951 to be able to do their shopping, so nothing's
gained by it.
The commercial entities that are in this world are not going to set
foot anyplace unless they know they're viable and it's got to work.
We've got a guarantee that it's going to be a supermarket first or else
nothing happens.
Now, I don't know what's going to happen here in the next few
minutes, but the truth of the matter is, I've talked to the people out
there, I know what they're looking for, and I hope that my fellow
commissioners will support my motion to go ahead and transmit.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And we'll be able to deal with it
again when it comes back to us for the adoption.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do I hear a motion?
COMMISSIONER COLETT A: You've got a motion, just so we
can get this thing underway.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do I have a second?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Can I make a comment or -- I don't know
where we are in the proceedings -- and a suggestion.
There have been a lot of people here who took their time to come
and speak in favor of this. There have been a number -- if you play the
numbers, there have been far fewer people here opposed. If that's
truly an indicator of what the community thinks -- and Commissioner
Coletta is the commissioner out there and feels strongly what the
commission -- what the community thinks -- why don't we ask the
Page 177
January 19,2010
community what they think?
We have an election in November coming up. Let's put it on the
ballot. Let's put our proposal on the ballot, and limit it only to the
precincts within Golden Gate Estates so we can't have the influence of
the coastal area one way or the other, because I think the coastal area
would support something like this because I think their -- their roads
are being congested with people coming in from the Estates to meet
their needs. But we'll keep them out of the equation so I don't unfairly
influence the vote there.
But let's go to -- let's go to the voters in November, the voters of
Golden Gate Estates, and ask them if they want to approve this
shopping center, then we'll come back and we can decide what to do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You mean to continue this until
after a --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Let's put it on the ballot, yeah.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, there's even a primary
election in August.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Thank you. If it's going on in Golden
Gate Estates, sure. Let's go and get the community direction.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I wish there was a primary in
August for Golden Gate Estates.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I don't know ifthere is one or not. Okay,
so November. Whenever it is, we're talking -- it's certainly better than
waiting two more years after that. But let's find out, because I believe
the community wants this. I think today's meeting is representative.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I withdraw my motion and
would like to ask my fellow commissioners ifthey'd be agreeable to
continue this till that particular vote was taken, if you --
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My concern is circumventing the
master plan. And maybe this is one way to see ifthere is a majority
Page 178
January 19,2010
out there that is in favor of overlooking their master plan that they
have at present time.
I just feel that all the work that was put into this obviously was
people who have thought very seriously about what they need to do.
And I'm afraid that if we circumvent that, that all we're going to do is,
every other place that has an overlay or a Growth Management Plan,
that we can just basically, on a whim, vote to disregard that, and I got
some real problems with that.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But Commissioner Halas, can --
let's talk about this just for a few minutes and see where it is.
Remember, once again, the population was 23,000 when this
master plan was enacted; 36,000 now. A room full of people that are
looking for a shopping center.
We're not talking about building a shopping center. We're just
saying, let's hear the will of the people. And Commissioner Fiala, I
appreciate your understanding on this and willing to be able to have
this considered. If it wasn't such a big issue, I'd just say, forget it.
And here's another thing, too, I want to ask you about. The one
thing I'm really looking for -- I mean, I'm looking for shopping, but
I'm looking for that grocery store more than anything else. I know
how much that means to the people out there. Is there a problem with
the size ofthis project?
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Maybe we ought to talk to the
petitioner and see if there's some way we can address the size of it.
I'm looking for the comfort of this commission to be able at least give
consideration to the voters out there of what we need to do. Would
you like to talk about the size of it? Mr. Y ovanovich, we've got
concerns over the size of the shopping center.
THE AUDIENCE: We don't want a too-small one.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: No, I know, not too small,
maybe little bigger. Got ya. We've got to talk.
Page 179
January 19,2010
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Why don't we discuss the
possibility of putting it out there on the ballot and having it go up for
the residents of the Golden Gate Estates there, and they can make a
decision if they want to have something at this location.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. If you're for that, I am
too, then we continue this item indefinitely.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is there a concern?
MR. BOSI: Well, as manager for comprehensive planning, one
of the things we are limited to is the number of amendments that we
can process within any given year. Weare currently processing
'07/'08 cycle. You're suggesting we'll take this out of this cycle and
potentially, I guess, find a cycle unique for the -- unique for this
petition maybe, attach -- we have the Immokalee Area Master Plan
that's going to be heard by the Planning Commission and this board
for transmittal as well. We also have the RLSA potential amendments
COMMISSIONER HALAS: But that's not -- that won't bring
this up for a vote.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Right.
MR. KLATZKOW: This is--
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: We're talking way past
November.
MR. BOSI: Yeah, and I understand that. I just -- and I just want
to make clear that, one, that the cost associated with such an action, I
guess, what we would have to factor in. And is that something that the
commission is willing to bear --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, I'm not asking them to.
MR. BOSI: -- for the result?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No, no.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm not sure what the cost would
be, but I see the petitioner nodding his head in agreement for paying.
Page 180
January 19,2010
MR. YOV ANOVICH: No. What I'm suggesting is,
Commissioners, we go to a vote in November. We're in '10 now,
right? Okay. Let's just assume it passes and the voters say yes, we
bring back what we have in front of you today. You're not going to do
any more staff analysis. You're going to have staff -- you're going to
have the will of the voters.
We'll be in your -- because your '010 cycle starts in April of this
year. We could be in your '010 cycle. We'll bear the cost of any
advertising that's related to having it heard at the public hearings, you
know, and just continue us up to the '010 cycle, and we'll bear all costs
related to getting it on the ballot and advertising it should it pass.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: But keep in mind, everyone
here, if it goes on the ballot and the vote comes out in opposition to it,
this is over.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I don't think it will, but it would
be over.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: County Attorney, you had
something you wanted to comment on?
MR. KLATZKOW: If you want to put this on the November
ballot as a straw measure -- because that's what we're talking about.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, exactly; we understand.
MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. It will be a straw poll of the Golden
Gate Estates area. You know, that's -- that's your prerogative. At that
point in time I don't know that your data and analysis is still valid, all
right. So staffs going to have to look at it at that point in time and
figure out how we're going to do it in 2011, because that's really what
we're talking about now. There may be additional costs and whatnot
but we'll --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: We will bear whatever it is.
MR. KLATZKOW: We can work that out, but this is going to--
this isn't going to happen magically in November. It's just a straw
Page 181
January 19,2010
ballot to get at the will of the people. At that point in time, you're
almost starting over again.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Fine, but that's better than the
will of the people never being honored. I can't think of a better way
than by the vote.
MR. KLATZKOW: It's the prerogative ofthe board. Now, I
don't know if you want to take the vote -- there are only four of you --
or if you want to wait until Tuesday.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I'm sorry, Commissioner Fiala.
You go ahead.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: I was just saying, I'm glad you
offered this because I don't feel -- it's been very difficult for me
throughout this because I know this could be the beginning of
changing the character of the Estates, and once it's changed, it never
comes back, and then we'll never have it back.
But if that is what the people in the Estates want and if they want
a different character, now they get to vote on it, and I don't have to tell
them what they're going to have. They're going to actually be able to
vote on it.
So I think, Commissioner Coletta, I will back you on that.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you, thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: You hired a real professional in
Dolly Roberts. Do you think you could find a professional Realtor to
work for --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: I got it, Commissioner. I understand.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. You need this in the
form ofa motion?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We need this in the form of a
motion.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Okay. Motion to continue this
Page 182
January 19,2010
indefinitely into --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Till after the election.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: -- till after the election in
November where we can get a straw ballot out there to be able to
sample the will of the people.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And this will just be in the Golden
Gate area, east of 951 ?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Golden Gate Estates.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, yeah, the affected area
that --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Yeah, that's my intent. I wasn't trying to
make it any broader.
MR. KLATZKOW: Well, what's the Estates--
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I'll second the motion.
MR. KLATZKOW: What's the -- I think staffs going to have to
come back to you so we can agree on what the affected area is. I
mean, I don't know if -- all Golden Gate Estates. I mean, their idea of
an affected area, by the way, is different from his idea of an affected
area just based on the conversations today.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: How about the affected area of the
Golden Gate Master Plan?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Well, no. That goes all the way
into Golden Gate City and up the other side of Golden Gate City
towards --
MR. YOV ANOVICH: How about Golden Gate Estates east of
951?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Any discussion on this from other
commissioners?
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Does that make sense? I mean --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: It's going to have to come back
on our agenda, Commissioners, and that's --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And we can define it.
Page 183
January 19,2010
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And that's when you can --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. We can define it then.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: -- work with that.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. So at that we have a motion
on the floor and a second by Commissioner Fiala.
Any further discussion by the board?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hearing none, I'll call the question.
All in favor of the vote to have the residents out there vote.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Mike, is there something you're
concerned with?
MR. BOSI: Well, I'm just concerned about -- I'm concerned
about the definition of who we're polling. And for an example -- well,
the reason that my fears are motivated is, you know, the original
market study that was submitted with this application has changed
over time, and the composition of it, probably for valid factors. But
the original market area that was to serve this development, this
commercial endeavor, has shifted somewhat. So I mean, who defines
what this market area is --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: It's coming back.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're going to talk about that when
it comes back to the Board of County Commissioners.
MR. BOSI: Okay.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: We'll have you write the
executive summary. How's that?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Better get it right, too.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yeah, the first time.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All those in favor, signify by
saymg aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
Page 184
January 19,2010
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Opposed by like sign?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion carries, 4-0.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Everybody won.
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes. Let's take a break for --
another ten-minute break.
(A brief recess was had.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Would you all take your seats so
we can get started with the proceedings here.
Could you please take your seats so we can continue on. Thank
you very, very much.
Okay. Where's our staff member? You want to start this so we
can get rolling?
Item #3D
PETITION CP-2008-2: REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO
THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN AND GOLDEN
GATE AREA MASTER PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND
MAP SERIES, TO EXPAND AND MODIFY THE RANDALL
BOULEVARD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT TO
ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL 370,950 SQUARE FEET OF
COMMERCIAL USES OF THE C-4 ZONING DISTRICT, WITH
EXCEPTIONS, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH
SIDE OF RANDALL BOULEVARD, EXTENDING FROM 8TH
STREET NORTHEAST WEST TO THE CANAL ON THE WEST
SIDE OF THE BIG CORKSCREW ISLAND FIRE STATION, IN
SECTIONS 26 AND 27, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 27
EAST, CONSISTING OF ::1:56.5 ACRES - MOTION TO
TRANSMIT W /CCPC RECOMMENDATIONS - APPROVED
Page 185
January 19,2010
MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chair. Next up I'll read the petition.
It's CP-2008-2, a petition requesting an amendment to the Golden
Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future
Land Use Map and Map Series, to expand and modify the Randall
Boulevard commercial sub-district to allow an additional 370,950
square feet of commercial uses of the C4 zoning district with
exception for property located on the south side of Randall Boulevard,
extending from 8th Street Northeast, west to the canal on the west side
of Big Corkscrew Island Fire Station in Section 26 and 27, Township
48 south, Range 27 east, consisting of 56.5 acres.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Is there any questions from
staff before we -- or from our fellow commissioners before we get
started? If not --
MR. ANDERSON: We all need to be sworn.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Who's your Realtor?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Oh, yeah. All those that are going
to give testimony, please rise and raise your right hand.
(The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Bruce, if you'd start offthen.
MR. ANDERSON: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My
name is Bruce Anderson from the Roetzel & Andress law firm. My
client is here, Jack Sullivan, who's the principal of the Emergent
Development Group, and also with me today is Tim Hancock, the
Director of Planning for Davidson Engineering.
At the outset, I would note that the Planning Commission
recommended approval of this application by a 6-2 vote.
This application is for expansion of the existing Randall
Boulevard commercial sub-district that's located at the corner of
Randall Boulevard and Immokalee Road. This location has always
been its own separate identified commercial district in the Golden
Gate Area Master Plan. It is different from and not included in the
Page 186
January 19,2010
neighborhood centers that are designated in other areas.
This location was approved in the Golden Gate Master Plan years
ago by the county and the Estates community as a preferred location
for future commercial development. A convenience store and a small
shopping center have already been constructed.
So in our view, expansion of this existing sub-district on the
periphery of the Estates is consistent with and doesn't conflict with the
locational considerations that the county has previously used in the
Golden Gate Area Master Plan.
What distinguishes this application from all the others is both its
special location and the fact that it involves a public/private
partnership that provides for donated right-of-way for the six-Ianing of
Randall Boulevard and the construction of a realignment of the
intersection of Randall Boulevard and Immokalee Road adjacent to
the proposed development.
This public/private partnership will be in the form of a developer
contribution agreement, and the properties that are being added to the
Randall Boulevard district are those that are going to be most
impacted by the Randall Boulevard widening.
Among the owners included in this application that are going to
be impacted are Collier County itself and the Big Island Corkscrew
Fire District.
The county's plan is to initially four lane and eventually six lane
Randall Boulevard and construct an intersection with Immokalee
Road.
The county transportation staff early on indicated to my client
that they will need lots of additional right-of-way. Under the DCA,
my client would be donating almost seven acres for county
right-of-way out of the 49 acres that are proposed to be added. That
means about 14 percent of his property would be conveyed to the
county at no cost. This donation will save the county millions of
dollars of right -of-way costs.
Page 187
January 19,2010
At present, this property is bracketed on the west side by the fire
district and on the other eastern end by the county-owned property
which has the forestry service building and fire tower on it. It's leased
to the state.
When Randall Boulevard is widened, the forestry service
building is going to become nonconforming with regard to setback,
and it's going to have to be relocated.
Under the DCA that would be coming before you before final
adoption, both the fire district and the forestry building facilities
would be moved, and the two essential service agencies would
collocate on the eastern corner of the parcel of 8th Street and Randall
Boulevard, where a new traffic signal is also planned. That location
there.
The relocation will be at the sole cost of my client and another
property owner, and that includes the cost of either rezoning the
property or getting a conditional use for these essential services.
My client will also be acquiring from the fire district a five-acre
parcel that abuts the fire district's south boundary, and that five-acre
parcel will be used primarily for water management from Randall
Boulevard widening and the intersections improvements, and that five
acres would also be donated to the county.
As a consequence of the Randall Boulevard widening, the two
existing businesses that are there are going to have their access
impacted, and it would give rise to a condemnation claim for
severance damages. Now, that messy situation is avoided through the
DCA and approval of this application.
The plan is that these existing businesses and my client would
construct, at their expense, an access road from 8th Avenue -- 8th
Street heading west.
Now, when my client told me he was going to try to get three
governmental agencies and several different property owners to work
together to facilitate the Randall Boulevard widening, I thought, that's
Page 188
January 19,2010
a tall order; however, he achieved those results, and it's a win-win-win
for the county, for the fire district, and the forestry service and all the
other property owners that are going to be impacted in this area.
The DCA, as I said, would have to be approved by you before
final adoption of this amendment, and that is why timing is so
important as to whether this plan amendment is approved. This
coalition of cooperating property owners will not last forever. Right
now, it's in everyone's interest that this Growth Management Plan
amendment and the DCA approved.
My client, Jack Sullivan, has reached out to abutting property
owners, surrounding property owners, the Golden Gate Estates Area
Civic Association, and the Homeowners Association of Golden Gate
Estates. He took the initiative not just to address their concerns and
answer questions, but he also asked the residents what kind of
businesses they want at this location.
My client has committed to the residents that he would work with
them to establish a rural character committee to help design the project
during the rezoning process.
To conclude for now, this project provides real and substantial
public benefits through a public/private partnership. It's a preferred
location at a commercial crossroads location on the periphery of
Golden Gate Estates. It's a very logical location.
Before I turn it over to Tim Hancock to go into some more detail,
I do want to read into the record a letter from the Big Corkscrew
Island Fire District. They have a board meeting this evening and
couldn't be here with us.
Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, in reference
to the Growth Management Plan proposal, I submit the following:
The Big Corkscrew Island Fire Control and Rescue District would like
to be recognized as supporting this project as it relates to the impact
on the fire district.
We would also like to clarify that the district was not, in any
Page 189
January 19,2010
way, threatened or coerced into working with the developer on the
proposed project.
The board of fire commissioners has been involved with the
proposed agreement from the time there was discussion of purchasing
district property to present. The board has taken several steps to
ensure that the district is protected, and they were embraced by the
developer throughout this process.
There are several reasons that the board of fire commissioners
has agreed to become a part of this project. The first and foremost is
the potential to relocate to a straight dual-access corridor. While the
existing facility fills the current needs, it has always been a concern
being located on the curve.
Another benefit that the district will receive is the potential
access to water and sewer hookups. Again, our facility serves the
current need; however, we do not have a drainfield, well capacity, to
expand our staff as our services demand, and the community continues
to grow.
The third noted benefit is that of sharing a property site with the
Division of Forestry. There is the potential that we would not only
share the property but could share the facility. We as a board are
committed to keeping the Department of Forestry within the Estates
residential community.
In summary, this project, if approved, will enhance the safe
entrance and exit of apparatus and personnel vehicles and the working
relationship between the Department of Forestry and the Big
Corkscrew Island Fire District personnel while allowing a more
reliable and safe water supply and sewer hookup.
Please accept our apologies for not being in attendance this
evening, but prior engagements require our attention.
Respectfully, Paul Plamondon, chairman, and Rita Greenberg,
fire chief.
And I will give this to Mr. Weeks to keep in the record, please.
Page 190
January 19,2010
Thank you.
I'll turn it over to Mr. Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hold on just a minute.
Commissioner Fiala, did you have a question?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yes, just a simple one.
Bruce, where you show the forestry building right now, and then
there's a little brown being or something there, what is that? Yeah.
MR. ANDERSON: It's a house. Private residence. It's not part
of the county property.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. So are you going to just kind
of build around that house or something or buy that or --
MR. ANDERSON: My client controls that.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Oh, okay.
MR. ANDERSON: Has that under contract.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Okay. I think that -- by the way,
this one -- this one is one of those so easy because it's in a wonderful
location, it's right on the periphery of the Estates, and it serves
everything in the surrounding areas, and it's located in perfect road
structure. It's -- this one is a lot easier. Thank you.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Is anybody opposed to this in
the audience who's going to speak?
MR. HANCOCK: I'll just sit back down.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, you know--
MS. FILSON: I do have four speakers.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: And they're more than welcome
to. I'm not trying to stop anybody, but --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Staff, did you have anything to add
to this presentation before I call the public speakers and see if they
want to waive?
MR. WEEKS: Certainly.
Page 191
January 19,2010
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: You know, the hour's getting
late. We know there's a tremendous amount of support out there. Is
there a possibility we might consider a motion and a second and be
able to weigh out where the commission's going with this and then
possibly --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, what I'll do is, if staff will
just give us anything that needs to be put on record -- and then what
I'll do is I'll call on the public speakers. And if they're in favor of this
and want to waive, they can waive and we'll get through with this. I
just want to make sure they got --
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I was just trying to offer you
some help in moving it along.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I appreciate that.
MS. MOSCA: For the record, again, Michelle Mosca,
comprehensive staff. I won't go through the entire process with the
supply and demand again. I'll leave that out.
What I will do though is put on the record that I received, in
support of the petition; a cover letter and approximately 200 -- with
petitions with approximately 200 signatures from Patricia Humphries
supporting the project, and yesterday I received an email from John
Sullivan, the president of Waterways of Naples Homeowners
Association, also supporting the petition.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: At this time we'll open the public
hearing. Would you call, and then we'll find out if they want to waive,
because obviously there's got to be a lot of support for this.
MS. FILSON : Yes, sir. Your first speaker is Karen Acquard.
She'll be followed by Bill McDaniel.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Uh-oh.
MS. ACQUARD: Good evening. For the record, it's Karen
Acquard. This is going to be brief.
Page 192
January 19,2010
I represent -- you have the signatures up there, the people -- my
neighbors who abut this property. My home abuts this property. We
are supporting it. We have, in writing, the promises of this developer
for a great deal of buffering, 35-foot buildings, and so on, and the
promise from Mr. Norman Feder that you're going to put six lanes in
there, and we need to protect ourselves.
So we have the protection we need with this development and
this Emergent Development Group's promises, and we're in favor of it,
SIr.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
MS. FILSON: Bill McDaniel. He'll be followed by Frank
Olmeda.
MR. McDANIEL: Good evening, Commissioners. For the
record, my name is Bill McDaniel. I did serve as president of the --
and chair ofthe East of 951 Horizon Study Committee. And I would
like to offer up the fact that during that two-year process, the East of
951 Horizon Study did find the necessity for a restudy of the Golden
Gate Master Plan and the rural fringe mixed-use district at large.
And also, during that process we determined the viability and the
necessity for economic, viable extension of utilities into the rural area
from the urbanized area. I didn't get to speak before, but that's
necessarily what I wanted to share with you even on the prior petition.
We have a Rural Land Stewardship Overlay Program that is
functioning fairly well, be that as it may. We have an urbanized area
that is functioning fairly well, be that as it may, but there's a hole in
the middle. And the extension of utilities, both with water and sewer
and infrastructure roads to support the inevitable growth and
development that's coming to our community is a must. This project
is right in line with doing that. The economic viability of this
particular project is tremendous.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Good. Thank you very much, Bill.
MR. McDANIEL: Thank you very much.
Page 193
January 19,2010
MS. FILSON: The next speaker is Frank 01- --
MR. OLMEDA: Olmeda.
MS. FILSON: Olmeda. He'll be followed by Mark Teaters.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Nobody wants to waive, huh?
Okay.
MR. OLMEDA: I'll make it --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll give you three minutes.
MR. ANDERSON: Don't talk them out of it.
MR. OLMEDA: Yeah. My name is Frank Olmeda. I live at the
Valencia Golf and Country Club near the Randall Boulevard -- near
Randall Boulevard.
I am 100 percent in support of this project. I am also the chair of
the Valencia Golf and Country Club Advisory Board representing
approximately 300 residents in the -- in our community, which
eventually is -- should grow to a larger community as the years go by.
I have spoken personally to about 40 residents in the community,
and I have yet to hear anyone opposed or have any concerns regarding
this development. It is very widely accepted. It is something that is
needed in our community.
I am sure -- I don't speak for the Valencia Lakes next door or the
Waterways or the other communities nearby, but I'm sure they also
feel the same way. But as a person -- as a resident of the area, I am in
full support and -- of the development. Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you.
MS. FILSON: And Mr. Chairman, your final speaker is Mark
Teaters.
MR. TEA TERS: Hey, I'm the final.
Commissioners, Mark Teaters, for the record. A couple things I
have to say. First of all, Commissioner Coletta, with all due respect,
okay, the motion that I made earlier on behalf of the board of directors
and the members of the homeowners association was something that
you supported as part of the world-class rural community. If you read
Page 194
January 19,2010
the motion correctly, sir, you would have understood that, okay.
Now, that being said, I was involved in this from the very
beginning. That gentleman right over there went out and sat at a table
outside of E's one night with the mosquitoes eating us up until we all
sat around and we looked at this thing and we said, wow, what a deal,
it's on the periphery, it meets the master plan, it does everything.
What you going to do? Can we have a IMAX theater?
But what I like about it -- and I have followed it -- and I have
followed this and I've attended several of the meetings, and I've had
multiple conversations --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Can we stay just to the subject
here, I think?
MR. TEATERS: Yeah, I think -- I will.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah, please.
MR. TEA TERS: I've attended many of the meetings and I've had
many conversations with these folks. I guess the bottom line is, all of
the things that they're offering and all the things that they're trying to
do to help the county with the transportation issues and all the other
government buildings and things like that, I think are wonderful. I
think they've gone over and above and they've been straight up and
ethical on how they've handled this whole thing. I can't think of a
single thing that they've done wrong.
Anyway, I am in favor, and per our thing that we sent earlier, so
is the board and the membership.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Yeah, Mark. I'm sorry. You
might be absolutely correct, but I really need to have some data
because I never would have eliminated my ability to be able to make
decisions past the master plan. No way, shape, or form.
Please supply me all that data. And if I'm wrong, I apologize to
you. I like the way this evening turned out. I think we got a lot of
happy people out there, and this decision will be made by the people
Page 195
January 19,2010
who really count, who you always said was, is the people we represent
out there.
MR. TEATERS: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Right?
MR. TEATERS: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. Appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Thank you very much.
MR. TEATERS: Thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is that our last speaker?
MS. FILSON: Yes, sir. That was your last speaker.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. At this point in time, I'll
close the public hearing.
MR. HANCOCK: Mr. Chairman --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes.
MR. HANCOCK: -- I would like to enter my written comments,
instead of speaking them this evening, only because they have some
material that addresses the staff analysis. So I'd like to enter them for
the record, and I thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Please do.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to -- oh, you've got to
close the meeting.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I already closed the public meeting.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to transmit.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. We have -- Commissioner
Henning, do you have something that -- your light's on.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: No, I'm all done.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Commissioner Fiala?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yep. I just wanted to say that I'm
thrilled to see so many developments wanting to -- wanting to build. I
wish one of them would come to East Naples. We need some good
developing, some nice stuff out there, too. I would encourage you, but
Page 196
January 19,2010
I'm thrilled to see so many because that makes me feel that something
good is happening with the economy, and that's all I wanted to say.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Any other further
discussion?
Yes, you have to put something on the record?
MR. WEEKS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Just to ask if the intent of the
motion is to reflect the recommended text of the Planning Commission
or the language as originally submitted by the applicant?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Is that in your motion,
Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Does -- the applicant doesn't
have any problem with the --
MR. ANDERSON: We agree to the Planning Commission
language.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's the Planning
Commission's recommendations.
MR. WEEKS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Does the second go along with
that?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Any further discussion?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Hearing none, all those in favor,
signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Opposed by like sign?
(No response.)
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Motion carries.
MR. ANDERSON: Thank you.
Page 197
January 19,2010
MR. HANCOCK: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And thanks very much.
At this time I'd like to have a motion for adjournment.
COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to adjourn. I can't wait.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, just one thing. I just hope
this straw ballot in Golden Gate Estates coming up in November is not
anything similar to what's happening in Taxachusetts right now with
dead people voting. So I hope everybody's up aboveboard on this
Issue.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I'll-- any -- if there's no
further business by this committee, I --
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Motion to adjourn.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Second?
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Second.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: All right. We are adjourned.
******
Page 198
January 19,2010
There being no further business for the good of the County, the
meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 8:50 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL
MW.~
FRED COYLE, Chairman
A TTEST~' ',: .i:..,
,,) ,.' . '....
DWIGHT E. RRQCK, CLERK
.'':'
',;.':, '~
<,.
~~~
',...... .. ........; 0.(.
,/ '.. ."' )
tteIt ..to.,' ,
11.'" -LI!'
These minut~proved by the Board on rz /9- j-ZO{ 0 , as presented
/' ~ or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT
REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS.
Page 199