Loading...
CCPC Minutes 09/21/2000 RSeptember 21, 2000 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, September 21, 2000 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 8:30 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: NOT PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: Russell A. Budd Ken Abernathy Michael J. Bruet Michael Pedone Joyceanna J. Rautio Sam Saadeh Gary Wrage Russell A. Priddy Ron Nino, Current Planning Manager Marjorie M. Student, Assistant County Attorney Page AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT I/:30 A.M., THURSDAY, SEPTElVIBER 21, 2000 IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE.: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELEL,q'fiD TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOtfED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITI'BN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 3 WEEKS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. 1N ANY CASE, WRITI'EN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMI'I-I'gD TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED 1N PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COLrNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE 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. 1. ROLL CALL BY CLERK 2. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 17, 2000 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. BCC REPORT 6. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 7. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. BD-2000-17, Jerry Neal, representing Pamela Wright, requesting a 53 foot extension from the permitted 20 feet for a boat dock facility protruding a total of 73 feet into the waterway for property located at 74 Dolphin Circle, further described as Lot 89, Isles of Capri Unit 1, in Section 31, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Ross Gochenaur) B. V-2000-17, Sharon Heimerl, representing Linda May, requesting an after-the-fact variance of 3 feet fi'om the required 30 foot side yard setback to 27 feet for property located at 4130 14~ Avenue N.E., further described as Tract 37, Oolden Gate Estates Unit 73, in Section 33, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) 1 V-99-29, William L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning & Development, Inc., representing Lany J. and Marcy A. Code, requesting a 3 foot variance from the required 13 foot side yard setback to 10 feet on the eastern side and a 10 foot variance from the required 13 foot side yard setback to 3 feet on the wastera side, for property located at 109* Avenue North, further described as Lot 9, Block 2, Naples Park Unit 1, in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier .County, Florida. (Companion to OSP-99-03) (Coordinator: Don Murray) OSP-99-03, William L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning, representing Larry and Marcy Code, requesting approval of Off-Site Parking at 109t~ Avenue North on Lot 10, Block 2, Naples Park Unit 1, to serve a proposed office building to be located on 109t~ Avenue North, Lot 9, in Section 28, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to V-99-29) (Coordinator: Don Murray) PUD-2000-12, Dwight Nadean of MeAnly Engineering and Design, Inc., representing S. J. Benson & Associates, Inc., requesting a rezune from '~A" Rural Agriculture to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Arlington Lakes PUD for a maximum of 610 residential dwelling units and recreational amenities for property located on the west side of Whippoorwill Lane, approximately 1,850 feet south of Pine Ridge Road (C.1L 896), in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 98.364- acres. (Coordinator: Don Murray) PUD-99-20, William L. Hoover, AICP, of Hoover Planning, representing Brynwood Preserve, Inc., requesting a rezune from "A" Rural Agriculture to "PUD" Planned Unit Development to be known as Brynwood Preserve PUD for a maximum of 160 residential dwelling units for property located on the east side of the future Livingston Road, V~ mile south of Pine Ridge Road, in Section 18, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 29.26~ acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) R-2000-02, Douglas Workman, requesting a fezone from "MH" Mobile Home to "RSF-5" for property located at 3226 Van Buren Avenue, further described as Lot 1, Crews Subdivision, in Section 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl) R-2000-05, D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, representing Jerry F. Nichols, request'rag a fezone from 'T' and "RMF-6" to "C-4" for property located at 1417 and 1425 Creech Road in Section 22, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, containing 1.16~ acres. (Coordinator: Ray Bellows) PDI-2000-01, Stephen G. Sposato, AICP, Project Planner, of Agnoli, Barber & Bnmdage, Inc., representing Bay Colony - Gateway Inc., a Delaware Corporation, requesting an insubstantial change determination to the Wiggins Bay PUD Master Plan to provide a second point of ingress and egress located on Gulf Harbor Road in Section 16, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Coordinator: Chahram Badamtchian) CP-2000-10, Staff request to amend the Immokalee Area Master Plan to delineate an urban infill and redevelopment area to the Immokalee Area Master Plan and the Immokalee Future Land Use Map for transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs. (Coordinator: Debrah Preston) 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 11. DISCUSSION OF ADDENDA 12. ADJOURN 9/21/00 CCPC AGENDAJR~/im 2 September 21, 2000 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, we're going to bring this meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission to order. We'll start with the roll call. Commissioner Priddy is absent. Commissioner Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Pedone? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Budd is here. Commissioner Wrage? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Present. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Bruet? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Present. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Commissioner Saadeh is absent. Commissioner Rautio? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Present. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Moving on to addenda to the agenda. We have a request to move up Item J. That's the community and development and environmental services presentation. We'd like to move that up to the first item on today's agenda. Is there any other request? Do we have a motion to that effect? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So moved. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So moved -- second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Commissioner Rautio, second by Commissioner Abernathy. All those in favor, say aye. (Unanimous vote of ayes.) MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. MR. NINO: Would you advise about the sign-in sheets? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. For those members of the public that wish to address the Planning Commission, there are sign-up slips out in the hall. If you would fill one out and then present your sign-up slip to Mr. Nino over here, and when your item comes up, he'll read your name and we'll be sure to call you so you have an opportunity to present your testimony. We have minutes of August l?th to approve. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I'll make a motion we approve Page 2 September 21, 2000 the minutes of August 17th. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I have a motion by Mr. Pealone, second by Mr. Abernathy. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. (Unanimous vote of ayes.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Any planned commission absences? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I will be absent for the first meeting in October. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any others? Okay. Ron, is there a Board of County Commissioners' report? MR. NINO: Yes, there was. And you might be interested, the one -- all petitions were approved in a manner consistent with your recommendation. However, there was one petition, that was the one that was adjacent to the Carillon PUD. (Commissioner Saadeh enters boardroom.) MR. NINO: The board went to extra efforts to require that that PUD not only physically connect with Pine Ridge Road, you'll recall, but that it interconnect with Carillon Plaza. And to that end, the board said you can only have -- how many units? -- four units per acre until you make the interconnection, which I guess is the equivalent of about another t 90 units of development. So I just wanted to impress upon you the board's concern that these projects be interconnected. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. We have no chairman's report. We'll move into the public hearings, starting with Item J. That is CP-2000-10. Staff report. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Mr. Chairman, would the record show that Sam Saadeh showed up on time? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Almost on time. CHAIRMAN BUDD: It's the right time somewhere, Mr. Saadeh. COMMISSIONER BRUET: You're under oath, please. MS. PRESTON: Good morning. For the record, Debrah Preston, with the comprehensive planning section. The item before you today is for a transmittal of the comp. plan amendment to DCA for an amendment to -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Excuse me. Marjorie? MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant Page 3 September 21, 2000 county attorney. Don't need to be sworn on comp. plan amendments. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I'm sorry, please continue. MS. PRESTON: That's okay. This is an amendment to the Immokalee Area Master Plan and the Immokalee Future Land Use Map. The purpose of this amendment is to delineate urban infill and redevelopment area, which will qualify the Immokalee area for a grant that's being available through the Department of Community Affairs. Part of the prerequisites for the grant application is that we delineate this area on the map and that it meets certain criteria. The packet that was part of your staff report is the amendment packet that would be sent to DCA for final review. Do you have any questions? COMMISSIONER BRUET: What does it do to the existing zoning and all the overlays that are there? MS. PRESTON: It doesn't have any regulatory effect, and that's what the text amendment will state. All it does is delineate this area, due to the statute requirements, and allows us to apply for an implementation grant, which will help us leverage the existing state and federal dollars that are coming into the Immokalee area. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Great, thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Just one quick question. I apologize. Where is the urban boundary? MS. PRESTON: The urban boundaries are in your large fold-out map. All of the Immokalee area. Because of the statute requirements, there are certain requirements that need to be met in order to be considered the urban infill area. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: How did the urban boundary come about, though? I mean, how was the line drawn? MS. PRESTON: Right. And that's what I'm going to explain to you. That what's delineated on the map has to meet those requirements. And the major requirement was the existence of transit stops within a 50 -- within a quarter mile radius. 50 percent of the area had to be within a transit stop. If you'll notice on the large pull-out map, they have existing transit stops, and then we put in some proposed transit stops in order to come up with that south redevelopment area boundary Page 4 September 2t, 2000 line. So that was taken into consideration, where the transit stops were, and also where the south Immokalee redevelopment study that was done a while back carries that area. And we couldn't include the whole Immokalee area master plan boundary within this designation for this grant program. Does that answer your question? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Not really. MS. PRESTON: Okay, maybe I can -- COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Is it drawn on a section line or - I mean -- MS. PRESTON: No, it doesn't go according to section line. It really takes into account what was in the south Immokalee redevelopment study that was done, I think, in '94. And then it looks at the transit stops that currently are existent, and came out with that boundary line. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: I'll give you a call, because I still don't understand. MS. PRESTON: Okay, sorry. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? Is there anyone from the public to address this item? We will close the public hearing. We're looking for a motion to forward. This needs to be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval, denial or modification. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I'll make a motion that we forward Petition No. CP-2000-10 to the Collier County Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by Commissioner Pedone, second by Commissioner Abernathy. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Moving on to Agenda Item A. That is BD-2000-17, a boat dock extension. Do we have any disclosures by any of the board members? All those wishing to address this item, please be sworn in. Stand, raise your right hand, and the court reporter will swear Page 5 September 2t, 2000 you in. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. GOCHENAUR: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, Ross Gochenaur, planning services. First I'd like to correct an error that Commissioner Abernathy found in the staff report. On Page 3, under Item F, it states that the proposed facility would accommodate one 26-foot vessel which would occupy about 33 percent of the width of the waterway. That word should be water frontage versus waterway. The petitioner is requesting a 53-foot extension to create a docking facility protruding a total of 73 feet into the waterway. The property is located at 74 Dolphin Circle on the Isles of Capri and contains about 80 feet of water frontage. The project consists of the construction of a four-foot wide dock leading to a single boat lift. The extension is needed because of shallow water at the site. And two similar extensions have been approved on nearby lots, including one to 179 feet on lots 84 and 85 to the south. One non-specific written objection to this petition has been received. Project meets all criteria, and staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for staff? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: What was the basis of the rejection or the objection? MR. GOCHENAUR: Sir? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: What was the basis of the objection? MR. GOCHENAUR: There was no basis. We received the letter that we had sent a property owner with the following written on the bottom: I object to the proposed extension of 53 feet, as mentioned above. And a signature. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? Any comments by the petitioner? MR. NEAL: Jerry Neal, representing the owners. We have processed the permitting through the state and have their permit, and through the Corps of Engineers, and we have their permit. We are set back from the riparian lines 25 feet on both sides, which minimum is only 15. Page 6 September 21, 2000 This is a natural shoreline, and therefore, that's why we have such a shallow waterway, and we have to go out this distance to be able to meet the minimum adequate water depth to be able to moor a boat. And if you have any questions, I'll be happy -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What's the draft of the vessel that you're talking about? MR. NEAL: These vessel's drafts probably would vary. They don't have the boat yet. I would say probably varies anywhere from -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Two to three? MR. NEAL: -- t8 inches to -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Two feet? MR. NEAL: -- 26 inches, somewheres in that range. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? Is there anyone from the public to address this item? If not, we will close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we approve Petition BD-2000-17. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by Commissioner Wrage, second by Commissioner Bruet. Any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. MR. NEAL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Our next agenda item is V-2000-17. That's a request for an after-the-fact variance. Are there any disclosures by the board? Anyone wishing to present testimony, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. REISCHL: Good morning, commissioners. Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request for a three-foot after-the-fact variance in Golden Gate Estates. On the visualizer you can see the location. DeSoto Boulevard running north and south, and then the lot in pink. The side yard setback in Golden Gate Estates, or anywhere Page September 2t, 2000 in the Estates zoning district, is 30 feet for a lot of this size. When building this garage/shed structure, the property owner measured 30.5 feet from existing survey stakes, the extra six inches to take into account any measurement errors. When the spot survey was done, the surveyor found that the existing stakes were in error and, therefore, the shed was encroaching into the setback. No objections to this petition have been received. However, there is no land related hardship, so staff is constrained from a recommendation of approval. As you can see on the visualizer, this is a five-acre parcel. And the shed was put over to the side. There is -- the reason there's no land related hardship is it could be relocated elsewhere on the lot. However, the petitioner is saying that is a financial hardship, that it was a good faith error, and that it's a fairly sturdy constructed shed with a poured slab and would be a financial hardship to them. COMMISSIONER BRUET: They obtained a permit and all, right? They've gone through the proper procedures here, as opposed to just building the shed and then finding a violation after the fact? MR. REISCHL: Yes. The error came when she relied on existing stakes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Fred, I have a question about that. I assume you're talking about the existing stakes on the east property side, east side of the property, would you not? The side that the shed is on? MR. REISCHL: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, McAlear's surveyors found that the pins on that side were three feet south of where they're supposed to be, not three feet east of where they're supposed to be. So how -- I mean, you can't get there from here. MR. REISCHL: Well, he has a corner shown on the survey. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You don't think the others would be consistent with that? MR. REISCHL: I'm relying on what the petitioner told me. I mean, I -- not necessarily show the survey stakes along the entire property line. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Seems sort of peculiar. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Mr. Chairman -- Page 8 September 21, 2000 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I don't have a problem with the variance, by the way, but I just -- rationale doesn't add up. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Saadeh. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Mr. Reischl, at the time of the spot survey, how much was built of that shed at that time? MR. REISCHL: They went forward beyond the slab. This is not a principal structure, so basically you're just going to have the final survey, I mean, just your spot survey. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Okay, so the spot survey was pretty much the same as the final survey? So the structure was completely up at that time. MR. REISCHL: For the most part, yes. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other -- yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: May I ask who's building the structure? The homeowner or -- MR. REISCHL: The homeowner-- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- is there a contractor? MR. REISCHL: The homeowner. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? Petitioner have any comments? Just come forward and state your name. MR. NINO: Sharon Heimerl. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Just state your name at the microphone for the court reporter. MS. HEIMERL: My name is Sharon Heimerl, and this property belongs to my sister, Linda May. We pulled owner/builder on the home with all our permits and everything, passed all our inspections and had no problem. We went to do the shed. We came off of stakes that the previous owner had put on the east property boundary line. This was in accordance with the way the property was trimmed. And of course Mr. McAlear had done an earlier survey, but we came off those stakes three and a half feet. Then when he came out to do the spot survey, that's when he told us that those stakes were incorrect. He said he had found some surveys out there that were done, which his original was done in about 1979, that were a couple of feet off, depending on how the surveyor shot something in that I did not understand. Page 9 September 21, 2000 Unfortunately, because we had never had a problem previously, we were under roof. We continued because my sister was moving, and the truck was ready and everything. And these are pictures of- there's a six-inch slab there. And behind it is all cabbage palm and oak. There's a huge oak thing there. There's a lot of trees that would have to be removed. And the building itself would be extremely expensive to tear it down and try to move it. It was a totally unintentional error. We tried to do everything legally and do it right. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for the petitioner? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'm sorry, but I'm having difficulty orienting myself. If we're three feet off in the north-south direction versus an east-west direction, how does that affect where you located your shed? MS. HEIMERL: You're three feet off the east side of the property. And that leaves 57 feet between the shed wall and -- that will leave a 57-foot easement instead of 60 feet. We encroached three feet. Can you see -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: She's not relying on -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'm looking at this survey and I guess I'm confused. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: She's not relying on those pins that are shown on this survey. She's relying on some stakes that the previous owner -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Exactly. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- put into the ground. MS. HEIMERL: Right, we -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Right, there's a distinction between the survey stakes and the pins. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So actually, what's in the survey here and this three feet difference where they found the old property pin versus the new property pin -- MS. HEIMERL: Correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- really is not relevant. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Has nothing to do with this. MS. HEIMERL: No, it's just that we measured off the wrong -- we measured off the old survey line instead of the new one. We didn't know that there were two, in actuality. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? Page September 21, 2000 IS there anyone else from the public that wishes to present testimony? If not, we will close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll move that we forward Petition V-2000-17 to the Board of County Commissioners, recommending approval -- Board of Zoning Appeals, pardon me. COMMISSIONER BRUET.' Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by Commissioner Abernathy, a second by Commissioner Bruet. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Aye. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. MS. HEIMERL: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Next item is V-99-29, a request for a three-foot variance. Do we have any disclosures on this item? Anyone from the public wishing to present testimony, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. MR. MURRAY: Could I stop a second? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, sir. MR. MURRAY: I'd like to ask you to address V-99-29 and OSP-99-03 together. CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right, we will hear the two different items at the same time, as they are related, and we will take separate motions. Anyone that wishes to present testimony on either of these related items, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. MURRAY: Good morning. As mentioned, these two petitions are companion petitions. One is a request for off-site parking on a residential lot that abuts a commercial lot. MR. NINO: This is Don Murray, Cherie'. MR. MURRAY: I'm sorry. MS. STUDENT: Yeah, I was going to say, I don't think he identified himself for the record. MR. MURRAY: Yes. I usually do that. The lot that's requesting a variance is lot nine, which is located on 109th Avenue North, in Naples Park. The lot is -- or Page September 21, 2000 the proposed use of the lot is for an office building of 2,700 square feet. That lot will have a reduced setback from 13 feet to 10 feet on the east side. It will have a reduced setback. And I just wanted to make this statement, that he was requesting a reduced setback of 12 feet to a 15-foot setback. He's now requesting just 10 feet of that 15-foot setback, reducing the setback to five feet. And it will also contain five parking spaces, which is part of the required minimum for on-site parking when you're asking for off-site parking. Lot 10 itself is the off-site parking request. And the petitioner is asking for nine spaces of which more or less four of these spaces are actually required for off-site parking. The site also will not affect -- or the use of the site and the request will not affect a five-foot drainage easement in the back and the required buffers and setbacks on the rear property line, and the front property line. He's also providing some additional landscaped yards on lot nine, and some landscaping is required on lot 10, the off-site parking request. This lot nine is commercially zoned. Lot 10 is residentially zoned. The request for reduced setback on the properties, or the setbacks, is to help the petitioner to utilize the property for the proposed office use. The setback that's required between the commercial property building and the residentially zoned lot of t5 feet is in this scenario. If it's approved with the off-site parking, would be minimal, considering that you have the distance of the parking lot itself between other residential properties and the commercial lot. The surrounding properties north of the commercial lot number nine is commercial property with parking. To the east, on the east side in the commercial zoning district, is a residential property, single-family home. Across 109th Avenue is single family. And to the west is triplex, single family -- excuse me, triplex, multi-family development. There are two letters of objection to this -- to these proposed petitions. One is from the property owner who lives on the east side in a single-family home in a commercial district, and she objects to the development, believing that it will set a Page t2 September 2t, 2000 precedence for commercial development of other buffer lots in this area. The other is a property owner who owns an office building to the south, I believe it's to the southeast, who believes that all the other property owners here have worked within the framework of the code and have met the requirements for zoning and setbacks, and this is setting a precedence to let others do differently and giving them an unfair advantage. And then we have one letter that's in support of these petitions, and that's from the owner of the triplex on the west side who believes that will improve these lots and improve the property next to his. And the only thing that he objects -- he did object to the requirement for wall. That is a requirement by code. But the board has the ability to approve it without the wall. And staff has no objections to that. At this point, staff -- our recommendation is approval of the petition for the variance in the OSP. If you have any questions for staff, I'll be happy to -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for Mr. Murray? There being none .. COMMISSIONER BRUET: I've got one. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. COMMISSIONER BRUET: We have approved over the past -- in my five years, we have approved a couple of these that have come by and issued variances at the same time, I believe; is that correct, Ron? MR. NINO: Yes, we have. COMMISSIONER BRUET: And does it sort of fit the same mold, so to say, that some of the others that have rezonings have done over the years that kind of encroach in the -- MR. NINO: Yes, I think you have to appreciate that the anomaly here is we have 50-foot lots. We require 15-foot side yards. I mean, that really tears a 50-foot lot apart. And I think some of the genesis to that 15 feet was the hope, the great wish, that somehow or other we would force properties to be combined, and then the 15-foot requirement wouldn't be that burdensome. But where a property owner can't do that, then the regulation becomes extremely onerous. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? Page 13 September 21, 2000 COMMISSIONER WRAGE: You said something about the wall, Bill (sic}. Are they asking to put in strictly a hedge or are they -- MR. MURRAY: They've asked. And it's in one of -- the letter from the property owner who supports these requests. He's made suggestions for hedges, which will take plantings, sounds like standard language, instead of having a wall along that property line. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Would you clarify again what the objection was as far as the precedent setting? Could you elaborate on that just a little bit for me, please, if that's really in fact something that could happen? MR. MURRAY: Okay. For -- I believe you're referring to the development of buffer lots? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Right. MR. NINO: No, southeast lots. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And what is it they're really saying that that might be a precedent? Because I'm not clear on that point. MR. MURRAY: In Naples Park there are a number of small, narrow lots that are in the -- both the commercial district and the residential district following that zoning line. And some of the people of this residence believes that those are considered buffer lots, which should -- should not be developed, providing a buffer between the residential and the commercial. Although her house is in the commercial on the other side. I want to state that in some cases, professional offices are considered more of a buffering or transitional use between residential and commercial uses, so that is something to consider here. But given there's a triplex on the west side and she is in a commercial district on the other side, staff believed that this would be a good use of the property. It would allow the property owners to utilize it. Although it is small office -- a small office use, the parking also -- the off-site parking spaces would offer some buffer, if you want to call it that, between the commercial use and the residential use. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So technically we're not setting a precedence. MR. MURRAY: Not really. Page t4 September 21, 2000 COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just wanted to make sure I understood from a technical or code point of view how this all meshes together. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions for Mr. Murray? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's not a question, really. Don, while Mr. Hoover is making his presentation, would you check the paperwork, and on the off-site parking petition, see if the geographical location that you intended was not 300 feet west of Tamiami Trail instead of east? And on the variance petition, I really have a problem with the last sentence in the very first paragraph. It seems to me it contradicts what is said in the previous as to what the result of this is. It seems to me that the west side setback will be reduced to t0 feet and the east to three, and you've stated it just the opposite. So don't take time now, but sit down and reread those two sentences, and see if they're internally consistent. MR. MURRAY: I'm just trying to write it to be as clear as I could to explain. So I apologize if there's any confusion. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I'm not sure that I'm right, but let's straighten it out before it gets to the BCC anyway. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions or comments to Mr. Murray? While Mr. Murray does his homework, we'll hear from Mr. Hoover. MR. HOOVER: Good morning, commissioners. Bill Hoover, Hoover Planning, representing the petitioner, Larry Gode. One thing we're doing here is the land is zoned C-3. If the project's not approved, more than likely the C-3 could get developed for, let's say, a retail use and they may come back in for another variance. But there -- I think the staff has a stipulation in here that this can only be for C-t or professional office uses. So right there we're transitioning down the permitted uses on here if we have the parking. Plus we're only going to go one story. If you went C-3, you could put a two-story building in there. So I think that would have, putting a cobbled up two-story C-3 building in that neighborhood is going to have a lot more impact than what we're proposing to do. We did show some architectural standards of the type of building we're going to put in. It looks rather nice. Other Page 15 September 21, 2000 variances have been approved in there. In fact, one was Variance 98-6, about two years ago. It will reduce both side yards. They didn't have an off-site parking petition, but it took the 15-foot side yard on one side down to 10 feet, and on the other side, it was against residential. It went from 25 to 10 feet. So they got a total of 20 feet in variances on that petition. We're asking for three feet on the east and 10 feet on the west, so we're only asking for 13 feet, versus the previous -- the most recent one up there, and that was on 96th Avenue North, for John Mago (phonetic}. So you may have -- I think Kepple Engineering was the representative on that. The -- as far as the hedge on the east side, there's only a buffer A required. So what we're proposing -- and the code said -- sort of recommends a wall on the west side around the off-site parking. However, the owner of the triplex objects to the -- supports the petition, but objects to a six-foot wall as the neighbor. And so what we're proposing is that we would have a hedge that would be like a type B buffer that would go around the clear project. So it's sort of a -- on the east side you'd be getting more than what's customary, and on the west side you'd be getting a hedge. What's nice on a hedge versus a wall -- I guess I'm sort of a small town guy, I'm not a big wall man. But on a hedge you can have them grow up six, eight, 10 feet, and so it can even shield your roof, if you want to, or part of your roof from the house to the west. So I think a hedge fits in this neighborhood a lot better than having a wall. Any questions? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions of Mr. Hoover?. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I was curious, since you have a property owner on the east side who's objecting, why didn't you take your variance all on the west side instead of taking three feet on the east? Why not take it all on the west? MR. MURRAY: The owner on the east side's objecting. MR. HOOVER: Right, the owner on the east side's objecting. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And so you want to reduce that setback on the east side. Why not do all your reducing on the west side? MR. HOOVER: Well, the county staff wanted a hedge on the Page t6 September 21, 2000 west side of the building, so we've got a five-foot hedge there. Otherwise, we would lose five more feet of the building, and it's already sort of getting like size 15B shoes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay, I didn't -- MR. HOOVER: So the only thing the neighbor's losing is three feet. The building is not set back three feet less, but as far as the buffer in there, they're still getting a full buffer. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay, I hadn't focused on the landscaping. That's the answer. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions of Mr. Hoover? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question. In the variance stipulations, it's saying that we want a six-foot opaque masonry wall in certain areas. Did I understand that correctly from Exhibit B? It's only -- the masonry wall is only going to be in certain areas? Only part of the property is going to have this? MR. HOOVER: No, I rewrote stipulations two and five, and it basically said a hedge would be planted. That's the same type of hedge that's required in a type B buffer. In a type B buffer, the petitioner has the option of going with a six-foot wall, six-foot fence, or six-foot hedge. And the hedge is planted like five feet tall, has to grow, be 80 percent opaque within one year, up to a height of six feet. So the county staff's increased that type of hedge -- it used to be three feet -- I would say maybe a year ago or a year and a half ago. So they went with a bigger type planting there, in a type B, which would be commercial against residential. So that would be around the whole thing. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I guess my question is, the papers I'm looking at~ talking about a wall, and you said you rewrote these. Do I have the piece of paper in front of me for the variance? And that has your language? MR. MURRAY: It's in the letter -- if you could take that copy. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Mr. Murray, if you could just make your comments through the mike so the court reporter can pick them up, MR. MURRAY: It was in the letter from Mr. Hoover, attached to the back of the letter from the property owner of the west side of the property. Staff has no objections to that. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Okay. Because I share Commissioner Page 17 September 21, 2000 Rautio's question. I couldn't find it either. MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman? Are we saying that the conditions of approval on Exhibit B to both staff reports is now amended to delete the requirement for a six-foot wall? MR. MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Is the Planning Commission clear on that, that the conditions have been amended? Ms. Rautio. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I have a question then for staff. Is it -- what you just handed me is not in any of the documents that I was given before this meeting. MR. MURRAY: No. GOMMI$SIONER RAUTIO: And I haven't -- none of us have been handed a separate piece of paper to read these changed conditions except -- MS. STUDENT: I think what might need to happen is they need to be read into the record. GOMMISSIONER RAUTIO: It probably would be a good idea. Because I think there -- Mr. Bruet may have them or is passing them down the line. GHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Bruet, if you Gould let Mr. Murray read them into the record. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: You can have your copy back. MR. MURRAY: I'll read from this copy right here. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Please. MR. MURRAY: So we are requesting approval. This would be applied to the variance in the OSP. Of the stipulations ilsted there, deleting stipulation number two, the reference to the six-foot high wall, and adding the two stipulations that the petitioner has offered. And I will read those into the record now. The first stipulation is a hedge shall be planted within the side and rear buffers of both lots 9 and 10. Such hedge shall be at least 80 percent opaque, up to a height of at least six feet within one year of planting. Plants shall be a minimum of 10-gallon plants, five feet in height, three feet in spread and spaced a minimum of four feet on center at planting. The other additional stipulation is a hedge shall be planted within the side and rear buffers of both lots 9 and 10. Such hedge Page 18 September 2t, 2000 shall be at least 80 percent opaque up to a height of at least six feet within one year of planting. Plants shall be a minimum of 10-gallon plants. And I'm sorry this is -- let me interject here. It goes with the one that's on the OSP. It's the same condition. So I'm sorry, I thought they were a little different. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, any other questions of Mr. Hoover or Mr. Murray? Is there anyone from the public that wishes to address this item? Ma'am, if you'd come forward to the microphone and state your name for the record. Could you state your name for the record, please? MS. HANDSHAW: Okay, basically-- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ma'am, could you state your name for the record, please? MS. HANDSHAW: Joan M. Handshaw. H-A-N-D-S-H-A-W. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, ma'am. MS. HANDSHAW: First off, the sign has been down more than it's been up. And as far as all the people, I know all the people and how they feel about it. This is a designated parking lot with a utility easement that all of a sudden the people that owned the property before were not allowed to build on it, and now all of a sudden the designated parking lot is not there. The utility easement. And as far as I'm concerned, a lot of my neighbors would be here today, but there was not sufficient time. There is nobody that all of a sudden wants a wall. I am the woman that has the two commercial lots next to this, okay? I have had water from the back come in. Everybody okays something, I got water from the side come in. I got water. The only places water runs is to this designated parking lot. For 37 years I've lived in this neighborhood, I worked in this neighborhood, and as far as I'm concerned, you cannot change as far as that this isn't precedent. This is a buffer lot. A buffer lot is the road that used to go through Naples Park. It was the original road of the planners. This -- this was to be a road. Anybody -- now, they told me if I bought it I could not build on it. They only -- because it is designated a buffer lot. Okay? So I'm not good at this kind of stuff. But I'm -- I know we had this up before, and I'd like to know where the designated parking lot is, because I know the man that had problems before, Page 19 September 2t, 2000 and he made them sign, he would not pay, he spent a lot of money to fill in to make this parking lot, okay? And he said unless it was designated -- parking has been a tremendous problem in Naples Park. Actually, we have a lot of children, so you can't get too much traffic. And they do run out on the roads. Water has been a problem. But this is buffer lots, that all of a sudden -- if you say you're not changing (sic) precedent, you are. Because if you're saying this man can build on this property when the previous owners have not been able to build, you also say the buffer lots -- this one happens to be 50 foot, maybe 49, I don't know. Okay, but the guy in the back had 50 foot, and he had to change all of his plans so he could build this -- I mean, he has a road there. Now, if you change, all of a sudden he can rip up his road and build more building. Some of the buffer lots, as far as the county is concerned, it goes some are 50, some are 40, some are 30 and some are 27. As far as living with buffer lots, my mother had a buffer lot next to her, my brother was on a buffer lot. And to me, this is a buffer lot and it's of severe importance. I mean, I sit here and tell you, if this sign had been up and it was adequate people, time, you would find a lot of people here. Because this is the designated parking lot that the owner, when he came back, he could not build on it because it was a designated parking lot. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, ma'am. MS. HANDSHAW: 37 years they haven't -- they've tried. And nice people, I know, wanted to build. Friends of mine wanted to build on that, people that owned it. And it was specification because of the buffer. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, thank you, ma'am. MS. HANDSHAW: I'm sorry, but that's all I got to say, and I appreciate you listening. CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right, thank you. Mr. Murray, can you comment as far as a designated parking lot? Is there any designation or zoning? MR. MURRAY: I found no such designation. I found no -- one of the other comments from her when I talked her was there a road easement through this lot. I found no such easement today. If there is something, it's not on public record that I have. Page 20 September 21, 2000 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. COMMISSIONER BRUET: In reality here what we're doing is extending three 3-C zoning two lots into Naples Park; is that really the bottom line? MR. NINO: Correct. But appreciate-- COMMISSIONER BRUET: Just so I'm not missing something. MR. NINO: But it is zoned C-3. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: One lot -- MR. NINO: One lot through the off-site -- COMMISSIONER BRUET-' One additional lot, not two. MR. NINO: Correct. In all the years I've been on here, I've never heard of designated buffer lots in Naples Park or designated parking lots. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Saadeh? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Mr. Murray, is this a buildable lot as it is right now? MR. MURRAY.' Yes, it's buildable. The applicant will have to submit a site development plan, but based on this concept plan, he could build it. He's reduced the size of the building, he's worked with the landscaping and parking to come up with something that's buildable. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Assuming it was not this petition, any other petition, just a regular petition, no request for a variance, the previous speaker said that's not a buildable lot. The owners that were on it before that she knew, they could not build on it. Is that a true statement? Is it a buildable lot or not? MR. MURRAY: It is with the OSP if he -- and this size of a building. If the owner of this lot, commercial lot, just developed the commercial lot with commercial use, the parking requirement is one space per 250 square feet. He would have to reduce the building size and that would be -- that would bring it down below the 2,000 square feet. CHAIRMAN BUDD: So is the -- MR. MURRAY: So he could build on it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: So the answer is yes, Mr. Murray, that yes, it is a buildable lot? MR. MURRAY: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's what we're, I think -- COMMISSIONER SAADEH: And the previous owners could have built on it the past, her friends. Page 21 September 21, 2000 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ma'am, you've presented your testimony. We can't have a dialogue on the floor. Ms. Rautio. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. So it's a buildable lot, and it may have been what they tried to build before was not acceptable, given the requirements that we have to operate under; would that be fair? MR. MURRAY: Right. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I think the other statement also was that they need more parking in Naples Park. It would appear to me that this offset parking, the way this is structured, is giving plenty of parking then for this building, which then in actuality adds more parking to the area, which was one of the concerns. MR. MURRAY: Yes, there is additional parking here above the required amount of parking, so they don't expect that to be filled. And after hours of the business, it could be used by other nearby businesses. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Right, I had the opportunity of having my office at 108th, and depending on what time of the day how much parking is available, and towards the end of the afternoon or evening was Domino's Pizza. So it does change with the nature of what's in there. And this is a professional office building, and I doubt that you're going to have lots of people parking late at night. There towards the end of the afternoon, you'll have extra places to park, if somebody needs it. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Don, what is the building height allowable in that unit? MR. MURRAY: In this scenario, he's limited to a 13-foot building height in order to meet the setbacks. That's how the 13-foot setback was determined. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: But he could build a two-story building then? MR. NINO: If he -- yes, but if he did, the setback would be increased 15 feet. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: So we'd be looking at a Two-story one-lane bowling alley. Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions by commissioners? Mr. Hoover, did you have some other information? Page 22 September 21, 2000 MR. HOOVER: Yeah, I just wanted my -- for the record, the petitioner's title work shows no -- the stuff she was mentioning, there's no particular restrictions that showed up on his title work. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Anyone else from the public to address this item? If not, we will close the public hearing. We need two separate motions, one for the variance, one for the off-site parking. We'll hear the first agenda item first, that's V-99-29. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I feel that this tough decision is going to go to our Board of County Commissioners, but my recommendation is that we forward Petition V-99-29 to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a recommendation of approval. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: With the proviso -- COMMISSIONER WRAGE: To include -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Yeah. No. 2? You need to revise No. 2 stipulation? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Right. CHAIRMAN BUDD: So it's a motion for approval with the stipulations modified as presented by Mr. Hoover? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Commissioner Bruet, second by Commissioner Rautio. Any discussion -- excuse me, Mr. Wrage. Give you your credit. Any discussion? All in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Now we need a motion on the off-site parking. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Having done that, I make a motion we forward petition OSP-99-03 to the Board of Zoning Appeals with a recommendation of approval also. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: With the revised language of stipulation five. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: If that works. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I have a motion by Commissioner Wrage, Page 23 September 21, 2000 and this time Commissioner Bruet made a second. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Okay, we will move on to item PUD-2000-12, the rezone at Arlington Lakes. Do we have any disclosures on the part of commissioners? All those wishing to present testimony, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, at outset, let me apologize to the Planning Commission for giving you a replacement report. But during the -- our review of it, we found some problems that we wanted to correct and make it crystal clear that what we were recommending here was six units per acre, not 6.2 units per acre. But as a result of editing, this report is coming to you late. We apologize for that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Mr. Murray. MR. MURRAY: Thank you, this is Don Murray, principal planner. And as Mr. Nino stated, we made some changes on Pages 2, 3 and 6. Most of it relates to the numbers reduction of density to six units per acre and a total proposed number of units at 590 units. Also, I just wanted to mention the PUD document which is attached to those -- to that staff report that was revised was revised itself to reflect those new numbers, and also to add a little more information to the conceptual master plan. This petition is located approximately a half a mile south of Pine Ridge Road. And is sandwiched -- located between the proposed future -- I guess it is proposed -- future Livingston Road and the Whippoorwill Lane road. The PUD would be approximately 96 acres. It's within the residential density band, which allows up to seven units per acre, but the petitioner is now only requesting six units per acre. There are surrounding developments that were recently approved with similar densities to the east. Whippoorwill Lakes was approved with a total gross density of 6.74 units per acre. Page 24 September 21, 2000 Whippoorwill Pines, right across Whippoorwill Lane, was approved for approximately six units. And some of the other PUDs that have been approved, Whippoorwill Woods, some that are in for review right now that are being proposed, have densities of around five and a half units per acre. So staff believed that this proposed development, as for the density and the number of units, is consistent with the Growth Management Plan, and the types of homes that are being proposed are compatible with surrounding development. The petitioner also -- if you bear with me just a second. The proposed concept master plan shows a flowway which bisects the property from north to south, and then takes in a good portion of this property on the south end of the development. And that flowway is being proposed as a result of meeting -- of the applicant meeting with the Water Management District. It will be preserved. It will preserve over 10 acres of open space and native plants. The petitioner is also proposing to preserve an additional 10 plus acres to be identified at the time of site development plan review. Like I said before, the flowway bisects the property and creates an east and west tract. But access will be off Livingston Road and off -- also off of Whippoorwill Lane. The EAC reviewed this petition and recommended approval, but that recommendation failed on a 4-2 vote, with two negative votes. Because there was less than five affirmative votes, no official action was taken by the EAC. And staff is -- as I mentioned before,. recommending approval of this PUD. But before I end this and open this up for questions, I'd like to mention that there was one letter, and it is in your staff report package. And that letter was an objection to the property, based on the overall density of 610 units. And also drainage problems. But I'll let the petitioner address those problems with you in just a minute. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for Mr. Murray? If not, we'll hear from the petitioner, please. MR. NADEAU: Mr. Chairman, commissioners, good morning. For the record, my haree's Dwight Nadeau, McAnley Engineering & Design, representing S. J. Benson & Associates in this Petition PUD-2000-t2. Page 25 September 21, 2000 I'm happy to bring this project before you this morning for various reasons. One, we were watching all the activities of PUD rezonings in Section 18 over the past couple of years, and all of the conditions that were being applied, all of the varying conditions in those PUD's. And once there was some finality to the process regarding this area-wide plan, we moved forward with our public hearing dates and our application. As planner Murray mentioned, the subject 98.37-acre property is being proposed for six dwelling units per acre, which would be 590 dwelling units. This is down from the application density that is shown in the staff report that you originally got, but replaced by the new one this morning. So we brought the density down by two-tenths of a dwelling unit. The flowway system was the brain child of the Army Corps of Engineers. When we did several pre-app conferences with both the Water Management District and the Army Corps of Engineers, they said we really want to have a flowway through Section t8. There's some impounded drainage due to the FP&L easement, which is now going to be associated with Livingston Road, Pine Ridge Road, the unimproved Whippoorwill Lane. So they wanted to have some means for a headwaters to drain in a southeasterly fashion, potentially out to the 1-75 ditch and the Kensington Canal and underneath 1-75 to the 1-75 canal. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What's the distinction between a ditch, a swale and a flowway? Is a flowway open or is it closed? It's open, isn't it? MR. NADEAU: No, it's going to be open. So with the flowway, we're going to be berming along the perimeter of the project, but not across the flowway. That will be a receiving area for waters to the north. Then the flowway, which averages about 200 feet wide, at its widest, it's about 300 feet wide, and it really takes up about 20 percent of our project. It comes down through a shallow lake area and will discharge underneath Whippoorwill Lane into the Whippoorwill Woods PUD, which is also in the district permitting process, and they'll accept that water. They have their own flowway. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay, I didn't know what a flowway was. MR. NADEAU: We have -- we are in process with the Water Page 26 September 21, 2000 Management District. They embrace the flowway. Your water management department embraces the flowway. We've got an average site grade of 10.7. Our finished floors will be at t3.97. But as I stated, there's going to be berming around all of the property except for the headwaters of the flowway; therefore, we will not, as required by district rules, be impacting off-site properties. We won't discharge into off-site properties other than into the Whippoorwill Woods property. And with that, I think I'd be happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions? Mr.-- COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Can you embellish on what the EAC's problems were? MR. NADEAU: Oh, absolutely. Land development codes -- what would it be, a charter? But their charge for the Environmental Advisory Council is to have nine members, and they have to have a majority vote. Well, being that they have nine members, five out of four would be majority. Well, my first meeting, which was -- they didn't have a quorum. We were continued I think it was June 12 or something, June 15. I'm not sure of the exact date. But we only had six members there. So ! would have had to have a 5-1 vote. Therefore, I had the support of the majority of the people that were there, but because they didn't have the nine people, I didn't have the five votes that was required. There was only six people there. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes, I thought I read somewhere, but I can't find it, this is a gated community, is it not? MR. NADEAU: It has the possibility of being a gated community. We're planning for it to be. But not knowing the actual end use of the property, I can't really respond to that accurately. But we are postured to be gated. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You're paying on the one hand to connect Whippoorwill with Livingston, and on the other hand preparing to close what would be another route between Livingston and Whippoorwill. MR. NADEAU: Well, we did have some discussions regarding interconnectivity. But with the intervening properties to the north, there are five two-acre agricultural lots up there. So with Page 27 September 21, 2000 those intervening properties, it would be difficult to connect to lands to the north unless those properties would be assimilated into another PUD. There's also an intervening piece of property here between Arlington and the Balmoral PUD which we can't feasibly interconnect in that fashion. To cross the flowway, the Water Management District and the Corps have said that they would encourage us not to cross it at grade. And in the staff report, you'll find that the cost to bridge or to fly over the flowway would be pretty much cost prohibitive, and staff didn't find that that mandate would be prudent. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Okay. So you're building it with a potential to gate it. MR. NADEAU: That's correct. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That will be up eventually to the owners. MR. NADEAU: That's correct. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions? Ms. Rautio? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Oh, I'm trying to put all these projects in one place in my mind. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, any other questions? Any other presentation by your team? MR. NADEAU: I don't believe so, thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is there anyone from the public that wishes to address this item? MR. NINO: There's no registered speakers. CHAIRMAN BUDD: But we have a couple of interested people. So if you could come forward and state your name for the record. Ma'am, if you would come forward. Have you -- sir, were you sworn in? MR. DELLECAVE: Yes, I was in the back. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Come forward and state your name. MR. DELLECAVE: My name is Steve Dellecave. I live -- THE COURT REPORTER: Would you spell your last name, please. MR. DELLECAVE: Yeah. D-E-L-L-E-C-A-V-E. I'm one of the neighbors to the north. It live at 1145 Whippoorwill Lane. And for the record, there are some things we Page 28 September 21, 2000 -- I met with the other two neighbors last night. They're unable to be here, so I'm kind of representing them as well. But we have several concerns that I hope they can address in terms of being good neighbors to us. We've all been there in excess of 15 years. And it's a very peaceful lake, it's a quiet lake. It's surrounded by very mature, lush landscaped native vegetation, pine trees, cypress trees, cabbage palms, and there are exotics in there. But it is not a dense exotics stand that by county has to be removed would create openness. So our concerns are drainage, which I believe they have addressed. And our second concern is invasion of privacy, or is it possible to retain as much of that vegetation as possible through buffering, through setbacks, through their clearing techniques. Because it is beautiful and we want to keep it that way as much as possible. We know development is coming. One of the issues is the berming. If they put a two or three-foot berm and they have to do it by mechanical means, they're going to ruin a lot of trees and perhaps replace it with a buffer. The buffers that are required by code are adequate buffers, but they don't compare in scale to the existing vegetation. So really, they're replacing it with, in my opinion a minute buffer. So if there's a way that they could address the north property line, create preserves in that area, allowing us to have the privacy that we now experience, that would make us very happy as neighbors. And that's about alls I had to say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Sir, on your way, would you just go over and put your finger on the map, tell us where you live? MR. DELANEY: I live right here, and I represent the neighbor that lives here and the second neighbor that lives here. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. MR. DELLECAVE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, ma'am. Could you state your name for the record, please. MS. SANTOS: My name's Maria Santos. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Maria, were you sworn in? MR. NINO: Yes. Page 29 September 21, 2000 MS. SANTOS: Yes, I -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. MS. SANTOS: I have a property there that I haven't built because I know my -- one of my neighbors is -- had some trouble that the people that -- well, now it's developing, but -- can I show you in the -- see, I'm the second one. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Why don't you go over on the map and point to where you are. MS. SANTOS: Well, this is where it's going to be developed, no? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. MS. SANTOS: I'm the second one right here. I'm the second one right here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: All right. MS. SANTOS: This two-acre. And I know that Mr. Pore (phonetic) was having trouble that some time ago, that he said that the people that own this property over here -- CHAIRMAN BUDD'. Hold the mike so we can hear you. MS. SANTOS: The people that were across from over here were draining the water over there to his property. And he was having -- so I never did build there. So I've got two prop -- I mean two acres. And so I want to know if my easement and their easement is going to be a road through there, if they're going to pave it or if they're going to put a fence on their part of the easement and leave my little road very little, or what's going to be done. Or if they're going to be draining their water over to my -- since there's going to be another building on the other side too, and there's that other -- on this other part, on top that's going to be building, too. And I just wanted -- I just came to find out if both of them are going to be draining the water, just like the one across the Livingston was doing to Mr. Poore. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, we'll have the petitioner address your concerns. MS. SANTOS: Because I don't want that water to be -- or what they're going to be doing to -- if they're going to be making roads or if there's going to be city water or what's it going to be. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Where did you think there's an easement? MS. SANTOS: Well, in my part of the -- Page 30 September 21, 2000 COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: On the south end? MS. SANTOS: Yes, on the south end for the road. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Road. MS. SANTOS: So I have to give half of my -- part of my - for the road. And they have to -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Give half of theirs? MS. SANTOS: Yes, they have to give -- that's where theirs start. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So it's an east-west road easement. MS. SANTOS: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, thank you, ma'am. MR. NADEAU: Again, Commissioners, for the record, Dwight Nadeau, McAnley Engineering. In response to the adequate buffering and setback standards, the PUD document in your package has specific and fairly intensive setback requirements that were imposed by staff and have been incorporated into the PUD. And along the project's perimeter, we have a required 25-foot setback, plus one foot for every height over 25 feet, in addition to the required buffers. So in the locations not associated with Livingston Road or Whippoorwill Lane, our project perimeter buffers will be at a minimum 35 feet. The -- in response to drainage, as I stated previously, the entire property, other than the headwaters of the flowway, will be bermed, and we're going to discharge into the flowway from both basins, basin one and basin two, which will flow to the south and then to the east into the Whippoorwill Woods flowway. There will be no discharge for lands to the north. There is apparently a 30-foot access easement that runs along the northwest boundary of Arlington Lakes. That is the means of access to those two-acre agricultural lots to the north. We are not imposing any restrictions, we're not building a road in there. Our roadway alignment on Livingston Road will be in alignment with Eatonwood Lane. It has been recognized by transportation engineering and construction -- what used to be PWED. And they're accommodating us, or will accommodate us after zoning. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman, could I just suggest Page 31 September 21, 2000 that you spend a minute with Mrs. Santos, to make sure she understand? MR. NADEAU: Oh, I'd be happy to. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Yeah, but after the meeting. And I'm sure it will help her a lot. MR. NADEAU: Sure. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Great. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I did have one. Mr. Dellecave was talking about the buffer they have now, and he says it will not compare in scale with what exists with what you're going to put in. And I'm not clear, because he was talking about clearing techniques. Could you try to elaborate on that just a little bit? Because I know he was asking you to save something, but are you saving on your property rather tall mature trees, and can it be done by the clearing techniques? MR. NADEAU: Well, as we all know, in order to put a management berm, there is some clearing involved. So those -- I don't know what the height of the berm is on the perimeter. But with a three-to-one side slope, you're going to have a cleared area, and then we'll be required to plant native vegetation on top of that to satisfy our 25 percent native vegetation rule. We are required to define another t0.6, 10.5 acres of additional native vegetation on the property. And it's very probable that that's going to be located along the north side of that boundary. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Which is what he was talking about? MR, NADEAU: That's correct, yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Very mature trees? MR. NADEAU: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? Is there anyone else from the public to address this item? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: I've got one quick question. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ma'am, come forward to the microphone, please. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: While she's coming forward, you've got an entryway and then just a few feet north of that is an easement with possibly another entryway on to Livingston Road? Page 32 September 21, 2000 MR. NADEAU: Yes, there is. There -- given that there -- COMMISSIONER WRAGE: My question is, is why is your entryway not part of -- I mean, I can't understand why transportation doesn't have both of you coming out the same place. MR. NADEAU: We're lining up with Eatonwood Lane at the direction of the transportation department. They're going to have just a driveway opening to the north of us to serve the Poores and Santos property. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: You'll have a division, I assume, for left and right? MR. NADEAU: Oh, absolutely, yes. We're going to have a right-turn decel. lane. There will be a -- COMMISSIONER WRAGE: The one north of you will just be a right turn only. MR. NADEAU: It's a right turn only in, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Santos, state your name again for the record. MS. SANTOS: Maria Santos. Is it -- my property's going to -- right now it's agriculture. Is it going to be changed to -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's not -- MS. SANTOS: -- what they're saying? CHAIRMAN BUDD: No, there's no rezone of your property relative to this hearing today. Your property won't be changed or touched in any way. MS. SANTOS: How about my taxes? CHAIRMAN BUDD: No, that won't be -- MS. SANTOS: Because mine is agriculture and theirs is -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's something we can't control. That's not before us today. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Your taxes won't be touched either. COMMISSIONER BRUET: That won't happen. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Right, that's -- MS. SANTOS: Because I'm paying plenty, and it's just agriculture. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: There's the tax collector Page 33 September 21, 2000 back there in the back. Talk to him. CHAIRMAN BUDD: The guy hiding behind his tie. MS. SANTOS: And if they're building houses that are going to be very high and then they're going to be -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's not in front of us today. We can't help you on that one. MS. SANTOS: How about can I build six houses in one acre, too? CHAIRMAN BUDD: I don't know, ma'am, you can talk to -- COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Mr. Santos, I suggest you talk to the Planning Department. They can answer your questions. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: This is not part of the petition today. The Planning Department would be more than happy to answer your questions. MS. SANTOS: Okay, thanks. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is there anyone else from the public to address this item? If not, we will close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman, I recommend this board send its approval to the Board of County Commissioners for PUD-2000-12, Arlington Lakes PUD. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by Commissioner Bruet, a second by Commissioner Wrage. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.} CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries, MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, I have been asked if you would consider moving the item for which 90 percent of the audience is here for, since they have some time frames that they'd like to meet, get back home. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That would be fine. Which item is that? MR. NINO: We have some children here as well. If you would do that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Which one is it? MR. NINO: I'm sorry, that's item I on your agenda, PDI-2000-01. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Do we have a motion to amend the agenda and bring Item I up to the next item to be heard? Page 34 September 21, 2000 COMMISSIONER BRUET: So moved. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: We should have done that a long time ago. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Commissioner Bruet, second by Commissioner Rautio. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. (Unanimous vote of ayes.} CHAIRMAN BUDD: The agenda is amended. We will hear Item I. That is PDI-2000-01, requesting an insubstantial change determination relative to Wiggins Bay PUD. MS. STUDENT: Chahram, that needs to be fixed, right? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Are there any disclosures on this item by any members of the Planning Commission? There are none. Anyone wishing to present testimony on this item, please stand, raise your right hand, be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: And I just would remind you at any time during the proceeding, fill out a speaker slip and bring it forward to Mr. Nino so that we can expedite the proceeding as much as possible. Chahram? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Good morning, commissioners. Chahram Badamtchian from planning services staff. The applicant has requested to change the application from PDI to PDA, which means it's a higher level of review, and it goes to the Board of County Commissioners now. And the county attorney's office has opined that it's okay, since the advertising requirements are the same. MS. STUDENT: If I might just elaborate. The advertising requirements for posting notice in the paper and the surrounding property owners are the same. The substance is really the same. It's just the change of initials from PDI to PUD. It's been announced here and it does go to the Board of County Commissioners. So -- and that's also still a map change. But it just requires a higher level of review. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Mr. Steven Sposato of Agnoli, Barber and Brundage, representing Bay Colony - Gateway, Inc. is requesting a PUD amendment to locate secondary access to the Page 35 September 21, 2000 development from Gulf Harbor Drive -- Gulf Harbor Road. Basically right now the only access to the site -- to the development is through Wiggins Pass Road. They want to have a secondary access from Gulf Harbor Road. They -- on the application, they are saying they need this for emergency purposes. However, developments along the southern portion of the -- this development, they will be able to use that access road. There are three towers. The third one's under construction, construction~ and they are planning on having two more towers. Basically they will have five I believe 15-story buildings there. And they want it -- these people living in those towers to have access through that gate. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Chahram, I've got a question for you already. I'm looking at the staff recommendation that says for the evacuation of residents only and shall not be used by residents or visitors of the Wiggins Pass PUD for ingress and egress. But I hear you saying that that's not true. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That's not what they are asking for. That was my recommendation. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Oh, okay. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: My recommendation is based on the fact that they already have a main entrance on Wiggins Pass Road, and they want a secondary access. But Gulf Harbor subdivision, which is a larger subdivision~ a portion of it is shown in here. That's the only means of ingress and egress for emergencies and otherwise. So that's why I -- my recommendation was that they only use it for emergency purposes. However, now they are changing the application to a PDA, basically a PUD amendment, which opens up the PUD document. And we can have stipulations. And knowing that Gulf Harbor Road is a public road and they have frontage on that road, it would be hard to basically recommend denial of -- for them to access that road. We may have some additional stipulations coming from transportation department concerning right turn lane, left turn lanes, maybe a possible traffic light on Wiggins Pass Road. So staff recommends approval; however, staff still doesn't know what kind of stipulations transportation department may Page 36 September 21, 2000 have, since they switched the application from a PDA, which you cannot have really stipulations, since you are not touching the PUD document, you're just working with a map, to PDA, which -- PDI basically is insubstantial change to the PUD. All you do is touch the PUD map, not the text. PDA, you open up your PUD and we can add the stipulations that -- in the PUD document. And PDI as approved by the Planning Commission. Doesn't go anywhere else. PDA goes to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN BUDD: So my question for you, Chahram, would be how are we supposed to make an intelligent judgment if we don't have staff recommendations from transportation? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: That, I cannot really answer that question. Because it came about a few days ago, after I told them that my recommendation would be that access be used for emergencies only. And I have received close to 100, 150 phone calls against it, and 44 letters of opposition. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, this is obviously an item of great interest to a lot of people, and we're going to make a decision here without the information in front of us. So how are we going to proceed? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Where's transportation? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: But transportation, they didn't have time to review because -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: What we can do, maybe you can continue if you wish to. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's where I'm headed. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: When was the switch made, Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: I don't know, I have -- COMMISSIONER SAADEH: -- from PDI to PDA? CHAIRMAN BUDD: That-- THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, I have several people speaking at once. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, we've got to calm down in respect to our court reporter and just give her one upset person at a time. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Maybe a week ago they asked if we could change it from PDI to PDA. And we asked our county attorney's office if that would be possible. And I believe Page 37 September 2t, 2000 yesterday we had the answer that yes, it's possible to do it. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: So yesterday we had the answer. MS. STUDENT: I was talking to Mr. Nino -- MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, our suggestion is that you go forward with the public hearing, in as much as there's all these good folks here, and that if we feel the need to come back to you because of certain transportation stipulations, we will do that. MS. STUDENT: I think -- I talked -- go ahead, I'm sorry, Ron. MR. NINO: I mean, I can't imagine what transportation stips there would be, other than provide deceleration lane, left-hand turn lanes. Also at the project entrance and at Wiggins Pass Road, which has been under discussion with the applicant. And they feel that since that's an off-site exaction, that it ought to be on some fair share basis. But I can't see the magnitude of those transportation stipulations being any different from that, quite frankly. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: I had an informal discussion with transportation services people, and they drew something on this map that may be I should show it to you that's what they want. Basically they want a deceleration lane here. They want this ditch -- there's a wide ditch here. They want to culvert that. They want a deceleration lane here, decel. lane here, and they want a stipulation that if warranted, they will install a traffic light, and developer must pay fair share contribution. But that was a five-minute discussion with the transportation department. It wasn't formal or anything. MR. NINO: Those issues, you're -- I'm sure those issues you're going to find are -- I mean, those are issues of transportation geometry engineering. The -- I'm convinced that the objections you're going to hear is we really don't care about that, we just don't want traffic using our road. So I think we need to get on and deal with that issue. (Applause.} CHAIRMAN BUDD: Marjorie? If you could shed some light on that, Marjorie? MS. STUDENT: Yes, I just -- to kind of give you a history, last week I was -- got an E-mail from planning staff about this, and I opined to Mr. Nino, after talking to Mr. Weigel, I believe I left a voice mail for him on Monday. However, I think just a way to throw this out if you're Page 38 September 2t, 2000 uncomfortable about transportation stips, what could happen is since these people are here today, you could take testimony from them, and then if you feel that it's warranted, after you hear everything, that there should be some transportation stips and you would like to hear what staff has, you could continue it till the next meeting. That way these folks, if any of them want to come back and address it, they could. But I think you're well within your bounds to take the testimony from them today and see how it plays out. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Now, I'm inclined to go that way, if the rest of the commissioners are in agreement, that out of respect to all the people that are here we should at least hear what they've got to say. They've taken time out of their day to come down; I don't want to cancel and have them come back another time. Let's hear what they have to say. After all the testimony is presented, if we have any reservations, we can continue our final decision. If we feel comfortable with the information presented, then we'll take action at that time. Ms. Rautio? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: One question. Are we doing a PDA or a PDI? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: PDA. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: A, as an amendment -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN.' As an amendment. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- which opens the entire PUD -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- under normal circumstances. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Correct. MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, would you like to give some directions to the audience in terms of repetitiveness? CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Yes, good point, too. While we absolutely respect each and every opinion that we have here, one of the things that we would request is that if you have specific testimony, evidence, whatever, we definitely want to hear it, but if there are what essentially are individual votes, and your votes counts, that you don't want to -- you live there, you don't like it, that's fine. And if you could consolidate your comments, or if you would come up and make your comments most briefly; otherwise, we'll be here all day hearing the same thing on and on. And given the size of the crown, we can get a Page 39 September 21, 2000 hint, so you don't have to beat us on the head with it. MR. NINO: First speaker is Guy Carlton. CHAIRMAN CONSTANTINE: Are you going to give the petitioner a chance to speak? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes, I -- Mr. Nino, normally we have the staff and the petitioner. MR, NINO: I'm sorry, okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Have we heard the complete staff presentation? MR. NINO: No, we haven't -- we have, sorry. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. If the staff is done, then we will hear from the petitioner, please. MR, SPOSATO.' We have a presentation. I just want to make sure they change the visualizer. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. MR. SPOSATO: These are some slides from the visualizer we'll pass out. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, the petitioner is going to check with the technical people and make sure the visualizer's wired in. MR. NINO.' Visualizer, please. MR. SPOSATO: Stephen Sposato. S-P-O-S-A-T-O. We had to reboot the computer because they had switched from the visualizer to the -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, so we'll be a minute while things start up. MR. SPOSATO: Yes. I apologize. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Good, I'll take a short break. (Brief recess.) CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Okay, we're going to come back to order. If we could have everybody take your seat. The computer has rebooted and we're ready to start the presentation. Okay, we will come back to order. The computer has come on-line and we're ready for the petitioner's presentation. Sir, if you would state your name for the record. MR. DRUMMOND: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. My name is Paul Drummond. I am senior project manager, representing WCI Communities. We're going to put on a presentation today that addresses the minor amendment to the Wiggins Bay master plan PUD. Page 40 September 2t, 2000 What I'd like to do first is give the developer's perspective as to why we're here today and then turn it over to Agnoli, Barber and Brundage to really address the technical issues of the amendment. Stephen, if we could go to the master plan. Actually, we're here as a result of the meeting that I had on behalf of WCI with the life safety consultants of Collier County. As part of the normal process when you develop a high-rise, before you get too far into the actual development of the high-rise, you schedule a pre-ap meeting with Collier County. Part of that pre-ap meeting with the county, at least one of the first aspects of the pre-ap meeting with the county, is to address any life safety issue concerns that they may have, both with the high-rise building and with the community itself. Stephen, if you could go to the master plan, please. For the purposes of giving you a sense of perspective as to what this project encompasses, it's a five-tower project with an amenity feature. We have completed two of the high-rises and we are now under construction with our third high-rise and a fourth one is planned. And that was the purpose of the pre-ap meeting with the county. What Bob Savaggio and Carl Reynolds look for from a life safety standpoint is if the high-rise itself is designed to meet life safety concerns, and then to look at the master plan to make sure there's no life safety concerns that they have with the fire trucks. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY.' Excuse me, sir -- CHAIRMAN BUDD'. Mr. Drummond-- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- the decision-makers are up here. CHAIRMAN BUDD: -- if you'd address us. MR. DRUMMOND: Oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. MR. DRUMMOND: What came out of the meeting after we addressed the high-rise aspects was Bob Savaggio and Carl Reynolds' concern. At the far end of the project there's a proposed amenity complex. What the complex essentially is is a pool building. His concerns at that point were that it was farther than 300 feet from the closest turnaround for his fire trucks. He was Page 41 September 21, 2000 concerned that if there was a life safety issue back at the pool building, what we're calling parcel eight, that it did not meet current life safety requirements for backing up a fire truck. And their recommendation to WCI, through this planning process, was to put a secondary means of access from life safety. We met with ABB, we met with the county. It was well within staff's recommendations to have purely a life safety access point back there for this project. We would then subsequently go through the normal SDP review process and work out the transportation issues that you addressed earlier. I think the reason for the outburst of public lack of support for this project is maybe the misunderstanding associated with -- I'd like to address that. Steve, we could go to the next slide, please. Cove Towers is within Wiggins Bay and Cove Towers is a gated community within Wiggins Bay. And that's going to be important that you understand that whatever occurs within the Cove Towers aspect of this project, residents in Wiggins Bay do not have access -- will not have access to exit the community through Cove Towers. It will be limited to just the 270 residents in the towers. One of the issues or one of the items that I've been addressing for the better part of a year, and it's a matter of public record in the foundation meetings at Wiggins Bay, whenever Wiggins Bay has been asking for secondary means of access, I made a commitment to the community to substantially enhance the main entrance off of Wiggins Pass Road into the community, which subsequently comes into my community of Cove Towers. If you were to go out there today, you'll see that within the past two weeks we have made a substantial increase to the landscaping within the community. We are currently in permitting with Collier County to completely redo the guardhouse on Wiggins Bay, the entry and exit on Wiggins Bay, redoing some curb work~ adding all new pavers~ all new signage, all newer gate arms, We are making the entrance to Wiggins Bay a very substantial and prestigious entrance into the community. It is still a gated entrance, it is a manned entrance. Page 42 September 2t, 2000 Once you go through the manned and gated entrance of Wiggins Bay, you would then subsequently go down about a quarter of a mile to the entrance to Cove Towers, which also will be a manned gatehouse at some point in time when the residents take over. A lot of issues have been brought up by the residents as a result, I believe -- and I would love to hear the responses -- as a response to letters that were sent out that conveyed a lot of things that are not going to occur. One of the issues in this letter was that the new secondary means of access was going to be a manned, gated entrance. That is absolutely not going to be the case. Again, I'd like to restate, it was a matter of life safety getting into and out of the community. When I challenged the general contractor to give me a price on what it would be to -- cost to complete this life safety access point, it was getting upwards of $75,000. It was at that point that I made the decision that if we were going to spend those types of funds, I wanted to maintain some sort of flexibility that this could be a secondary means of exit for the residents of Cove Towers, not Wiggins bay. We are not talking about the 12 or 1,500 people that live in Wiggins Bay, it's the 175 to 250 people that live in Cove Towers. The access point, they mentioned that they're concerned that the guests will be missing their turn and will go into their communities. Again, that cannot be the case. This is not a guest access point. They don't have clickers to it; it's not a keyboard access to it, it is a convenience for the residence. The guests will still go to Wiggins Pass Road entrance. Service vehicles, garbage trucks, delivery trucks will still have to come through Wiggins Bay, the front entrance, where it's a manned entry. That is the only means of access for everybody, with the exception of the residents of Cove Towers. So I wanted that to be a matter of record, in case there are concerns for the children of trucks coming down the road, of construction vehicles coming around, service and guests. That's not the intent of this. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ma'am, with the child that is making some noise, our court reporter has requested if you could listen, there's a speaker system in the hall. She's having a hard time focusing on one conversation at a time, and while you certainly Page 43 September 21, 2000 have a right to hear what's going on, our court reporter's really -- good, I appreciate your understanding. Thank you very much. Yes, sir. MR, SPOSATO: My name is Stephen Sposato, planner with Agnoli, Barber and Brundage. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Could you spell your last name for the court reporter, please. MR. SPOSATO: I gave her my card. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Great, even better. MR. SPOSATO: Jim Carr is with me from ABB. He's an engineer and can address the technical engineering questions. This is just to briefly -- we filed -- this is just to give a brief history of why we're here and what's being presented. We filed an application, I think it was in the early summer, I think it was June. And in that application, we included not only life safety access, but also access for the residents of Cove Tower. And it was filed as an insubstantial change to the PUD. Staff accepted it as an insubstantial change. We actually had meetings with transportation and had recommendations from transportation on specific site improvements, which we're going to go over in this presentation. So I think it -- I appreciate what Chahram is saying, that the application was changed. The reason we agreed with the staff to change this is because of the interest in the community. When we first filed it, we didn't see it as a substantial issue, but we've agreed because there is public interest to have another public hearing before the Board of Commissioners. But again, all we're asking for is an amendment now to the PUD master plan. The request is for another access point. Paul went over, you know, the purpose of this access point. And just one note: If you look at the master plan, or actually an aerial of Wiggins Bay PUD on the surrounding areas on the screen, Cove Towers is that community to the south. It includes -- will include when built out five towers. That part of Wiggins Bay is distinct community. It's gated from the balance of the community. So this access point will only serve to reinforce that, the Cove Towers portion of Wiggins Bay PUD. But again, just to reemphasize, we did submit and everything was proper, and we got the -- we did meet with Page 44 September 21, 2000 transportation. We had in fact numerous discussions about what would be required in terms of improvements. But we basically agreed with what would be required, except whether or not -- who would be responsible for the improvements on Wiggins Pass Road. We didn't disagree with there being conditions on our approval. We felt the SDP process was the more appropriate process to look exactly where the access point would be located and exactly what would be constructed in terms of turn lanes and this. But we wanted to make sure that you all were aware that this was a process we've been working with with staff. I'm going to -- I have some photos. If these are going too slow, let me know, I'll try to speed ahead with the presentation. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a question from Ms. Rautio. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Would you point to where Cove Towers is on that so I could see it? MR. DRUMMOND: This is the five-building parcel of Cove Towers, and this is the pool amenity project right here who did not have the fire truck access to it. And that was the recommendation, to do a turn right there for fire truck safety. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So it's five towers. MR. DRUMMOND: Five towers. 268 units total. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Thank you. I had to make sure I was looking at this correctly. MR. DRUMMOND: This aerial just shows the direction of this photograph that was taken through the entrance to Wiggins lake. It shows Gulf Harbor Road, which is a public road. This is looking back towards Wiggins Pass Road. Two-lane local road. This photograph was taken looking -- the same location, looking south now towards the bend, towards where the road becomes Pan Am. I can stop it -- that photograph you got to see the existing access point to Wiggins lake, and the construction access that's in the Cove Towers right now. This is looking closer down that way now, just to show that there's an existing swale on the side of Gulf Harbor, adjacent to Wiggins lake. There is a county sponsored project going right now to fill in the ditch along the opposite side, the side that's adjacent to Wiggins Bay project, to fill it in to a substantial culvert and to put a similar swale that you see on the other side of Gulf Harbor. Page 45 September 21, 2000 Again, this is looking from that where the road turns back to Wiggins Pass Road. The only driveway -- the significance of these photographs again is to show the only driveway in between Wiggins Pass Road and what we're proposing, access point, is that for Wiggins Lake PUD. There is no single-family driveways or access point on this road, except for the main entrance to Wiggins Lake. This just shows that across from where the access point will be is a heavily planted landscaped area and a lake. So right across from Wiggins -- Cove Towers portion of Wiggins Bay is a heavily planted edge with a lake. There are no buildings right next to where this access point will be, directly across on the side of the property. This is one more photograph showing the same thing. This is what's across the street from -- then there's one more showing back down Pan Am. And again, if I could just go over why we need a second -- why we're proposing a second access point. Paul went over primarily life safety, so you allow for emergency access, both for fire trucks, ambulance and also for evacuation. It's also a service to the residents of Cove Towers. Again, indicated as a separate and distinct community from Wiggins Bay. They have a substantial amount of frontage among Gulf Harbor Road. Again, it's sound planning. Current Growth Management Plan policies include interconnection of local roads, especially inter -- interconnection of local roads with residential projects where there's no through traffic, and there's no opportunity for any through traffic with this access point. Gulf Harbor, as it becomes Pan Am, doesn't go anywhere, doesn't connect to any other roadways. And again, there's no purpose to drive through Wiggins Bay Community to get to any other roadway. And I listed the policy also. There's also a policy in the LDC which talks about interconnectedness for PUD's. We believe it's a minor traffic impact. Again it's only for Cove Towers. No through traffic. No service vehicles will be allowed to use this access point. No guests. They'll have to go through the main access point on Wiggins Pass Road. There won't even be any signage at the entrance -- at the intersection of Gulf Harbor and Wiggins Pass. No signs. You won't know Page 46 September 21, 2000 there's an access point for Cove Towers unless you lived there or are knowledgeable of that. So you'll be directed to the main access point on Wiggins Pass Road. Again, going back to the overall kind of site plan, looking at it from an aerial view. These are the improvements that transportation staff recommended for us do as part of this access point: One, improvements on Wiggins Pass Road. They want a left turn lane coming from -- on Wiggins Pass Road from 41 coming back towards Gulf Harbor. Two, they want a right turn or decel. lane on Gulf Harbor coming from the west. And then three, improvements to Gulf Harbor Road, they want a decel. lane on Gulf Harbor Road, so as you access the gate into Cove Towers on this location, there will be a decel. lane that you'll have before you make that turn into where the gate will be. The third -- then we go down here to drainage improvements. Some of the concerns we've heard is safety. There's a pretty substantial ditch adjacent to -- on the side of Gulf Harbor Road adjacent to Wiggins Pass. And the county has a project under way to dig part of that out, put a substantial culvert in, fill over, which is a very gradual swale, just to accommodate the road drainage back from the -- to take road drainage. So that improvement will take place prior to this access point for Cove Towers on Gulf Harbor Road. That's a very important safety -- or improvement. So there will be a serious of improvements that go along with this access point that we have been given -- we have it in written form from transportation staff. And I just summarized on this last slide. I've already gone through that. But it's a benefit to life safety, no traffic impact, road improvements associated with this roadway, and again, it's just sound planning to have interconnectedness between local roads and arterial or collector roadways. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer those. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for the petitioner? There being none, is there anyone else from your team to make a presentation? Page 47 September 21, 2000 MR. SPOSATO: No. CHAIRMAN BUDD: If not, we'll hear from the public. Mr. Nino? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I did have a question. Maybe staff could answer? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: You were talking about no signage and you wouldn't know that this road was there unless you lived there, this access? Wouldn't it have to have some kind of sign? MR. SPOSATO.' Just the street name. Just to have the street safety signs that say intersection of Wiggins Pass and Gulf Harbor Road. There's no -- we're not proposing a sign on Wiggins Pass Road that says entrance to Gulf Harbor. They already have their main entrance and main entrance signage on Wiggins Pass Road. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I guess my question was don't you have to identify that that's a road? MR. BADAMTCHIAN-' They will identify the road. However, they are not entitled to a sign at the intersection of Gulf Harbor and Wiggins Pass Road, showing the location of the gate, which is further down on Gulf Harbor Drive. All they are going to have is a sign at the entrance to the development where the gate is going to be, not on Wiggins Pass Road, to indicate that there's another access on Gulf Harbor Road. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? COMMISSIONER BRUET: i've got one. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Bruet. COMMISSIONER BRUET: What is the zoning along the roadway here? It's been -- you know, in my 20 years here, it's always looked the same~ but on the east side, what's zoned -- MR. NINO: Well, Vanderbilt Lakes is a PUD on the east side. That takes you down to Pan Am, which is a very old single-family plat. Wiggins -- it's called Wiggins Lake PUD. COMMISSIONER BRUET: It is a PUD today. MR. NINO: A PUD today. COMMISSIONER BRUET: So some day there certainly could be a possibility of other people looking for access onto Gulf Harbor Drive. Page 48 September 21, 2000 MR. NINO: Well, Wiggins lake PUD, its only access is Gulf Harbor Drive. COMMISSIONER BRUET: The PUD directly to the east of Gulf Harbor? MR. NINO: Yes. COMMISSIONER BRUET: That acc -- they'll never have access onto Gulf Harbor Drive? MR. NINO: They only have access onto Gulf Harbor Drive. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Okay. All right. Okay. MR. NINO: The area further south is a single-family area. COMMISSIONER BRUET: That I'm familiar -- okay, thank yOU, CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions? Mr. Nino, do we have registered speakers? MR. NINO: Yes, Guy Carlton. MR. CARLTON: Good morning, commissioners. For the record, my name is Guy Carlton. I'm a 28-year resident of Gulf Harbor and 38 years in Collier County. And let me tell you a little history of Gulf Harbor. It was doing well as a community when this courthouse was at Everglades City. The road, Gulf Harbor Road, was built by the developer, paid for by the citizens of the Gulf Harbor. I don't know how we lost that road, sir, when you call it a county road, but I'm sure you'll be able to produce a document. Let me tell you what's happened to our road. And I know it's our road, because when my children wanted to go to school, the school board said you must take your children to Wiggins Pass Road, because this is a private road. So having been told that, I'm pretty comfortable I know what I'm talking about. Now folks, I ain't got one of them fancy pictures to show you, but let me tell you what you didn't see in that picture. You didn't see the temporary access road they built on Gulf Harbor Road. Gentlemen, that's temporary for 10 years. Now, I don't know where you all went to school, but temporary didn't mean 10 years when I went to school. Today I have not seen a document that permits that temporary road. But I'm sure they'll present it to you sometime. Now, I could tell you everybody here is concerned. I normally don't like to get up and make a fuss about what's going on, but in this case I do. Page 49 September 21, 2000 gives somebody a 10-year temporary access road. those documents will be forthcoming. I would hope that you would vote against this. (Applause.} I'm objecting to this for three reasons: One, it violates their own development plan; two, it violates my property rights, because I paid for that road when I bought property in Gulf Harbor; and three, probably most importantly, it's not a good neighbor road. A good neighbor road says I want access to your community, and for that, you can have access to my community. Now, if you think they will let Gulf Harbor residents drive into Wiggins Bay Club -- right now if we want to the see what's going on there, we've got to get our face up against than chain link fence and look in there. But I'm sure they want to be a good neighbor. Because when we did look, we didn't see anything going on there that was illegal. I don't know why they have to chain lock their access road every night, but they do. I think that sets the tone for what's coming. That's the concern you see here. So I would hope the commissioners would demand, one, to see how we lost our road that we paid for. The county didn't build that road, I guarantee you. The county didn't pave that road, I guarantee you, because we was assessed that, okay? And I surely wish somebody would show you the permit that But I'm sure Thank you. MR. NINe: Douglas Smith, Leonard Montgomery. If you both could line up. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Please come forward, state your name for the record. MR. MONTGOMERY: My name is Leonard Montgomery. My concern is you say 264 apartment dwellings, or condos. We have 160. Wiggins Preserve probably has 50, 70 -- 112 -- 2t 2. On a 60-foot road, all using one entrance off Wiggins Pass. There's already a left-hand turn lane onto Gulf Harbor Drive coming from the east. There is a right-hand deceleration lane coming from the west already. Now, they say they're going to propose this. It's already there. We need a traffic light, we need a wider road, we need swales closed, we need the gate on the end. We don't need any of that, but that's what they want to us do. You're going to have something like 500 people using the Page 50 September 21, 2000 one road entrance that was built for 164 people originally, 164 homes. All of a sudden, we've were got 500, plus using the same road. And that disturbs me. I don't understand it. I don't understand how you can close everything down and say well, there's no impact on us. There's impact on everybody here or we wouldn't be here. A lot of these people have to work. So I don't understand where it's coming from. The reason there was two names on there is we ran out of slips, so everybody didn't have a chance to sign up on there. That's all have I to say. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, please. MR. NINO: Mary-Lou and Hal Eaton. MS. SCHMIDT: Good morning. Douglas Schmidt. I just have one thing. I'm against the new traffic. And the second thing would be, I'm looking at sort of an environmental impact on this. In the late winter, early spring in that drainage ditch, as they call it -- I look at it more of a stream -- the area that is at Pan Am and Gulf Harbor, sort of that turn there is sort of a tidal area, flows alongside the first house there on Pan Am. And there are wood storks that feed in that area from time to time. Just as news to me also that they're going to culvert that entire drainage ditch. Last September, I believe when we had that six or eight inches of rain, that ditch, so to speak, that's about eight to 10 feet wide and gets about six to eight feet deep could not even handle the water level of that six to eight-inch rain. I'm not sure how a culvert's going to be able to handle that, so I think it's going to add to the drainage problem in that area of Gulf Harbor, in which you already have a severe drainage problem. And my final thing would be if they're going to build this small entrance that is just going to be for emergency vehicles' entrance, what is to stop it down the road from becoming a manned large gatehouse? That's all have I to say. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. (Applause.) COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman? Page 51 September 21, 2000 CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yes. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Just one second. Ron, are we -- we're absolutely sure that this is a public road? I mean, Guy makes a point here. We should have maybe talked a little about that before we went on. But we are -- I mean, this is all academic if that's a private road; is that correct? MR. NINO: Well~ Vanderbilt Lakes of course uses it as their only access, so I. MR. EATON: It's Wiggins Lake. MR. NINO.' Wiggins Lake, correct, thank you. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Who's maintaining the road? Have the neighbors been assessed any money to pave it and maintain it? MR. NINO: I don't know. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: That could help answer the question. MR. NINO: That -- of course there may be a taxing district, and if that's the case, then it's a little different than any other district that improves roads in their neighborhoods. I can't answer whether this is a private road or public road. I would have thought it was a public road or we wouldn't be dealing with it. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I would agree with Mr. Bruet, it's a moot point if this is a private road. And that's a pretty significant piece of information to have to make a decision. I guess we can continue to listen. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, as we already mentioned, in respect to all the people that are here, we're going to hear the testimony today~ and if we still have loose ends at the end and insufficient evidence, we'll continue our decision until it's brought forward. Next speaker, please. MR. EATON: Yes, good morning, commissioners. I guess it's still morning. Yes. My name is Hal Eaton and I'm the board president of Wiggins Lakes and Preserve Association. And I had written a letter and sent it to the commissioners, and I trust you have a copy of it. It's a short one, so I think I'll just read from that quickly so that the people here in the audience can know what I was referring to. Dear Commissioners, reference is made to your Planning Page 52 September 21, 2000 Services Department letter dated 9-1-2000, advising the property owners of Wiggins Lake and Preserve Condominiums of a proposed change in the Wiggins Bay PUD master plan to provide a second new and different external access point to the Wiggins Bay Cove Tower complex. This would be located across and dangerously close to our Wiggins Lakes and Preserve entrance off of the narrow two-lane no-shoulder Gulf Harbor Road, with a deep and unprotected open ditch running along the west side of it. I might preface this by saying that I -- when I wrote this letter, I didn't have your diagram that showed where the proposed entrance was going to be, the second entrance. And it is not as close -- I thought it was going to be where the existing gate is right now, to the west of us across the road. We are particularly concerned about the following items: Increased vehicular traffic on Gulf Harbor Road, especially during the a.m. and p.m. rush hours. We have 212 units and some have two cars. Your Wiggins Bay PUD Cove Towers complex is listed with 268 units. Two cars? I don't know. Add to these numbers the Pan Am area and streets. How many vehicles coming from there? And also the yet to be developed Cove Tower residential buildings. More vehicles. Second item, the safety of both our children, school bus drop-offs and pickups, and our residents as they enter and exit our complex. Street lighting does not exist on Gulf Harbor Drive. And additional vehicular traffic would be a real concern from this standpoint. In summary, please reconsider this gate entrance addition~ and have all residential traffic of Wiggins Bay and Cove Towers continue to use their existing gate entrance on Wiggins Pass Road. That's -- that was the letter that I sent. And I would just like to wind this up by saying that if any of you have been here during the -- and using our Gulf Harbor Road during the on season -- the tourist season, sometimes we'll be lucky if this secondary entrance -- exit and entrance gets put in and they allow the towers to use it, we'll be lucky if we get out onto Wiggins Pass Road after an awful long wait, because they need a light up at Vanderbilt and Wiggins Pass because everybody's learned that's another way to get north and south, and that's gotten all jammed Page 53 September 21, 2000 up. So I think they're going to have to think about a light up there. And there's already a light on 41. And if we add a light on Gulf Harbor, you could only have so many lights, I guess, on a road. And it's either there or at their main entrance. But just in closing, I'd like to -- I'm just wondering why the developer didn't think of this back when he had plans to develop this place. Why should he have his tower people suddenly have their own special exit and entrance onto our small road and not go through his existing property? I just -- I don't believe that. I thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Next speaker~ please. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I had a question for the last speaker. What's your understanding of the ownership of the road? Or do you have an understanding? MR. EATON: I first learned of it right here. I thought it was a county road. And they come and occasionally do some work on it, you know, cutting -- well, actually, we're in charge of cutting the grass that is really not our property, it's county property, I guess. And so I'm sorry, I can't enlighten you on that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. MR. NINO: If I may add additional comment. It's not -- it's standard practice for the property -- the developer of the property to build the roads. And more often than not, they become public roads. Now, I don't know if that relationship exists here. The only -- really only private roads in Collier County are those mostly in the gated communities, and those are specifically addressed in that matter. But, you know, we've tried to see if we can get Ed Kant here. Perhaps before the meeting's over Ed can shed some light on that. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Ron, actually, there are roads in some ungated communities that are still private. Namely, Crown Pointe has a private road going around the lake in the rear of the development. MR. NINO: Yeah. COMMISSIONER PEDONE.' And the developer built it, but Page 54 September 21, 2000 they never gave it over to the county. MR. EATON: By the way, commissioners, if I could just add one thing, that Wiggins Lake and Preserve has that one entrance and it's just -- MR. NINO: David Cook, Yolanda Davis. MR. EATON: -- it has just the one entrance, and there's no second exit or entrance to Wiggins Lake and Preserve, and that should be taken into consideration, too. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. I just want to make a comment for the audience. I'm giving some discretion. Actually the gentleman made his comments, he was done. We move on to the next one. And if we're not going to be here all day, we need to try and make our comments as concise as possible. And while I am being flexible, I'm going to be tightening up as we go along and try to maintain order and direction and flow. If we could hear our next speaker, please. MR. COOK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is David Cook. I'm a resident of Gulf Harbor subdivision, in here speaking on behalf of myself today as a resident. I'd like to hand out a couple things that are really just blow-ups of what you already have, so you can really see it better. It's not new information. There's some information there. Although the scale is deceiving, Gulf Harbor subdivision is approximately one-quarter the size and acreage of the Wiggins Bay PUD. It was platted in 1955, and before it was platted, Gulf Harbor Road didn't need to exist because it didn't need to. Gulf Harbor Road went to nothing else. To the south of us is pristine wetlands, mangrove islands. There are will be nothing else built south of us. So Gulf Harbor Road originally, when it was built in 1955, as Mr. Carlton said, was built by the developer of that. It was a dirt road. Later on the county came in and assessed the residents of Gulf Harbor to pave all the roads in Gulf Harbor. And that paving included Gulf Harbor Road. I can't say whether it's public or private, but I can tell you that there's very little county maintenance that's done. The Wiggins Bay Preserve people, they mow the grass from their project all the way across to the Wiggins Bay PUD project where the ditch is. I personally, where I live, mow the grass between my ditch and Pan Am, all the way to the corner of Gulf Harbor Drive. And Page 55 September 21, 2000 that little strip from the corner of Gulf Harbor Drive up to the temporary construction entrance that's on the Wiggins Bay side is never mowed, maybe once a year by the county. So there's very little county money spent on Gulf Harbor Road or in our subdivision. I live in -- and I am the most affected by this. I live -- if you'll look at the plat, I live in lot 164, which is the very first lot in Gulf Harbor. It's the closest to this proposed entrance. And on the -- if you look at the -- this map, you see this -- the parcel that says 2/5, which is their amenity parcel, I'm the lot right next door to it. I won't repeat what Mr. Carlton said anymore but I will say this, what's really happening here is this: The Wiggins Bay residents that live there now, they don't like all the traffic that's going to come by their homes from these high-rises. I don't blame them. But if you look at the original Wiggins Bay PUD that I handed out, there at that time were four building sites that could have 80 units each, 320 units. Those are the high-rises sites. And now they're going to put five buildings, and I was told this morning of 268 units. The people that already bought in the front part of Wiggins Bay, which is the part right next to Wiggins Pass Road, when they bought in there, they knew what was going in there, so they really can't complain that these high-rises were being built. They knew they were going to be built. That wasn't changed. The number of units has changed a little bit, but the fact that there would be high-rises on this parcel, and that there would be one entrance to Wiggins Bay and only one entrance has always been the case. If the developer needs an emergency access because the county is pushing for that, then so be it, put an emergency access in with a breakaway gate that only the fire department can use. Why give these people an additional access for their convenience and really disrupt one of the neighborhoods that's really quiet -- a secret jewel in Naples. Gulf Harbor is a neighborhood that most people have never heard about. And the reason you haven't heard about it is because we don't have any big fancy signs, we don't have any big fancy gates, we don't even have a homeowners' association. But if you look at the people out here today, we had no meeting before this. People showed up on their own; most of the people Page 56 September 21, 2000 like me taking their time off work. This is very concerning for the residents of Gulf Harbor; a road that was originally built for t64 lots. Originally built for that. And then the Wiggins Lake added 230 more units. And now they want to add another 260 units to use the same road, with no real road improvements. As mentioned earlier, Wiggins Pass Road already has a left-hand deceleration lane onto Gulf Harbor, it already has a right-hand deceleration onto Gulf Harbor. So the developer is not making those improvements. The county says we wants them. The county's transportation department doesn't know it already exists. It's there. I would urge you to vote against this and not disrupt one of the quiet neighborhoods that's been able to maintain in Naples. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have questions. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: It's Mr. Cook, right? MR. COOK: Yes. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Did I hear you say that you would not object to an access only for emergency vehicles so that they can get in and out, since you live right there? MR. COOK: I'd rather there be no access. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: No access. MR. COOK: But if the county fire department is saying you must provide an access. Well, I imagine they could provide access turnaround differently, if they reconfigure their site plans. But if it must be an emergency access -- (applause) -- what started out as purportedly an insubstantial change to let a fire truck come in because it wouldn't want to back up 300 feet has now turned into a full-fledged access for 268 condominiums. I don't want any access there, to tell you the truth. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: That's your first choice. MR. COOK: My first choice, of course. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second choice would be that if it really becomes a life safety issue, that you would accept only an emergency access -- MR. COOK: That's correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: -- of some way that is very clearly Page 57 September 21, 2000 stipulated that it could never change. MR. COOK: That's correct. But my question to that would be why is it all of a sudden a life safety issue now when this PUD was approved years ago for 320 units with only one access. And it wasn't a life safety issue then. So there must have been some plan that they would have to have arranged for that inside their PUD, for the turnaround that the fire trucks need. I don't know why all of a sudden it's become a life safety issue when the number of units have actually gone down, from what I can see. This was 320 originally and now they're saying it's only 266. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, thank you, sir. (Applause.} CHAIRMAN BUDD: Next speaker, please? MS. DAVIS: I'm Yolanda Davis from Wiggins Preserve, and I speak against the scape for Cove Towers on Harbor Drive. Although it is being promoted as a safety proportion, that's not the intention now. It will be used by the residents of Cove Towers for their convenience. Presently Gulf Harbor Drive is being used by 212 units of Wiggins Lakes and Preserves, and approximately 160 units from Gulf Harbor and Pan Am. That's a total of 372 residents using that road. And now they're looking to add 268 more units for a total of 640 units, using a very small, quiet road. It would be very dangerous. Adding 260 units from Cove Towers for their convenience I feel is very unreasonable and should not be considered. The Cove Towers was approved for the five towers with their entrance from Wiggins Pass Road, and I think it should stay that way, because if and when it was approved, all those things should have been taken into consideration. On their line No. 5 in their application they state there will be a minor change in traffic to Gulf Harbor Drive. This is not true. Thank It would increase the traffic doubly. And I am against it. you. Gulf Harbor Drive is a public road. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, ma'am. MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Mr. Chairman, if I may for a minute. It was dedicated to the public. Page 58 September 21, 2000 So is Pan Am. And in 1985 there was an attempt to vacate the road by Wiggins Lake Preserve and Wiggins Bay Park, to loin them together. However, it was withdrawn. Yes, it's a public road. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, Chahram. MR. NINO: E. Raymond Shope, Jennifer Knight, Robert DiModica. MR. SHOPE: My name is Ray Shope. I'm an attorney here in Naples, and I live in Gulf Harbor. I really don't have a whole lot to add. I think everybody's pretty much addressed the issues that are going on there. My only thing I would like to say is all of a sudden there's this life safety issue and we need a gate onto Gulf Harbor Road. Well, what I would like to know, are there any other alternatives? Is a gate emergency exit onto Gulf Harbor road the only alternative here? Can anybody answer that question? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, just present your questions. We won't be in dialogue. Present your testimony and we will hear other testimony to answer -- MR. SHOPE: Well, I would like to suggest that this life safety issue that has arisen with no understanding of why this is the only means of rectifying this question should be explored and we should know more about what other alternatives there are available before we even consider an emergency exit onto Gulf Harbor Road. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Good question. Thank you, sir. MS. KNIGHT: Hi. My name's Jennifer Knight, and I live in Gulf Harbor. I've been there for 12 years. A lot of what's been said is also -- they're all my concerns. I just want to make sure, and I know that you're hearing a lot, there's a lot of information overload going on here. We talk about the proposed entrance for emergency, but it was made quite clear by I think it's Mr. Paul Drummond, that he's concerned -- if he's going to spend $75,000 for this gated area, that he wants those people to use it. So it must be clear, if this is approved, that that can never happen. A couple of other things. The slides that they showed of the property, they showed the good part. They did not show the drainage area, as somebody else spoke about. It is serious. So whatever plans there are to improve -- you know, that drainage Page 59 September 21, 2000 area could cause lots of problems. The other thing that I think is really interesting, there was written notification to people that lived within 300 yards of this proposed gate. All of us out here did not receive that notification. There were signs put up. There was one sign at Gulf Harbor that was there for a few weeks, three weeks. But there was another sign that didn't even go out on Wiggins Pass Road until just maybe 10 days ago. And I just want to reiterate, I think it's important that there's concern within the Tarpon Cove area, Wiggins Bay. Those people don't want this traffic either, but they signed off on it. They knew that these were proposed towers. And I think if you look further at what this group is wanting to do~ there's more than the towers. I think they're looking to put in boat ramps, I think they're looking to make a park there. And if this is approved, then there's going to be boat traffic in addition to the cars. So that's it. I'm totally against it, and I hope that you take~ you know, further -- a closer look at what the real big picture is with these folks. Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Next speaker, please? MR. NINO: Robert? MR. DiMODICA: Good morning~ my name is Robert DiModica. I'm a resident of Gulf Harbor. And I think my neighbors have all done a good job standing our case. I think they all have very good points that we're all very concerned about. I hope you guys see through the smoke scene that's been presented by the developer, starting with life safety and then all of a sudden it's more of a convenience for the towers. Mr. Carlton pointed out that we have a temporary construction access that's been around for 10 years, and they have 18-wheelers that go through there. So there's access. We've lived with that for 10 years. And that's further up the road. And maybe they might consider, you know, keeping that and planting some bushes in front of it so the fire department can go right through it. To do what they're proposing I think is very unreasonable for this neighborhood, so I oppose it. Page 60 September 2t, 2000 (Applause.) MR. NINO: Kathy Zachmann. CHAIRMAN BUDD: If we could consolidate the future speakers. We're not as dumb as we look, and we're getting the hang of your attitude. If -- just by consensus, from those people that are residents that are not in favor of this, if you'd just do me a favor and stand? Okay. And we can count. Thank you. Certainly you have every right to come forward and express your opinion. I'm not going to deny you of that. But we pretty well got the drift of what's going on. If there's any new, different, unheard evidence, we are particularly interested. Otherwise, we'd really beg your indulgence and try to convince you that we hear your message. Those people that have new evidence and new comments, if you would come forward and state your name for the record, we would like to hear from you. MS. EATON: I am on the list to speak. My name is Mary-Lou Eaton. And the one new thing that I've not heard mentioned, which I believe is probably WCI's biggest problem. Is trying to double gate, okay? I don't know how many communities this size double gate. But when you've put Cove Towers in there with multi million dollar condos, I guess you want to create the impression that they're really secure. So by double gating, he created the problem. The problem of fire safety has been really put forward by that double gating. If you didn't have that, they could come right through those main gates, as they've been doing all along for the past 15 years. So my proposal is remove the double gating and allow the front entrance to be the access road for fire and safety. Thank you. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, ma'am. Any other new testimony? Yes, sir. MR. HARVEY: Yes, my name is Paul Harvey. I'm not quite as old as Guy Carlton, but I've lived there almost 20 years. One of the problems I have with this is I don't remember how long ago it was, I think it was about 12 or 13 years ago when Surrey-Wayne (phonetic) which was the original Page 61 September 21, 2000 development group that built the Wiggins Bay Club, which has now become Tarpon Cove and Cove Towers, we sat in this room -- I believe it was this room -- and we had a meeting on the construction entrance that they had proposed on Gulf Harbor Road. I remember this meeting went on for quite a while. There was a lot of argument back and forth because we felt that they had adequate ingress and egress through the front of their development. They were turned down, number one, on a road vacation, where they were going to actually vacate our road and try to move it to some other portion. And then number two, they came back and asked for ingress and egress. And I think if you'll look back on the original PUD, this were denied by the planning board originally. So I don't think we should be here on that point, number one, since it's already been denied. Number two, we're looking at something that was proposed as a PDI that is now changed to a PDA, which is entirely different. We don't have any of the information that I requested from Mr. Chahram a week ago in my letter which asked for -- I wanted information from the road department, the number of units, the capacity of what they felt the capacity of the road was, so we could make an intelligent and educated proposal to you as to why we're against this. I haven't seen any of that. So basically I think this whole thing is being pushed. The horse is getting before the cart. I think there are a number of issues that would have to be looked at. And I think the main issue is that if you create a gated community within a gated community, that's up to you. They did that. But by creating the second gate, they created the problem that they're trying use to now gain access. And I think one of the other -- the only other issue that I had was I believe this gentleman said that he was talking about 175 to 250 residents. I don't think 268 units breaks down to 250 residents. I think you'd have to double that at a minimum, if there's only two people living in each resident. So now we're talking about 268 times two, which is over five. And if they have that -- each person having two cars, we're now talking about almost 600 cars. Also, a lot of these units that have been sold, I'm a member of the Tarpon Cove Yacht Club, I spend a lot of time over there. Page 62 September 21, 2000 A lot of these units friends of mine have bought are being sold as rental units, or leased units. So you're going to have a lot of different kind of people~ not just residents of the towers going in and out, but people that are renting their units, which if you rented and they came down with three cars or whatever, you're talking about even more traffic. And I think if the road department looks at the size of this road and even though they have these ideas for putting in these culverts, Gulf Harbor sits very low. We find this out every time we have a hurricane. I have paddled my canoe all the way out to Wiggins Pass Road on Gulf Harbor Road on three occasions in 20 years. So we have a flooding problem. To take away the drainage ditches and the swales~ and to put in culvert pipe, we're going to have a massive disaster in there. And I don't think that they can show us -- the engineering department is going to be able to show us how that enclosed pipe with no swale would even be able to handle half the water that runs through there. So because they've created their own problems, number one; number two~ because this wasn't properly advertised as a PDA instead of a PDI; and number three, because you don't have any information from your department of transportation, I request that you turn this down, period. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN BUDD.' J.A.? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Quick question. Chahram, just to address the concern about whether or not this was properly given notice, how was that done? Could you refresh everyone's memory? MR. BADAMTCHIAN: Code requires that we notify people within 300 feet around. And I sent out 878 letters, everybody within 300 feet. And we have two signs. We have two signs. And code does not ask -- give us the number of signs we have to post. We have two signs posted almost 21 days before the hearing, when code requires 14 days. And we had an ad in the paper. So we properly notified people. Yes, we didn't notify people in Gulf Harbor subdivision. They were further than 300 feet. But we posted two signs for them to see. And most people are from the Gulf Harbor subdivision anyway -- Page 63 September 21, 2000 COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay, I just wanted -- MR. BADAMTCHIAN: -- they weren't notified. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I wanted that on the record. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Next speaker, please? MR. NINO: You want me to read all the -- well, let me read into the record those that registered. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, that would be fine. And then those that have -- MR. NINO: Ted Norris, Kathy Zachmann, Risteen, Siracusa, Fejes and Logie. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Yes, please come forward. If anyone wishes to make any additional comments, please line up here on the side, and we'd be glad to hear from you. MS. KNIGHT: I hate to -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Just state your name again? MS. KNIGHT: I'm sorry, Jennifer Knight. Wiggins Preserve people turning on -- off of Wiggins Pass Road onto Gulf Harbor, did you see a sign 21 days ago? CHAIRMAN BUDD: We can address this -- MS. KNIGHT: That is not true. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ma'am, we often have questions come up as to whether proper notice was given. Let's look at the intent. You've got enough people turned out that made an undeniable impression, so the -- so that's not going to cause you any problem. MS. KNIGHT: All right. Because, you know, for the record, it was stated that they were there 21 days. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's fine. But that won't -- MS. KNIGHT: But they weren't. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That won't cause a problem. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: I want to make a comment on that. The law only requires 14 days, although it was posted 21 days. But more often than not, in South Florida and Naples they can post a sign today and it pours down rain and the sign is down the same day. So staff, if they said they posted it, it probably was posted. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, that is a non-issue in and what's presented before us. We apologize for any inconvenience. Page 64 September 21, 2000 Enough people have showed up to make an undeniable impression, and that's the intent. So don't worry about the notification. That's not going to affect anything here. Any other testimony? MS. SIRACUSA.' My name's Kelley Siracusa, and I'll keep this really short, because basically I think everybody has really covered pretty much every base, except that one thing you should know is that despite people saying oh, there's this many people back in Gulf Harbor and there's this many people in Wiggins Pass Preserve, the photos don't really show that, the photos that they showed. You're not seeing houses. I'm looking, I'm like, where's my house? it's like you're -- they're just showing as though it's this deserted little area where nobody's going in and out. Totally not the case. They don't show their access road that's already in there, which I don't know if that's something that can be used in the future. But more importantly, and I hope this point isn't moot, but I know there's any number of us wondering how a plan for these five towers in the first place were ever approved when in this day and age it would be said no, no to that. So a plan that was approved years and years ago is going forward, when it environmentally impacts the area in a very negative way. I mean, traffic, wildlife, you name it on any score. And we're looking at three towers going up. We're looking at these going out of our windows and we're like okay, we understand the area's changing, and we're putting up with it from every area, from Naples, Lee County, whatever. But, you know, then to know that five towers are the total plan. And it's very frustrating looking at it from our side of things, watching this happen, feeling like it's out of our control when it just seems as though everything is done for, you know, monetary gain and riobody's looking at the environmental picture or the picture of the congestion in this area. I think this please is going to start looking like Orlando in a couple years, if this continues. And again, I hope this point isn't moot for something that apparently is already approved, but it was approved years ago, and this is what they brought before you as a plan; okay, so be it, but this is what they should be living with and we should not be negatively impacted in the surrounding area for something that Page 65 September 2t, 2000 they should not have put forward in the first place. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, ma'am. MR. LOGIE: My name is Jim Logie. I've lived in Gulf Harbor for 21 years. And I guess I just have a request to make of this board. Everybody seems to be bound up in what the rules are. Well, maybe the rules need to be changed. I think it's unconscionable that the planning group wouldn't notify an entire neighborhood in letter. He talks about sending out 800 notices? Who did he send them to, people in Wiggins Bay and the Preserve because they're across the street from each other? I can throw a baseball and hit the area that these people want to impact and I'm 300 feet away? I sure am. I might be 302. But I live in a neighborhood that is -- as you all know, we're not even going there -- that's going to be trashed if this travesty is even seriously considered. But even more so, I think that these planning people, when they start trashing -- or coming up with a project that's going to negatively impact a neighborhood like ours, every neighbor should be notified by our county people so that we don't have to scramble at the last minute, like most of us had to do, take time off from work to get down here. That's all I've got to say. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. (Applause.) MR. RISTEEN: Good morning. My name is Russell Risteen, and my only point is that I haven't seen really mentioned is I talked to Paul -- I don't know your -- and he showed me that there was a planned maybe cul-de-sac circle around where they were going to do the pool area and the mechanicals building and stuff like that. Then they're talking about doing a bigger, better one and having a straight line where they can't back up 300 feet because it's too long. So that -- I don't know, you probably ran out of land, right, so you want to have it -- you know, make another egress. They don't even need it. If they went and did a circle there, they're good to go. And any truck could turn around it. So they don't even need -- the one that's temporary for 10 years? Not even needed. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. MR. DOLIN: Good morning. Tom Dolin (phonetic), Gulf Harbor. Page 66 September 2t, 2000 The only -- I'm just here to get some clarification. Do I -- I'm to understand that the Tarport Cove residents across the street from Wiggins Pass have access to the Yacht Club and the country club also? I think they should be counted in, in the numbers of the traffic that could potentially use Gulf Harbor. And if it doesn't have a gate -- and I'm using that road. I'm not going to go through a gate if I'm a resident there, too. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, sir. Anyone else? What I would like to hear is from Mr. Drummond. There were several issues raised in particular in my mind, and I'm sure there will be other Planning Commission questions. I'd like to understand why the emergency turnaround could not be handled internal to the project without an additional gate. MR. DRUMMOND: Mr. Chairman, if I could address several issues. First and foremost, you hear comments of smokescreens, which singes me. They are correct, the PDI to the PDA. I made the decision based on the amount of public response that was given to the planning board to make the change so that this process could take place. Because I wanted to hear public comments and I wanted them to hear what drove this decision. So they are absolutely correct, it was changed from a PDI to a PDA. It was my -- I based that decision so that this process could take place. But when you use words like smokescreen, it starts to send innuendos. Let me clarify a few things also, before I get to the point that you want me to address, because again, this is -- when you make accusations, that creates a paradigm that is unfair to what we're trying to accomplish here. Cove Towers is absolutely not being sold as a rental community. And it cannot be addressed from a traffic standpoint like that. It is written into the condominium docs, it is not a rental community. There are annual rentals taking place in that community. But an annual rental supersedes someone who would normally live in there. The issue of life safety is what began and has driven this from the get-go. The gentleman who came up here and spoke, his residence was the one that directly adjoins our what we call Parcel 8. I want to make a note, Parcel 8 was zoned for 30 Page 67 September 2t, 2000 residential multi-family units that would have had a turnaround for a fire truck. I made the decision to not construct those 30 residential units that are permitted within the PUD. Instead, we elected to enhance the value within the community to take those 30 residential units and build a very nice pool amenity. The way the pool amenity is designed no longer permits a fire truck to service it. It's not an issue of double gating a community. All the towers, as designed right now, all five towers, have turnaround for the fire trucks. It's not a matter that I'm a gated community within a gated community. That's not what the issue is. The issue is when they finally have to go all the way back to the pool amenity building, there's no turnaround for the fire trucks, and they would have to back up more than 300 feet to turn their vehicles around and then go out the double gated community. That's not the issue. What Bob Savaggio and Carl Reynolds suggested was if you're going to down zone this, and you're not going to do the residential units, you're going to build the pool building, and I can't service it, as opposed to my fire truck backing up more than 300 feet~ let him just turn around. That was the whole basis of it. I could have administratively got approval from the county to do a life safety exit right there and none of this would have taken place. I made the decision that because I think purely from a life safety standpoint is important, but I always think there should be a secondary means of access from any community. When it's built in today's current development orders, why not present this so that everybody understands what the purpose of it is, as a secondary means of access. It is not going to load the road with a bunch of additional traffic. It's a convenience. If you study the site plan, you will see, it is a heck of a lot more convenient for those towers to go through the gates out to Wiggins Pass Road. It is not at service entrance into the community, there is no service vehicles coming in there, there's not any signage going onto Wiggins Pass Road. Over time I think the residents -- it's there, it's a secondary means of access, but it is by no means the primary means of access. And it is a life safety issue that started it. If it remains a life Page 68 September 21, 2000 safety issue, it remains a life safety issue. I wanted this process to go forward so that everybody can understand what we're trying to achieve here. I'll leave it at that, and I'll answer any questions. MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Well, if you don't need it -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Excuse me. Hold on just a second. And the last time I checked, it's is democracy and people are allowed to disagree. We asked the public for their comments, we asked Mr. Drummond for his comments. He has every right to be wrong, you have every right to be wrong, you have every right to express your opinion. And you will do your side no good with any comments from the public arena. Please respect his rights as they respected yours, and we'll get a fair discussion of the topics here. Now, do we have any questions from the board? Mr. Saadeh. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Yeah. Paul mentioned that when they designed this pool amenity, they designed it as such. Could they have designed it to where they could have had a turnaround like they had with the buildings around it? MR. DRUMMOND: No, sir. The way it's designed is the pool was a 2,000 square foot pool that takes a lot of volume out of the site where you would have had the condominiums in that back part by the bulkhead. So because we have the pool area and the pool building right there, it did not permit I think it's a 100-foot turning radius. So the fire truck essentially would have to back up. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Could it have been a different pool design, is what I'm asking. Could it have been any different design to where it would have accommodated the turnaround? (Applause.) MR. DRUMMOND: My alternatives are to build 30 residential units back there as condominiums, or to enhance the value of the community with a substantive amenity complex. And I'm making the decision to go ahead with the substantive amenity complex that includes a small pool building with a nice pool. It makes no sense for me to build a small 400 square foot pool. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Paul, that's not the answer yet. If you can build 30 units, it sounds to me that you have a big enough site to accommodate the pool size that you're trying to Page 69 September 21, 2000 accommodate but still trying to accommodate a turnaround. Is your answer to that is no? MR. DRUMMOND: The answer to that is no. We looked at it several times with our design professionals. There was no way to get the turning radius there for a fire truck. With any size pool. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: With any size pool, thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Rautio. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Several times speakers have mentioned this temporary construction entrance and access. I can't picture it in my mind, having not driven down there for a while. Is there something that could be done to have that as just an emergency access~ that area? Is that something you discussed with Mr. Savaggio, or not? MR. DRUMMOND: The location of that has been indicated by some of the residents as a little bit further down the roads. Again, the whole issue was that at the end of the long run for a fire truck, it can't back up more than 200 feet. That's probably 600 feet back. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So they'd still have to back up. MR. DRUMMOND: They would still have to back up. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: They couldn't get from point A to point B. MR. DRUMMOND: No, ma'am. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Other questions? Mr. Bruet. COMMISSIONER BRUET: Paul, in our business perception of course is reality, and by making this last-minute change, there's a perception here that something is trying to get by the board, so to speak. If this board -- in considering that, if this board can't make a decision today, does a continuance really hurt you to look at some other options? MR. DRUMMOND: I'm absolutely open to options. In fact, I would open it up -- and I presented this to transportation. We have not identified exactly where the secondary access has to gO. My only comment, when we sat down with transportation, is we can put it anywhere that it's recommended. I will share any expenses that are appropriate for our portion of it. It just has got Page 70 September 21, 2000 to meet the life safety requirements of Bob Savaggio and Car! Reynolds. Wherever this access point is located, however it's designed, if it meets those two criteria, I'm satisfied, wherever it goes along Gulf Harbor road. And as we presented, it will go through an SDP process. And it was at that point that we discussed with transportation that we would roll up our sleeves and begin the design process as to where it goes and what it looks like. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Pedone. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Right now the requirement for the life safety from Carl Reynolds and Bob Salvaggio, is it a suggestion, or have they told you that they won't CO it or that they'll red tag your job or something like that? MR. DRUMMOND: It is a requirement. Life safety requirement for the pool amenity building. It's not a life safety requirement for the towers. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Just for the pool amenity building, okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Mr. Abernathy. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: To me this entire -- or much of this takes on the aspect of a camel's nose under the tent. Are you satisfied to have this secondary entrance for the purpose for which you say it's all -- that it all came about, and that is for life safety, and forget this second access for the residents in there? That's the -- that's the hangup. We started out with one commendable notion, and then we take one that is commendable only to the residents of these towers and not to any of these people who have lived around there for 20 years. They wouldn't be here, I don't think, if all you were asking was for a fire truck to back out two or three times a year. I can't imagine that anybody would object to that. (Applause.) MR. DRUMMOND: The answer to that is twofold: We could have administratively, and we still can administratively get a life safety access point there. Again, as I stated before, I wanted to go through this process so that the residents could understand how this came about. It was never in the plans. If the residents look in the minutes of the foundation meetings of the past three years, of which I am on the board, I've Page 71 September 21, 2000 clearly stated on numerous occasions, it was never the intention of WCI to build a secondary access into that community. This came up back in our planning review meeting in May for a tower. It was a life safety issue at this point. The more we thought about it, the more it was presented internally to our organization, and we reviewed not just life safety for fire truck, but we have hurricanes. Wiggins Bay is a mature community. We've had this same issue come up in other communities that WCI has where there's only one means of access and entrance into. If the front entrance for whatever reason, because of a hurricane, mature ficus trees go into it and you don't have access out the front, it makes good planning sense to always have a good secondary means of access. To that end, I decided to take it to the nest step and present we would like to have a secondary means of access. It is not the primary access. In fact, I am spending a half a million dollars to enhance the main entrance in. I want my residents to come in the main entrance to Wiggins Bay. That is where the signage is, that is where the guard is, that is the prestige of coming through the community. What I want to take advantage of, if we're going to have a secondary means of access, the flexibility at some point in time that the residents could have access within Cove Towers to use that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Does that answer your question, Mr. Abernathy? COMMISSIONER ABERNATH¥: No, it doesn't. It seems to me that the people who are the opponents here could fashion some set of circumstances that you would be bound by. I don't think anybody in a situation of a hurricane would object to those tower residents exiting that way. But that's just going to become an in and out for the residents, and that's what they're here about. Now, you've said you -- (Applause.) COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- you've subjected this problem to this process to hear what the people have had to say and so they could hear you. You surely can tell that they don't like what they're hearing. So the process and that purpose has been served. It seems to me it's time for you to reevaluate your Page 72 September 21, 2000 plans and come up with something that is consistent with the original -- what the genesis of the whole gate situation. MR. DRUMMOND: I respect that comment. I think what troubles me is that the Gulf Harbor community is beyond where this access point will be. By installing this access point where we have shown it, it in no way will impact or add additional traffic beyond that point to Gulf Harbor. The only impact to traffic will be from Wiggins Bay down that stretch of road in front of the other condominium complex. Their concern in the letter when they write these letters is your guests are going to get lost. There are no guests going down this road. It's purely the residents. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's a canard, we agree with that. MR. DRUMMOND: So there's not going to be any people wandering down Gulf Harbor. They have no reason to go back to Gulf Harbor. I also think that in doing the secondary entrance, we are going to substantively enhance the quarter of a mile stretch from Wiggins Pass Road down to the bend. There is, in my opinion, a serious safety hazard there with that culvert. It's starting to eat at the road. Part of the plans are to put a 72-inch culvert in there, fill it in with soil, have it as a sodded entrance. The whole road going down to this turn will be visually enhanced for everybody. It will be a positive. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, any other questions from -- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I just wanted to commend Mr. Drummond for going through this process. Because I've been on all sides of it, from being an owner for to a construction person to being a staff person in my history, and I want to thank you for making this effort, although it's taken a while. Because I don't think some of the people realize that you could have done this without this much input. And I really want to commend the people for showing up here and making your objections known. Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is there anyone else from the public that wants to present new testimony? Really, we're looking for new evidence. Don't rehash anything. It's pretty darn clear, and I would strongly recommend the residents not to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Page 73 September 21, 2000 MR. COOK: I just want to clarify one thing, that's all. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Yes, sir, would -- MR. COOK: David Cook again. Obviously I'm not upset that they want to build an amenity area next door to my house. That's a lot better than units. I do want to clarify, though, the Wiggins Bay master plan I handed out to you, the Tract 8 he's talking about says two stories, five units. not 30. Maybe I'm wrong, but it was originally approved for five units on that amenity plan, not 30. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Thank you, sir. Yes, ma'am. We're interested in new testimony, new evidence before the board. MS. KNIGHT: Yes. Jennifer Knight. To what extent can you investigate these plans that are proposed, this pool area, the amenity area and how it definitely could not be reworked so that a vehicle could come in? Who can verify that there aren't alternatives? CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's going to be part of our judgment call. MS. KNIGHT: Okay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other testimony? Yes, sir, please come forward. If there's anyone else that wishes to speak, please come forward and stand by the mike, because we really would like to wrap this up. MR. DiMODICA: I would just really like to point this out from CHAIRMAN BUDD: Your name? MR. DiMODICA: Robert DiModica. From a life safety standpoint, aren't there other options? Because I was under the impression that sometimes the fire department does not need to gain access to certain buildings, that they're protected in a certain way. Through fire sprinkler systems, fire alarm systems, extra exits, door exits where they might not need -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: I can answer that for you. In the case of a medical emergency, no amount of sprinklers or fire protection would help. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Unfortunately. MR. DiMODICA: And the other thing that I don't understand from this whole meeting is if the life safety team in Collier Page 74 September 21, 2000 County is asking for a turnaround, what does that have to do with the second emergency -- are you sure they're asking for an emergency entrance? Did they put that in document form? Is it an emergency entrance they're looking for or is it a turnaround? That's two separate things. So I'm a little bit unsure about that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: I can answer that in general. They're looking for a solution to life safety guidelines. And part of this board's decision is deciding which solution is appropriate, what rights this property owner has, and what impact it has on the neighborhood. Thank you, sir. Any other comments from the public? If not, we will close the public hearing. Do we have a motion around which we can have some discussion and take some action on this? Anybody have a strong feeling about how we should propose? I have to tell you, my personal inclination is I'm in agreement with the staff recommendation, that it's restricted to the use of emergency vehicles and personnel only. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Is this a motion, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, not exactly. It's a commentary looking to solicit a motion. COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Let me take make a motion, and we can go from there. I make a motion that we recommend approval of petition PDI-2000-01, representing an insubstantial revision, subject to the staff's proposed access point to Gulf Harbor Drive shall be for the sole use of emergency vehicles and personnel, and for the evacuation of residents only and shall not be used by the residents or visitors of Wiggins Bay PUD for egress and ingress purposes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'd be delighted to second that. MR. NINO: You'd make that an amendment to the Wiggins Bay PUD? CHAIRMAN BUDD: We are -- the way I understood Mr. Wrage, he was reading right off the staff recommendation. MR. NINO: Right, but-- COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: But he changed it. MR. NINO: But at outset we changed the application -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: My mistake. MR. NINO: -- to an amendment. Page 75 September 21, 2000 COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Let me go back and amend that to Petition PDA. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: And remove the word insubstantial. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, are we clear? We have a motion by Mr. Wrage, a second by Mr. Abernathy. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. We'll take a couple minutes break for the court reporter. (Recess.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: We're ready? All right, we'll bring the meeting back to order. Back to our agenda, Item F. That's PUD-99-20. Are there any disclosures on this item? COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Yes. I want to disclose that I spoke to the people from Brynwood. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other disclosures? There being none, anyone wishing to present testimony, please stand, raise your right hand, be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows with current planning staff. Petitioner is requesting to rezone the subject 29.26-acre tract from agriculture to planned unit development to allow 160 residential dwelling units. This results in a density of 5.47 units per acre. They're also proposing to include 4.15 acres of the preserve and conservation area, 4.79-acre lake. As you can see on the visualizer~ the subject site is located on the east side of future Livingston Road extension, about a quarter of a mile south of Pine Ridge Road. It's adjacent to the south side of the golf driving range. There's a fire station, the undeveloped Pine Ridge Center and Pine Ridge Center West PUD's. To the south are agricultural lots. MR. NINO: Show the Arlington boundary. MR. BELLOWS: And the petition that you heard earlier today was the Arlington PUD, which basically follows this line down to Page 76 September 21, 2000 the south here, over, down and over, and up this way and over. Staff, in reviewing this petition, worked closely with the developer of Arlington Lakes to discuss the possibility of an interconnection there. At this point, the flowway, as you'll recall on the Arlington Lakes, prevented that real connection. And I'll get into where we provided an interconnection we get on with the presentation. The subject site is located in the density band and in the urban residential area. The base density is four units per acre. They're eligible to receive three additional dwelling units per acre, resulting in a total of seven units per acre they're eligible to ask for. However, they're only asking for 5.47 units per acres, so it is consistent with the Growth Management Plan. This is a revised master plan that was submitted just a few days ago by the applicant. It's similar to the one you have in your packet, except the interconnection to the north is moved directly opposite the lake instead of an alignment here that's shown in the packet that you have. The interconnection to the north is recommended by staff because of a proposed comprehensive plan change to turn those properties to the north into commercial zoned properties. Right now they're agriculture and outside the activity centers. If this proposed comp. plan amendment is approved, those properties would be eligible for commercial zoning, and we would have interconnection into the residential units to commercial zoned properties to the north without having them travel on future Livingston Road up to the corner of Pine Ridge, that heavily congested intersection. The traffic impact statement submitted by the applicant indicates that the traffic will generate approximately 970 weekday trips. Based on staff's analysis, project trips will not exceed the significance test of five percent of the level of service "C" design volume of either Livingston Road or Pine or Pine Ridge Road. Therefore, there's no phasing recommended for this project. They're also providing a pedestrian access way through the center of the site to interconnect with the pedestrian sidewalk systems proposed for Livingston Road along this side. The pedestrian way goes through the middle of the project. The Environmental review, there was no official Page 77 September 21, 2000 recommendation. But like Arlington Lakes, both heard the same day, there was not enough commissioners to make an official recommendation. However, the staff recommended stipulations, and the EAC staff report have been incorporated into the PUD document. Staff has not received any correspondence opposing this project; therefore, we're recommending that you forward to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for Mr. Bellows? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I have two. Well, this I guess is for the attorney. Can the County Commission consider the 4-1 vote by the EAC, even though it's not an official recommendation? And if so -- MS. STUDENT: I've never been asked that question before. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: -- what difference does it make? MS. STUDENT: I think that the board has to look at the petition on its merits and give some weight to what its advisory committees recommend. I think they may give more weight to what you all recommend, because you look at the project as a whole, as opposed to the EAC that looks at environmental issues. So I think it's a matter of the weight they accord it. But I think they can just duly note that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: So they can look at the 4-1 vote as an indication? MS. STUDENT: Just, you know, not look at it as official action, but take it for what it is. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And my other question is for Ray or for Ron. Ron, I thought we had moved to six-foot side yard setbacks for single-family homes. Wasn't that Commissioner Carter's initiative? MR. NINO: Yes, we have. And I think we overlooked that. And ! would recommend that you do that. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: All right, thank you. That's on Page 9 of the document. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions or comments? If we could hear from petitioner, please. Page 78 September 21, 2000 MR. NINO: To that point, however, let me add, that should be five -- six and seven and a half for two stories instead of the five for two stories. Thanks for pointing that out. MR. HOOVER: For the record, Bill Hoover, of Hoover Planning, representing the petitioners. I don't think there's any big issues on that. I think they're conferring on those setbacks recommendations, and I think in a couple of minutes we can give you our input on that. Is there any other questions or issues? CHAIRMAN BUDD: I only have the comment that your choices on the side yard setbacks is to like them or like them. COMMISSIONER BRUET: I wouldn't spend a lot of time -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: I wouldn't spend a lot of time not liking it, MR. HOOVER: We had some different ones in here and they hired the Evans Group. I think they're out of Orlando. They have a bunch of accolades, But we revised these based on their recommendations. And we have -- MR. MILK: For the record, Brian Milk with the firm of RWA, Incorporated. I'd like to speak just briefly to the request for the revised setbacks. This project has been undergoing for about a year now, and I say that because of the environmental impacts to the site and going through the Corps jurisdiction in South Florida. In doing so, the development parameters that were issued or looked at in this table were looked at from the onset. So the subdivision plans, we actually have a subdivision master plan that we're ready to submit that was looked at from the virtue of five foot and the setbacks that were looked at on this table. And because of the gated community and -- the community is going to be a single-family community. Those houses or those properties out there, it's going to be single-family and single-family attached housing units. And that's why it's important that these standards prevail based on our lot configurations and our housing models that are actually designed for that particular project for such a long time. It's a '99 project that's been to the Corps and the South Florida, and there's a lot of merit to that. I've got a roll of construction drawings that we're pretty much ready to submit Page 79 September 21, 2000 based on these tables and standards and -- what the staff here on their particular input on these. So if we would have known about it, I think we could have redesigned or looked at it, but I think we're a little bit further on that. Because of the architectural styles of the houses and the gated community, we would prefer to see what's in there so we can pursue our subdivision plans. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Well, I'm absolutely unimpressed by that. I don't think it's too late because you haven't gotten our approval, and that's what you're seeking. And we've had for at least six months a six-foot side back requirement. Even though it was flogged to us that this is an industry standard. We also go out and see the DiVosta developments and say, well, if that's what an industry standard looks like, then we're just -- that's C or C plus, and Naples and Collier County are not a C or C plus community. I'd prefer to have seven and a half feet so you'd really have some redrawing to do. But I think you'd be well advised to go back and draw it at six feet, which is what the staff wants but overlooked. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ron or -- if you guys could give us some perspective. Where do we stand on the six-foot setback? Is that policy by County Commission or ordinance, or when did that come into play? MR. NINO: We promise you as staff that we would henceforth -- and that was a year ago -- recommend a five-foot side yard for a one-story building. And because we perceive that to be the wish of some commissioners, then -- the Board of Commissioners and the wish of some of these commissioners, and quite frankly, from professional planning point of view, tend to agree that that five foot was always perhaps a little bit on the thin side, producing 10-foot spacing between buildings -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: You misspoke then, you meant to say six. MR. NINO: Six. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Six. MR. NINO: I'm saying the five feet -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: But earlier you said staff had agreed to recommend five, you really meant six. MR. NINO: Six feet, correct. Thank you. Page 80 September 21, 2000 And you know, as we travel around and look -- quite frankly look at the PUD's that have enjoyed the five foot and the 10-foot spacing between buildings, quite frankly, I'm not all that impressed with the urban design statement that they make. And I think we've been on the wrong track for a long time, we need to get on the right track. And I think 12 feet is a more acceptable spacing between single-family homes. CHAIRMAN BUDD: J.A. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I think the question is, is there an ordinance, or do we change Land Development Code? MR. NINO: No. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: It's just a recommendation -- MR. NINO: It's policy -- it's a recommendation, correct. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So if this goes before the Board of County Commissioners and they look at schedule, they may say as far as we're concerned, it's policy to be six feet and that's what we're going to ask these gentlemen to do. If the Board of County Commissioners chooses to do that, they could, right? MR. NINO.' They could do that. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So they're taking a big chance if they get past us. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's their prerogative. MR. MILK: I'm just saying for the record, it's the first time we've been indulged with that. Again, we've been moving pretty steadily forward and I wanted to put that out as -- MR. NINO: Well, I think Bill Hoover knew that a long time ago. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yeah, I'd say. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I'd say Bill did. MR. MILK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is there anyone else from the public to address this item? Yes, sir, please come forward, state your name. MR. DELLECAVE: My name is Steve Dellecave. D-E-L-L-E-C-A-V-E. Again, I live at 1145 Whippoorwill Lane, which is a lot I own due west of -- or due east of their project. So my western boundary abuts their eastern boundary. On a positive note, it's real nice to see that they've gone all single family. I think that's going to turn out to be an opportunity for everybody, especially us as the eastern neighbors. Page 81 September 21, 2000 Some conflicts I see that I hope they can address, at least for me and the neighbors to my south, is that our western view is what makes the property. We have post card views of sunsets there. And I think it's important to maintain my property values to try and retain those views. So again, like I mentioned on the previous project to the south of me, if we could do whatever can be done to save trees, to create larger buffers, to allow me not to look at the backs of homes, I think could would be an opportunity for me, help me retain my property values and hope there will be an opportunity for the developer as well. That is really my only concern. And also, my concern would be in the process of berming for site water retention, could it accommodate leaving as many trees as possible? Again to go create a five-foot wide berm, 10-foot wide berm at the cost of a lot of mature pine trees, cypress trees, cabbage palms, I don't see as being a big benefit for me. So that's what I just wanted to voice for the record, and thank you for your time. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is there anyone else from the public to address this item? If not, we'll close the public hearing. Are there any thoughts or a motion from the board? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion that we forward this petition recommending approval with the proviso that side yard setbacks for single-family homes be six feet and -- or for two single-story homes be six feet and two-story be seven and a half feet, pursuant to the staff's evolving policy, which has been well known by the development community, I think, for many, many months. MR. NINO: Let me -- because this is becoming increasingly a problem, Ms. Student will I'm sure support what I'm going to say. People make statements on the record, and if they're not reflected in the PUD, we have been finding ourselves in hot water, quite frankly. Mr. Dellecave got up and said he expects this to be a single-family community. The PUD as we have before us is not a single-family community. So we need to clarify that things stated on the record need to he reflected on the PUD. Marjorie, would you agree that that's been -- as a matter of fact, the board has -- the board has said when there are statements made on the PUD, they want assurance -- statements Page 82 September 21, 2000 made on the record, that they wants us now to provide them with follow-up assurance that those statements are reflected in the PUD. This is a recent phenomena that's been going on, and we need to clarify that. MS. STUDENT: For the record, Marjorie Student, assistant county attorney. As long as it's a recommendation in the PUD that's been made and voted on by the Board of County Commissioners, then it legally belongs in the PUD. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: It's not a recommendation, it's a commitment that he's made that it's a single-family community. MS. STUDENT: I don't understand how that would -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: That contradicts the PUD which has two-family and multi-family. MR. MILK: But the PUD as presented is a single-family, two-family and multi-family project. Our intent for that property boundary is to put single-family homes in there. Our intent also is to maintain all of the native vegetation that exists along that property boundary with the neighboring property to the east. Also, we're going to landscape in there because we need that buffer for our native vegetation retention. So we intend to keep it like that, with the exception of removing the exotics from that area. MR. NINO: But are you going to have multi-family as a product in this development? MR. MILK: In the development? What I will put on the record is we will can put single-family along that eastern -- or western property boundary and specify that. MR. NINO: But you're hay -- you will have multi-family in some part of the project. MR. MILK: Well, the PUD allows that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: That's all we wants to do is confirm it, because -- MR, NINO: Confirm it on the record. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Right, just confirm that on the record. MR. MILK: Right. That's correct, the PUD establishes three product types: Single-family, duplex, if you may, and multi-family. When we talk about compatibility and land use relationships Page 83 September 2t, 2000 along that property boundary, we're going to maintain our buffer to code. In fact, it's going to remain there because of our native vegetation retention requirement. Also, we're going to have single-family houses that don't back up to that project, but they're going to be single family that run on a parallel fashion with that property boundary. That we do know. And we can specify on the PUD master plan that there will be single family in that area of the project. I hate to tie up the whole remainder of the project for -- MR. NINO: I'm not asking you that. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We don't intend to tie it up. MR. NINO: I was simply trying to -- MR. MILK: Clarify. MR. NINO: -- clarify, because Mr. Dellecave got up with the assumption that you were building an entirely single-family development here, and that wasn't correct. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Ms. Student? MS. STUDENT: I just want to the clarify for the record very typically what happens when you have a PUD, is that the applicant puts a whole range of uses in there, because they want some flexibility in case the market changes and they have to build one product or another. If it's the will of the Planning Commission and/or the board to have them commit to solely one product and they're willing to do it, then I think the PUD could be changed to reflect that. But they would have to be, you know, willing to do it, or absent that, there would have to be a public health, safety, welfare reason for the board to limit to it to only one type of use. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Marjorie, that wasn't the issue. He made the unsolicited statement that it was a single-family community. MS. STUDENT: No, I understand that. And I'm just saying that just because somebody makes a statement that that's what it's going to be, that typically when a person comes in to have a PUD, they may make that statement, but they have a different range -- a whole range of uses that includes that, depending on what the market is. And at this juncture, that's what they're going to do. If we want to make that a condition of the PUD -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: No, we don't. CHAIRMAN BUDD: No, we don't. Page 84 September 2t, 2000 MS. STUDENT: -- I think you can, as long as -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: We're just going around in circles now. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Yeah, we're fine. We don't have an issue. It was an inadvertent comment. Ron pointed out it was inaccurate. We're set. We don't have an issue. But we are in the process of trying to make a motion. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I think I made it. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Can you restate it? Mr. Abernathy, can you restate it? Because I got lost in the crossfire. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I think my motion was that we forward it recommending approval with the provision that the side yard setbacks for one-story single-family dwellings be six feet instead of five and for two-story single-family dwellings, it be seven and a half feet instead of five. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you, I appreciate you restating that for me. And Mr. Bruet, I think you had a second? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Yes, I will. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Is there any discussion? All those in favor, state aye. Those opposed? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Nay. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Next agenda Item G is R-2000-02. Are there any disclosures on this item? COMMISSIONER WRAGE: Other than, Mr. Chairman, I apologize, but I am late already. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And you are leaving. Is there anyone else leaving that we haven't -- COMMISSIONER PEDONE: Yes. CHAIRMAN BUDD.' Mr. Pedone. COMMISSIONER PEDONE: I'm leaving also. CHAIRMAN BUDD: And we're down to five commissioners. We have a quorum. We can keep going. And we will do so. Any disclosures from the survivors? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: We're on 2000-05? CHAIRMAN BUDD: 2000-02. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Oh, thank you. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Item G. Page 85 September 2t, 2000 No disclosures? Anyone from the public wishing to present testimony, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (Speakers were duly sworn.) MR. REISCHL: Good morning, commissioners. Fred Reischl, planning services. This is a request to fezone property from mobile home to RSF-5. As you can see on the visualizer, it's located off Bayshore at the end of what is commonly called Van Buren, but plotted as Kelly Plaza. The property is approximately two acres. Under the current zoning, it could support 14 mobile homes. Under the proposed zoning, it would support 10 single-family homes. Currently the petitioner's idea for the property is to have one home and a guest house. Growth Management Plan consistency: The property in this area is eligible for four dwelling units per acre, according to the density rating system. However, the Growth Management Plan allows zoning changes that do not increase the current density or intensity. Okay, the mobile home zoning permits up to 7.26 dwelling units per acres, and RSF-5 permits up to five dwelling units per acre. So there's a decrease in the density and, therefore, it's consistent with the future land use element. As for compatibility -- I tried to color each zoning district a little different -- it will create an isolated zoning district of RSF-5. As you can see here, RSF-4. RMF-6, mobile home and C-5, the most intense commercial. However, staff believes RSF-5 is compatible as a transition between all those varied zoning districts. And for traffic, the ITE trip generation manual indicates that the difference in traffic generated by RSF-5 versus mobile home is insignificant. I did receive several phone calls from people who got letters and saw signs. They asked questions but nobody had any objection. And staff recommends approval of the rezone. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Very short one. If he does build five units on that property some day, that Page 86 September 21, 2000 certainly seems to be an improvement over what's there; is that right? MR. REISCHL: And actually, I think he's just doing that for the setbacks on RSF-5. As you saw on the site plan, most of the site -- or not most, a portion of the site is lake. And with current setbacks in RSF-5~ unless he gets extremely creative, I don't think it's possible to get five -- or 10 single-family homes. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Mr. Reischl, is that the reason why they went RSF-5 and not RSF-4, which is compatible with the neighbors, is for setback purposes only? MR. REISCHL: Correct. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: Thank you. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Does RSF zoning allow a mobile home? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: No. MR. REISCHL: No. There's a mobile home there currently. COMMISSIONER ABERNATH¥: RSF-5 does? MR. REISCHI.: RSF-5 does not~ no. He wants to put a single-family home and guest house, stick built. COMMISSIONER SAADEH: That would mean -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: But the guest house is a mobile home; is that right? MR. REISCHL: Currently. He does want to replace that with a conventional -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Oh, I misread it. I thought the mobile home was going to stay there. MR. REISCHL: It will stay there until the construction of the new house is complete. MR. NINO: Transitional. MR. REISCHL: Transitional. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: And then there will be an on-site guest house built. MR. REISCHL: Yes. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: What did we say about those being turned into rental property, is that okay? MR. REISCHL: Of a guest house? No, that's not permitted by code. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: To the extent that code enforcement can -- MR. REISCHL: Find out about it, correct. Page 87 September 21, 2000 COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I was curious. The stipulation, you said the house number -- house address number shall be determined by planning services director? We don't normally see that. There must be something odd here. Could you enlighten me? MR. REISCHL: It was just to get the petition moving forward. It was on hold by the addressing department. They had a conflict of the number that the property owner wanted and which side of the street it's located on, so in order not to hold things up while they found out the property number, we put that stipulation in there. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: So it's really just a number, not the change of a name of a street or something -- MR. REISCHL: No, no, just involved whether it's 325 or 326, an odd or even number. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Well, that was unusual. Thank you. MR. NINO: Didn't you know that our addressing department stops most major problems? COMMISSIONER SAADEH: They have the power. MR. NINO: They have the power. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, any other questions? Any comments by the petitioner? Is there anyone else from the public that wishes to make comments? If not, we close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman, I recommend this board send its recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners for Petition R-2000-02, as our recommendation for approval -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll second. COMMISSIONER BRUET: -- as stipulated by staff. COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I'll second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion by Commissioner Bruet, second by Commissioner Abernathy. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. Next item, H, R-2000-05. Page 88 September 2t, 2000 Any disclosures? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman, I've discussed the issues with the petitioner. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other disclosures? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I've discussed -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: I've discussed issues with Mr. Arnold. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: i've discussed the issues with Mr. Arnold also. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any others? Okay, all those wishing to present testimony, please stand, raise your right hand and be sworn in by the court reporter. (All speakers were duly sworn.) MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows, with current planning. Petitioner is requesting a rezone of the subject site from industrial and RMF-6 to C-4. That would allow for a possible 12,000 square foot retail facility. As you can see on the visualizer, the subject site is located on the west side of Goodlette-Frank Road. To the south is an existing C-2 zoned property, a retail commercial facility. To the north is industrial zoned property. And to the north of that is C-1 zoned property. The subject site is zoned industrial at this point, and RMF-6 at this point. The traffic impact review indicates that the proiect trips will not have any significant impact on the adjacent road network. Consistency with the Growth Management Plan primarily deals with consistency with the office and infill criteria of the Growth Management Plan. And if you look at the staff report, the site complies with most of those requirements. The site abuts a collector road or arterial road, which Goodlette is. The site is less than 12 acres in size. The site abuts commercial zoning on one side and nonresidential industrial in this case on the other side. The parcel was not created to take advantage of the office and infill commercial provisions. The project is served by central public water and sewer. The project will be compatible with existing and permitted land uses on surrounding properties. The two other criteria that we'll have to make an Page 89 September 21, 2000 interpretation on, and staff has made that interpretation, the depth of the proposed site does not exceed the depth of the abutting commercial property. And as you see on the map there, the C-2 does not extend all the way out to the end of where the proposed site is. But the industrial does average on out to exceed that, along with the C-1. So staff made the interpretation that the average depth of those commercial properties, industrial properties, is consistent with that criteria, and is recommending approval of that criteria. The other is the project uses are limited to office or low intensity commercial uses, except for land uses abutting commercial zoning on both sides, which then could allow for the C-4. If you make the interpretation that industrial is not commercial on both sides, then you're only allowed C-1 zoning instead of the C-4 that they're asking for. Staff has determined that the industrial uses -- historic use of that district are similar in nature. At one time we had district to combine both industrial and commercial uses, and therefore we recommend that -- the industrial on one side and commercial on both sides. We're recommending approval of the C-4 zoning. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for staff? Mr. Arnold, I would point out that you have a staff recommendation of approval, no opposition, and it's lunchtime. MS. ARNOLD: I do believe there is one speaker. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay, well, then -- then have a good presentation, because you may get shot down. MR. ARNOLD: Okay, thank you. I'm Wayne Arnold. I'm with the firm Grady Minor and Associates. I have Rich Yovanovich here, who is providing legal services with us, as well as Dean Smith from our office, who's civil engineer and traffic engineer, in case you have any questions in that regard. Ray's done a good job summarizing the issues. And I think the only issue here is the interpretation of these criteria. And I would just further point out that our western boundary of the RMF-6 lots that we're incorporating is a driveway, a 50-foot wide platted RMF-6 lot that is a driveway to serve the Hide-Away Condominiums. It's their access road. That access road, if you go through, even though it's posted as private property, it does connect through to Rosemary on the Page 90 September 21, 2000 north, which comes out obviously on U.S. 41, between Ethan Allen and the -- not Ethan Allen. Sorry, I forget the name of the business there. But it does connect to Rosemary. Creech Road, of course, as you know, is a through street between Goodlette Road and U.S. 41. It has the Sea Breeze Plaza and Ethan Allen anchoring that street on U.S. 41, and then of course the Montgomery Elevator Building, as well as the office commercial to the south of Creech Road that's in the City of Naples. In this particular case, we think the line back to that access driveway makes sense. The RMF-6 property that's there right now consists of a 50-foot wide lot, as well as a 70-foot wide lot. It has a duplex structure on it with some improvements. It's been a rental property. It's not in the best of condition. It makes sense. To the north part of the Hide-Away Villas, it serves as their water management system. It's an old swale that really is overgrown and not very well improved. We show it as a water management feature on our exhibit, because that's technically what it is. So there's no structure there that's affected. Staff has stipulated that we install a 15-foot wide landscape and opaque buffer boundary to the west that would be against the Hide-Away Villa entrance road. And I'd further point out that on Creech Road, the homes that are on the south side of Creech Road, those actually -- the homes that abut Creech Road for the most part have their back to Creech Road. Those are addressed and accessed off Rordon Avenue. And several of those homes have fences, walls, a couple of garage entries off of Creech. But for the most part, those homes are not oriented to Creech Road. We think what we're asking for is consistent and compatible with the neighborhood, given the conditions of the neighborhood. And I would certainly be happy to answer any questions. I do have some photographs of the entry road and some of the homes along Creech, as well as the commercial. One thing that I had asked Mr. Bellows to clarify, that -- the way I read the condition, it could have been implied that we were required to install an opaque buffer along our entire Creech Road frontage, and I don't think that was the intent, after talking to Ray, but I just wanted that clarified on the record. Page 91 September 21, 2000 MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, we were going to -- I was going to mention that type D buffer is required along public road frontage. MR. ARNOLD: And if you're familiar with the Montgomery Kone site as it currently exists, it's quite heavily vegetated. And the purchaser, if we're successful in obtaining the rezoning, would like to continue that theme of extensive vegetation along that, without having to build a wall or some physical barrier along Creech Road. It would just make it a lot more continuity to the site. We -- also, it's not a restriction but it's one that we've stated, and I'll state it on the record, that we're willing to utilize the existing access point to Montgomery Kone building as opposed to having any other access to the site. I think that would help alleviate any potential neighborhood concerns that we're somehow bringing traffic further into their neighborhood to utilize the site. That's what I have. I'd be happy to come back and answer any questions or answer any -- CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any questions for Mr. Arnold or the petitioner's team? If not, we'll hear the comments from the public. MR. NINO: Brigitte Danaly. CHAIRMAN BUDD: If you would state your name for the record. And I also want to apologize for overlooking you earlier, I didn't notice you there. MS. DANALY: Thank you. My name is Brigitte Danaly. I am the owner of the first house on the west of the project. I want to introduce you to some specific of Creech Road. Some have already been discussed. It's a road which has most of its property only on the north side. All the other property on the south side are on Rordon. Therefore, the property on Creech Road where - the buildings on Creech Road are only on the north side of it. We are -- we meaning me and all the other residents -- are facing the back of back yards. It's very ugly most of the time. The street is zoned C-4 on 41 and -- at the corner of 41 and C-4 at the Montgomery side. In between it's multi-family. Mostly old building. Neglected. Slumlord would come to mind. And therefore, it is absolutely obvious for anybody who has been there or lived there for a while that indeed this street not being part of a residential community from the city side because of Page 92 September 2t, 2000 that back of back effect, and not being part of the residential community on the north side because we do not have access by any other road than 41 or Goodlette. Meaning that if we want to go back in the north residential community, we have to exit from Creech Road and reenter from other side street. We don't have -- there is no 14th Street going up, or 13th or 12th Street. You do stop at Creech Road. Therefore, I do think that a rezoning of commercial is the appropriate thing. And I would anticipate that along the way Creech Road would benefit from -- to be rezoned from a multi residential to commercial at one point. What my problem is, is that we have already taken -- let's say that the numbers that you have been provided with in term of traffic at the moment are accurate. But they are not taking in consideration something which is going on at the other corner. At the other corner of Creech Road on 41, there is at the moment a development taking place which is called Agostino's Village Square. It's four office building, one being near completion. Total square footage -. and I do have that from the paperwork which has been filed with the county previously for that project, is 28,000 square feet. So at the moment we're -- in very short-term we are going to face not only an increase of traffic from that new development, but the major also traffic from the other development. Roughly, if I base the number based on what they provide us in term of studies, if I take into account that they increase traffic in the street for 1,200 feet from 75 to 280, if I base that and if I take into account the 28,000 square feet on the other side, we are going to have 653 cars on the other side, 280 on that side, taking into account that they consider that only 10 percent of that traffic generated by those new development is going to come into Creech Road, which I think is not true, but I'm not discussing that. It's going to put in very short-term 83 cars back on Creech Road. At moment Creech Road is narrow road and on top of it, it has two things against it: It has the fact that indeed we are facing back of back yards, which mean that within two feet, you go -- if you go off the road on the south side, you have two feet before going into fences. And most of those two feet are actually high up, and rocky. Page 93 September 2t, 2000 If you go on my side of the street, which is the north side, if you happen to have to go off the road in front of my house, you have one feet before going into a big, huge ditch. So the traffic concern is very important to me. I think that rezoning the multi-family site into C-4 just by saying well, you know, it's what happened to be around is not taking in consideration the specific of the street. If you look at the intent specified in the C-1 zoning, it clearly said commercial professional district and commercial professional transitional district. When I talked with Mr. Arnold, he said to me that they had no intention for the moment to modify the building, which already in place in the industrial zoning. And they were going not right away but soon enough building offices building on the multi-single family site. Well, this is exactly what it is. If it's offices, what do they need a C-4 four?. I think a C-1 is much more warranted. It is consistent with what I believe this street is needed along the way all throughout. And we're already sandwiched into major polarities which had been grandfathered, which were put in place at the time the county -- where Creech Road was way north of most activities. And I think it's not warranted. I would therefore encourage you to support a C-1 instead of a C-4 for the multi residential family park. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Thank you. Any questions? Mr. Arnold, could you comment on -- MS. ARNOLD: Sure, I could. I did have a conversation with Ms. Danaly. What I told her was that our initial intent is to go in, make modifications to the existing Montgomery Kone Building. That right now is scheduled to be a typical or office type use. Longer term, we aren't sure exactly all of the tenants, but we know from the size of the site, just over an acre, the amount of square footage is pretty difficult. The traffic analysis ! think was based on a worst case scenario of 12,000 feet of specialty retail. It's one of the higher traffic generators. We compared that to the existing counts we have for a use such as Montgomery Elevator, which is a pretty low intensity industrial site; not necessarily one of the most intensive industrial uses that you could put there. And I think that's something I didn't really point out in my Page 94 September 21, 2000 presentation, but the fact that you already have a majority of the site that's zoned industrial and has a pretty low industrial user is pretty good for the neighborhood. And to intensify the industrial use there I don't think would necessarily be compatible, but it certainly is possible under existing zoning. I mean, you can go anything from auto and truck repair in a district like that to manufacturing of -- in this case it happens to be indoor with the elevator service. They're all indoor -- COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Are they moving or staying? MR. ARNOLD: Excuse me? COMMISSIONER ABERNATHY: Montgomery. MR. ARNOLD: Montgomery will be moving. And in this particular case, we think the C-4 is the appropriate transition. I would point out again that, you know, it's our belief that it's not going to be a predominance of traffic that's going to come from U.S. 41 down Creech Road to serve this. Right now the traffic patterns are very typical of Goodlette-Frank Road. They're turn lanes, a full median opening, et cetera, that exists there. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Any other questions for Mr. Arnold? Anyone else from the public? If not, we will close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? COMMISSIONER BRUET: Mr. Chairman, I recommend this board send its approval to the Board of Collier County Commissioners for Petition No. R-00-5. Montgomery Fuel Property. Kone property. CHAIRMAN BUDD: We have a motion by Mr. Bruet. Do we have a second? COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: Second. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Second by Ms. Rautio. Any discussion? Being none, all those in favor, please say aye. Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN BUDD: Motion carries. That concludes our regular agenda items. Under old business, Marjorie, you need to read -- MS. STUDENT: I just have to read this very quickly into the Page 95 September 21, 2000 record. There was a conflict at the last meeting, and Mr. Wrage did fill out his form and give it to the court reporter, but I have to read a part of this form into the record. It says I, Gary Wrage, hereby disclose that on 9-7-2000, the measure before my agency and the nature of my conflicting interest in the measure is as follows: I have a personal relationship with the owner. My employer has a business relationship with the owner to which I am responsible for the transaction. And signed by Gary Wrage on the 7th of September. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. Thank you. Is there any new business? MR. NINO: Mr. Chairman, at your next meeting, I hope to discuss that summary agenda item that we introduced you to some time ago. But I would ask you to be ready to discuss that at your next meeting, if you're so inclined. Unless you want to summarily dismiss it. Okay, I'll put it on the agenda. And you're going to have election of officers at the next meeting. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Well, what I understand, the county commission has not made the new appointments, and they will make their appointments after the next Planning Commission meeting; is that correct, Marjorie? MS. STUDENT: They made one appointment to replace Mr. Bennett, and that was Lora Jean Young. There is another item coming up on Tuesday, so it will be before the next meeting, unless there is some additional vacancies. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. COMMISSIONER RAUTIO: I was told it was the t2th of October. MS. STUDENT: Yes, I think that would be appropriate. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. If County Commission replaces me on the 12th of October, then I'1! be here at the next planning commission meeting, and we won't have elections because the new people won't be here. MR. NINO: Let's wait till the next one. CHAIRMAN BUDD: Okay. All right. Public comment? Anything, clay? We will adjourn. Page 96 September 21, 2000 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:15 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RUSSELL A. BUDD, CHAIRMAN TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC., BY CHERIE' R. LEONE, NOTARY PUBLIC Page 97